CALIFORNIA LAWS

  1. california-assignments-must-be-recorded

  2. california-code-speaks-to-fabricated-or-forged-and-misleading-documentation-wheres-a-cop-when-you-need-one

  3. california-code-notary-must-not-have-an-interest-in-the-document-being-signed

  4. ten-reality-questions-answers-sb_1137_faq_rev_3

  5. California Notice Requirements Routinely Ignored

  6. foreclosure-defense-california-and-arizona-sometimes-its-the-little-things-that-count

  7. california-statutes-foreclosure

  8. New California Law Requires Settlement Efforts

guides

667 Responses

  1. Steve Nelson, on December 14, 2017 at 2:59 pm said:

    Also assisting with eviction matters at Consumer Rights Defenders reach out to 818-453-3585 for free consultation.

    *Post paid for by CRD

  2. Steve Nelson, on December 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm said:

    TO Rose from her 2-17 request: Please contact us to see if we can assist you. We are Consumer Rights Defenders, handling confidentially pro se mortgage litigation and appeals. Free Consult – reach out to 818.453.3585 ask for Sara or Steve please.

  3. Rose, on February 17, 2017 at 4:16 pm said:

    Correction:
    Looking for a successful Appeals attorney for homeowner against Chase Bank in Orange County, CA for Breach of Contract … just got case tossed out a month before trial date after going through 17 months of discovery – Thank you in advance!

  4. Rose, on February 17, 2017 at 4:13 pm said:

    Looking for a successful Appeals attorney for homeowner against Chase Bank in Orange County. Breach of Contract … just got case tossed out a month before trial date after going through 17 months of discovery – Thank you in advance!

  5. Jellybeans, on May 4, 2016 at 9:10 am said:

    Best if you find an attorney to do the unlawful detainer or retain a probate attorney.

    I am not an attorney nor am I providing any legal guidance or services. This is educational only.

    The county court’s. civil clerk should have all the information and forms you need to request a financial hardship fee waiver. They will decide if you are eligible. You can probably search online for the form and info.

    And one does not ‘request’ a unlawful detainer. You would need to file a lawsuit and serve it properly and follow all the court rules and state laws. You’d also have to represent yourself in court. If the people you are trying to evict decide to oppose you in court, then it could extend the entire process. Best to retain an attorney.

    Be careful posting things under your real name on a public blog. There are scoundrels everywhere

  6. Cathy Doten Rooney, on May 3, 2016 at 11:04 pm said:

    Have been executor of my dads estate whike in probate, my only sibbling has decided to break the garage lock have her boyfriend prevent me from entering NY drilling into wood and place a rod inside of big garage door, also she changed garage lock. Has removed a industrial paint sprayer from property. She sold one of three queen palms that were my own not my dads. Being on ssi my income is limited and have been paying mortgage and utilities. Am I eligable for a fee waiver to request a unlawful detainers to get house ready to sell? Without her boyfriend playing his electric gutalr full blast on a amplifier in living room while we r there trying to do yard work, with not ability to get I to garage for lawn mower and such. Thank you.

  7. JellyBean, on February 18, 2016 at 6:16 pm said:

    AT LAST, CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS CAN USE THE ASSIGNMENTS IN THEIR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE CASE. FEB. 2016 FROM CA SUPREME COURT IN YVANOVA V. NEW CENTURY

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/299707034/MAJOR-WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNERS-IN-CALIFORNIA-FROM-THE-CA-SUPREME-COURT-FEB-2016-YVANOVA-V-NEW-CENTURY

  8. khbkbv, on January 20, 2016 at 7:27 am said:

    I got this web page from my friend who told me regarding this website and at the moment this time
    I am visiting this site and reading very informative articles or reviews at this place.

  9. Jellybeans, on April 20, 2015 at 5:01 pm said:

    This is Attorney Antognini’s Reply Brief filed at the California Supreme Court in the Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage, Ocwen, Deutsche appeal case going on now in 2015

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/262503745/Lawyer-Antognini-files-Reply-Brief-in-the-Yvanova-v-New-Century-Mortgage-OCWEN-Deutsche-California-Appeal-case-at-the-California-Supreme-Court-fil

  11. Guest, on October 6, 2014 at 2:56 am said:

    Sacramento jury found out : FBI & DOJ work for gangsters:

    http://video.pbs.org/video/2365338188/

  12. Guest, on August 14, 2014 at 9:25 pm said:

    California Court of Disgrace legalized ROBO-SIGNING in this decision of MENDOZA v. CHASE BANK:

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C071882.PDF

  14. Guest, on May 8, 2014 at 10:27 pm said:

    Thanks Abbey:
    this was their Petition for Rehearing which was denied:
     http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Galope-Appeal_Barclays-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc_4-14.pdf

  15. ABBY IN CA, on May 8, 2014 at 7:48 pm said:

    woooohoo! petition for rehearing at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied to banks—-in Helen Galope’s LIBOR case!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/222985488/Helen-Galope-s-LIBOR-appeal-case-Order-for-Rehearing-Denied-to-the-banks

  16. Guest, on April 12, 2014 at 10:45 am said:

    thanks Abbey:
    This is The pdf version of the Helen Galope opinion below is here:

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/27/12-56892.pdf

  17. Gurest, on April 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm said:

    @ attorney Albert:

    Absolutely right you are.
    I have found Westlaw even worse than Lexis. Afterall Westlaw belongs to Reuters which belongs to The Rothschilds, the Satanic cannibalistic cabal which own practically every lender and government by controlling Money.

    MELTDOWN: The men who crashed the world

  18. ABBY IN CA, on April 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm said:

    ATTORNEY WHO GOT THE GOOD RULING FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE GALOPE MATTER DEMANDS RETRACTION FROM LEXIS NEXIS!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/217537345/ATTORNEY-ALBERT-DEMANDS-RETRACTION-FROM-LEXIS-NEXIS-ABOUT-THE-HELEN-GALOPE-DEICISON-WHICH-WAS-FAVORABLE-FOR-THE-HOMEOWNER

  19. ABBY IN CA, on April 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm said:

    check out the loan modification expert witness analysis filed in the Helen Galope federal case—–

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/216361275/Analysis-by-Bernard-Patterson-on-Loan-ModIfications-in-the-Helen-Galope-case

  20. ABBY IN CA, on April 3, 2014 at 5:27 pm said:

    The filed Appellant Reply Brief in the Helen Galope ‘LIBOR” case. Filed in 9th Circuit. See prior post for the Memorandum Opinion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/216205520/the-Helen-Galope-9th-Circuit-filed-Appellant-Reply-Brief-case-12-56892

  22. Jeff, on March 24, 2014 at 5:32 pm said:

    Damn it. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just denied Brian Davies appeal. Senior District Judge Carr respectfully dissented however.

  23. Jellybeans, on February 27, 2014 at 7:12 pm said:

    @Jeff
    there are a couple of California appeal cases about decisions which did not follow Glaski and the judge(s) decided to only follow persuasive cases. you will have to look them up yourself and check into them.

  24. c.B, on February 27, 2014 at 3:16 pm said:

    If you’re in California Court Appeals Court 9th Circuit and the issues is Real Property,
    what do you do to request the court to do to get a Lis Pendens while in Appeals Court
    because the Bank is trying your sale your home. What does a homeowner need to do to have some sort of protection of not having their home sale or having something until they lose their case in court or do you ask the court for a TRO or file a Motion in Court or file a petition.

  25. Guest, on February 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm said:

    This WW2 era government insider in this historic recorded 1961 speech revealed how courts and other parts of government play their criminal roles in destruction of Americans lives.

    YouTube: “NEW WORLD ORDER EXPOSED (Benjamin H. Freedman speech)”

  26. Jeff, on February 27, 2014 at 2:07 am said:

    So do the Courts now have to follow Glaski or will the below continue to happen:

    (“[N]o courts have yet followed Glaski and Glaski is in a clear minority on the issue. Until either the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or other appellate courts follow Glaski, this Court will continue to follow the majority rule.”) (citations omitted).

    The Court finds that, to the extent the First Amended Complaint makes claims under the theory set forth in Glaski, the Court declines to follow Glaski and finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge an agreement to which she was not a party.

  27. Guest, on February 26, 2014 at 8:52 pm said:

    Matter of fact entire California AG staff should be arrested & tried for taking bribes in return for allowing Bank gangsters steal millions of properties in this state while AG knows for a fact that all foreclosures are done with robosigning & mostly done by banks which themselves got foreclosed on by going bust!

  28. Jellybeans, on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT JUST DENIED THE DEPUBLICATION REQUEST FOR THE GLASKI CASE!

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2058168&doc_no=S213814

  30. Jellybeans, on January 31, 2014 at 8:42 pm said:

    REASSIGNMENT ORDER OF THE NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/203778041/REASSIGNMENT-ORDER-OF-THE-NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-CASE-JAN-2014

  31. Jellybeans, on January 16, 2014 at 7:41 pm said:

    CAL WESTERN RECONVEYANCE AND ITS PARENT COMPANY FILED FOR CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE–THIS IS THE LIQUIDATION PLAN. CAL WESTERN RECONVEYANCE PROCESSES THOUSANDS OF NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/200263443/CAL-WESTERN-RECONVEYANCE-AND-IT-S-PARENT-COMPANY-PROMMIS-SOLUTIONS-HAVE-FILED-BANKRUPTCY-IN-DELAWARE-THIS-IS-THE-LIQUIDATION-PLAN

  33. kareem salessi, on January 16, 2014 at 10:37 am said:

    Below California v. Foreclosure Mill Lawyers in PDF:

    California -v- Foreclosure Mill Lawyers (300 count felony)

  34. Jellybeans, on January 15, 2014 at 6:09 pm said:

    CHECK THIS OUT. KAMALA HARRIS -AG OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA- MAKES BIG ARRESTS INCLUDING TWO ATTORNEYS –
    FILINGS OF FALSE COURT DOCUMENTS AND FALSE DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING!

    WHY ARE THE BANKS GETTING AWAY WITH IT?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/199974623/FELONY-COMPLAINT-AGAINST-CALIF-ATTORNEYS-WHO-FILED-FALSE-RECORDINGS-AND-FALSE-COURT-DOCUMENTS-JAN-2014-FROM-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-FORECLOSURE-FRAUD-TASK

  36. Jellybeans, on December 15, 2013 at 12:30 pm said:

    @Guest
    I can now understand where you are coming from and your experience.
    I believe you

    However, you need to note that CC was not the poster on this blog of the link to the case.

    I posted the link and I’m not affiliated with any law firm, nor do I solicite any clients for anyone.

    In fact, I posted the link because I have been fighting my own fraudclosure case and if I come across any info that might be of benefit to another homeowner, I post the link or the info. That’s all.
    Everyone is on their own to do what they will with the information or to ignore it.

    I don’t make recommendations of attorneys to use because I also have heard many true stories of attorney corruption and/or attorney negligence.

    I stand by my earlier posts in that CC is an honorable and good person. He is not soliciting clients.

    I hope you understand.

    PS- I’ve been posting on this blog since 2009 and have attended one of Neil’s workshops.

  37. Guest, on December 15, 2013 at 11:15 am said:

    @ Jellybeans:

    I have seen too many people losing their homes & savings to fraudster non-lawyers & lawyers like Gary Lane who walked away with their money & fixed their cases with banks & judges.
    I had met Gary Lane upon introduction by a friend who had started doing work for him in his Orange County location. I was supposed to do some work for him to save people’s homes. I asked his staff to see a couple of their successfully finalized cases but they couldn’t come up with any to show me!.
    I realized & later told the friend that Lane’s operation looked more like a foreclosure mill than foreclosure prevention. Then I checked the court’s computer for some of his cases & noticed everyone of a dozen cases which I checked had been sold out to banks & lenders somehow or other. For instance by not responding to a dispositive motion, or by just filing some crappy papers which will defeat their clients.
    On this website I recall several lawyers who posted their court documents explaining how cases are fixed in California courts. One of them had been disbarred for disclosing that.
    Also a few years back a Los Angeles law firm filed a groundbreaking multi-billion $$ lawsuit against several banks & the bribed judge was quick to order their offices ransacked, shut down, and their licenses suspended!
    As to CC here, it’s good to hear from Jelly that CC is honest. But it’s quite obvious he has been using this venue for solicitation of clients & obviously he raised hell on this item only because he was involved in this Orange County court case where all cases are reportedly fixed.
    I don’t expect CC to know about how & when a case is fixed because he is not the lawyer in any case & is not in direct contact with judges & opposing attorneys who fix the cases together so he has the benefit of the doubt of lack of knowledge of the secretive dealings among them.
    When someone chooses to use his real identity on public websites like this, for any reasons, such as solicitations of clients, or just for fun, then he runs the risk of negative exposures. So there is no basis for apologizing to him for something that cant be verified, as you or he claims! For instance, I asked CC below to name a couple of his finalized successful cases. Of course we heard nothing back! That reminds me of the likes of Gary Lane.

  38. Jellybeans, on December 14, 2013 at 12:57 pm said:

    @Guest
    I know CC and he is not procuring clients anywheres.

    He is genuinely working for good attorneys who do NOT dump their clients or sell the clients out.

    CC will help (outside of his work for attorneys) to help another person understand what the laws mean.

    I think you should perhaps consider apologizing to him. He is a very honest man.

    And your seeming bitterness and negativity is still not explained by having ‘worked for criminals like Gary Lane.’ What else has happened to you?

    Anyways — peace be with you through the holidays.

  39. Guest, on December 14, 2013 at 12:23 pm said:

    @ Jelly:
    I’ve worked with a bunch of criminals like Gary Lane who dumped their clients after a couple of filings …

    @ CC:
    You’re abusing this website to attract customers, nothing more. I’m not doing that.
    If you’re not a fraud then give us at least one case example which you’ve worked on & has concluded in a borrower’s favor & is past appeal time…

  40. Charles Cox, on December 14, 2013 at 7:44 am said:

    @Guest

    Once again, your pathetic cynacism comes front and center expressing your abject ignorance of circumstances in which you have no clue.

    You have no idea what papers we have been filing and to call them “crappy” continues to show your lack of credibility when you post this kind of dribble that wastes the time of anyone willing to read anything you say. What are “papers”? What is a “lawyer master”? (these rhetorical questions, just to be clear for the likes of you). To even state the term “lender[]” which is a term that sounds like finger nails scratching on a black-board to some of us, continues to exhibit your ignorance. Who “they” are, that by your account “become millioinaires,” is in such general terms as to be more alingned with bankster lawyers’ mentality. There have in fact been plenty of attorneys prosecuted and disbarred in California for their fraudulent acts in “representing” clients against the bankster cabal. The millionaires representing “homeowners” are few and far between…I frankly don’t know one. On the other side, a completly different story though.

    I know full well the corruption that is the BAR (I too call the BAR Mafia) and Judiciary which apparently unlike you, I deal with on a daily basis to the tune of 80-100 hours per week for which I’m lucky if I can collect 8-10 hours of billable time at 1/3 the rate for anyone with my experience and qualifications.

    What you (think you) “know” is not unique. There are plenty of us that experience the corruption that is our “legal system” but some of us choose to fight the system to try and help the victims, not just uselessly whine like you while failing to recognize that you are actually partaking in funding this corruption by your voting record utter lack of involvement in rectifying the situation which cannot be accomplished by needlessly complaining.

    You sound like the glass half-empty sore looser or off the wagon smoker that is sure everyone else is wrong and chooses the low road of attack rather than being helpful to those in need.

    Take your pittiful, libelous rhetoric somewhere else, preferably in the confines of your own space so no one else has to experience your useless pathological ramblings. Take a look in the mirror, you probably don’t like what you see and why you continually attempt blaming others for your failings rather than taking a constructive road.

    Your adolescent complaining is unwarranted, unwanted, helps no one and is a waste of space and time which unlike some of us, evidently you have too much of on your hands.

  41. Jellybeans, on December 14, 2013 at 2:29 am said:

    @Guest
    You know Guest – not all of us on this site are crooks or affiliated with the banks or courts.

    CC is one of the few trustable bloggers on this site. Too bad you don’t know who you are truly accusing and being nasty to.

    Why do you even bother to lurk on LL?
    What do you contribute to help others?
    It’s a waste of a persons time to read your posts and they are a bit crazy.

    Either contribute something positive or scram. You are of no value. And if you happen to be an attorney or on staff at a law firm – I hope you are not billing one of your clients for blogging.

    What do you have to offer anybody? Nobody cares about your vicious attacks, especially when the attack is on a decent person.

    Were you Gary Lane’s client-victim? Why are you so sore?

  42. Guest, on December 13, 2013 at 11:39 pm said:

    You’re probably just an outright crook covering your butt because you happened to be involved in this case & the attorney ordered you to cover his butt. Once your attorney master stops paying you, you won’t be writing an amended complaint or anything at all.

    Almost all lawyers have been selling their foreclosure clients for peanuts since 2008. they’ve had so many such clients they’ve been able to do it without a flinch. First charging clients several thousand dollars then filing some crappy papers, like you and your lawyer masters have been filing, then cashing 10 K+ from lenders and not filing anything anymore. By just doing that they’ve become millionaires in a few years and not a single one of them ever prosecuted! Not one!

    I previously linked to the disbarment decision of one such crooked attorneys Gary Lane who ripped off thousands of people of millions of dollars in Orange County, Ca. & all he got was a slap from the Mafia called California Bar Association which granted all the crooked California lawyers & judges trading licenses (BAR numbers) to operate a gigantic Mafia network by trading mortgage victims inside their commodity trading exchange houses, falsely called court houses.
    I personally know of dozens of such crooked attorneys routinely scamming victims among Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Inland Empire areas and of course in conjunction with banks & judges, all of whom have been getting really rich even though all banks officially went bankrupt since 2008 & all cities & counties & states similarly have been either bankrupted or on rout to bankruptcy!.

  43. Charles Cox, on December 13, 2013 at 1:12 pm said:

    @ Guest, whoever you are, understandibly using an alias…your ignorance is simply astounding as usual.

  44. Guest, on December 13, 2013 at 1:00 pm said:

    @ Charles Cox:

    Re your comment below: “it doesn’t help our cause to publish these rulings prematurely.”
    Right you are. Because it could blow the cover for the plaintiff attorney &/or the judge selling out the plaintiff down the line!
    & of course that goes for you too CC.

  45. Charles Cox, on December 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm said:

    @Guest and Jellybeans,

    Guest, your comments have no basis in fact.

    I drafted those pleadings myself for the Lucas case as the paralegal for Plaintiff’s attorney.

    We litigate in many counties in California and find Orange County and judge Colaw in particular, far better than most others. Try litigating in Santa Cruz or Montery Counties for contrast.

    Your snide comments about giving you “a laugh” is way off base as is claiming Plaintiff’s attorney is even remotely subject to bribery which is ridiculous. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I’m drafting the amended complaint right now…which will address the defects claimed by the judge.

    Please keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. It is difficult enough fighting these bankster scum without our own ranks turning on us.

    *******

    Jellybeans, this is one reason I requested this decision not be published for an active case, and of all places on this forum frequented by bankster shills.

    While public record, disclosure at this stage makes it problematic and provides fodder for the crooks needlessly. I would request that you remove it from Scribd if you would…it doesn’t help our cause to publish these rulings prematurely.

    Thanks,
    Charles

  46. Guest, on December 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm said:

    @ Jellybeans:
    This gives me a laugh because the court is in Orange County California. If not the most corrupt, it is one of the top 5 most corrupt judicial counties in the country at all levels-state courts, federal courts, and bankruptcy courts since they are all in total service of Bank Gangsters, no matter what.
    I can see how this case will be doomed down the line.
    the bank lawyers will probably bribe the plaintiff’s attorney not to amend the complaint &/or dump his client, either now, or at a later stage!! Just wait & see.

  47. Jellybeans, on December 13, 2013 at 11:56 am said:

    RE: PSA and REMIC rules — was the loan in the MBS?

    check out this ruling of dec 2013 –a demurrer defeat for Deutsche Bank National Trust

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/191332177/Dec-2013-Lucas-vs-Meridian-Foreclosure-Service-Ruling-on-Demurrer-GLASKI-WIN-Copy

  48. GUEST, on October 28, 2013 at 2:06 pm said:

    Thanks Abbey. That’s a great one, and here is a pdf link to it:

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C070643.PDF

  50. w, on October 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm said:

    @guest,

    Mijanovic also states that her clients like LPS, conducting trustee’s sales, is no different than a process server serving papers and that LPS “acting on behalf of” Recontrust is the same thing as being their agent, whether or not there is an agency or empoloyement agreement…her lips are moving…what do you expect…

  52. Johnson, on October 24, 2013 at 1:20 pm said:

    He is not hibernating but righfully staying away from this forum but evidently not being able to help himself, posts yet again. Practicing law without a licensse still…

  54. Guest, on October 2, 2013 at 11:25 am said:

    Here is a better link:
    http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/44/2/articles/44-2_Long.pdf

    But: The most extreme action taken against lawyers is disbarment.
    Look at this recent example of a total fraudster attorney who embezzled millions of dollars from thousands of disparate people. All that the Mafia BAR did was to take his license:

    ——————http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/50960

  55. GUEST, on September 30, 2013 at 2:27 pm said:

    Here is a better link:
    http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/44/2/articles/44-2_Long.pdf

    But: The most extreme action taken against lawyers is disbarment.
    Look at this recent example of a total fraudster attorney who embezzled millions of dollars from thousands of disparate people. All that CALBAR did was to take his license: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/50960

  56. Jellybeans, on September 30, 2013 at 1:42 pm said:

    Attorney Deceit Statutes

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/172164091/Attorney-Deceit-Statutes

  57. Jellybeans, on September 11, 2013 at 11:58 am said:

    WELL-TWO DIFFERENT FORECLOSURE TRUSTEES IN A CALIFORNIA CASE DID NOT WORK! SO SAYS A CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT IN AUG 2013. MISSING SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOC.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/167354624/CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-BILL-OF-RIGHTS-COLLABORATIVE-DEFINES-IMPORTANCE-OF-THE-PRECIADO-CASE-IN-2013-TWO-DIFFERENT-TRUSTEES-NON-COMPLIANCE-WITH-2924

  58. Jellybeans, on September 3, 2013 at 10:02 pm said:

    FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE–THESE INVESTORS ARE NOT HAPPY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/165283859/DAMMING-FACTS-AGAINST-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-THE-ROOT-OF-THE-PROBLEM-FOR-JP-MORGAN-CHASE-AND-JPMAC2006-NC1-IN-THIS-CASE-BROUGHT-BY-PHOENIX-LIGHT-SF-LIM

    DON’T FORGET-NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE STILL IN AN ACTIVE BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE CASE 07-10416 KJC

  59. Jellybeans, on August 8, 2013 at 6:13 pm said:

    HERE IS THE DECISION IN GLASKI V BOA NOW CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION –APPEAL COURT IN CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/159048121/Glaski-v-BOA-Published-Version-California-Court-of-Appeals-Decision-Cert-for-Pub-August-8-2013

  60. Jellybeans, on August 8, 2013 at 2:37 pm said:

    O-M-G IT’S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    This is a WATERSHED moment for California

    GLASKI CASE CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION BY CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT!!!

    08/08/2013 Order granting publication filed. As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports. (JAA)
    08/08/2013 Received: request for publication submitted by atty Freshman, however pos does not include all parties ; moot since publication granted

  63. Charles Cox, on August 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm said:

    Marina:

    Look into agency laws…a principal is responsible and liable for his agent in the performace of his/her duty….(vicarious liability.) Don’t think they can get off that easy. If you want to send me your direct email (mine is on the website linked) I’ll send you what I have on the judges if I can find where the heck I put it.

    1%?…try 40% (I have no direct evidence but…)…

  64. marina, on August 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm said:

    PS Thank you for your well wishes…I hope so too….I’ll get back to you in 2-5 yrs 🙂

  65. marina, on August 6, 2013 at 12:22 pm said:

    Charles, you peeked my interest here,”If you want a good civil RICO action, go after the judges’ unions and investment conduits in California…again, good luck (I have some very interesting dirt on this whole thing)! ”
    I did a bit of research on this and concluded that though clearly their investment in MBS surpasses the 1% cap, The judges’ pension managers are the ones that select and manage the investments therefore that criteria in order to disqualify a judge cant be applied.
    I would LOVE to hear/see what dirt you have on that.,, how can we most easily coordinate this?

  66. Charles Cox, on August 6, 2013 at 6:06 am said:

    Marina,

    “[A]bsolute immunity” is not my quote but a court’s. Show me one case your theoretical claims have been made and succeeded and I’ll buy it but in practical application I am not incorrect (unfortunately).

    True, statuory remedy and results are different in theory but again, in application only the results matter. This is where too many get led astray by blogs and stattements from those not in the trenches on a daily basis like some of us.

    If you want a good civil RICO action, go after the judges’ unions and investment conduits in California…again, good luck (I have some very interesting dirt on this whole thing)! I think you’ll get a dose of reality with your own suit at some point, which although I do not disagree with anything you’ve said, I do see what happens in these cases. Have you looked into what happened to Sunny Sheu going after a judge in New York?

    Also, good luck with res judicata and Rooker-Feldman…

    Balls, judges, attorneys, et al, I couldn’t agree more. I wish you succes but would wager on the results you’ll achieve.

    Still, as in my own practice…keep fighting, not sure what else we can do. Unfortunately, the corruption appears absolute. I truly hope you succeed…please prove me wrong, I’d love to stand corrected!

  67. marina, on August 6, 2013 at 12:17 am said:

    Charles,
    Yes, incorrect. “Statutory remedy” and “results” of going after a judge are two separate points.
    The sweeping statement was made, “They are absolutely immune from prosecution as any public “servant” is in performing their supposed duty (while acting in their official capacity.)” This his “absolutely immune from prosecution ” is incorrect when they have broken the law .
    Where you are correct is in regard to a judge who is acting lawfully in their official capacity. It is not accurate when a judge has violated the law and thereby ceased to perform lawfully in their official capacity (i.e. violated a litigants constitutional rights, violated their own oath of office, violated their bonding mandates as part of their requirement for installation, etc.) A judge is not immune.
    You are also correct in your conceptual idea that judges enjoy absolute immunity no matter how egregious their conduct becomes whether on or off the bench. BUT…..this only holds true under normal “Civil Rights” actions against a judge. Not Civil RICO actions!
    In a civil rights action where a judge is a defendant, they can sue for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for attorney’s fees but not monetary damages.
    In a Civil RICO action one can sue a judge for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages for attorney’s fees AND (triple) monetary damages. If a judge is found to be aiding, abetting, and prosecuting from the bench in such a way that constitutes racketing, corruption, and/or an obstruction of justice that illegally alters the outcome of a court proceeding you betcha they can be sued. They are not above the law.
    Now the right venue for success is important as well. I am suing my UD judge for her egregious conduct of shutting me down, violating my constitutional rights and aiding from the bench the bank attorneys (i.e. denying my evidence while taking the opposition’s exhibits and applying them to another defendant in order to then dismissing them and rule against me.) I am also addressing her similar conduct with other illegally foreclosed upon homeowners… which I can do as a private attorney general.
    Now since this has been occurring in the state court I took the matter to federal court to file my RICO action because though the state court is required to uphold federally protected rights, it often operates as a good ol’ boys club at the expense of true justice. All states signed on to protect our various amendment rights…CA sign on in 1959.
    Now the unfortunate fact is most attorneys and virtually all pro per and pro se litigants don’t know how to litigate a RICO remedy…it is a remedy unto its own. AND A VERY EFFECTIVE ONE.
    What we, the grassroots people fighting mortgage fraud, need is to file are many more RICO actions. Not until then will we see judges change their behavior because they have gotten too arrogant up on high thinking they too are immune, with the commoner believing judges are untouchable. They are not.
    We need to knock them down off their pedestal for illegal behavior. There are many cases across the county at all levels on up the Supreme court that have sued judges and even entire circuits that were corrupted. it is hard work but necessary.
    Unfortunately, these are the distinctions that most attorneys do not understand when it comes to suing a judicial officer. Attorneys are taught certain concepts in law school that shapes their perception of how to obtain justice in our cast judicial system. And in many ways the system grooms its underlings by a hand of self preservation. Further along these lines, many attorneys don’t have the balls to stand up to a judge because they are more concerned about their livelihoods by staying on the good side of the judge then they are about their client’s legal rights.
    I rarely comment on these chats because it can be very time consuming but I had to say something because others are reading them and the battle is already steep enough and hard enough without eliminating viable remedies to attack obstructers of justice.
    Marina

  68. GUEST, on August 4, 2013 at 11:47 am said:

    Daniel David Dydzak, a Cal-lawyer who is himself plaintiff in this case was suing scores of judges & others for public corruption & bribery but instead he got disbarred & his complaints kicked out of court!

    http://judicialcouncilwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/dydzak-v-schwarzenegger-complaint.pdf

  69. Charles Cox, on August 4, 2013 at 6:40 am said:

    Marina:

    Incorrect? Have you looked up statutes on going after judges? Have you looked at the results of anyone going after judges? Virtually all judges commit treason as a usual course of business and very few to none are held accountable let alone in their ruling for banksters as routine course of “business.”

    They are absolutely immune from prosecution as any public “servant” is in performing their suppsed duty (while acting in their official capacity.)

    Who do you suppose will be in charge of such a case? Good luck with that concept. I defy you to find one such case resulting in a judge being held accountable for their crimes…at least related to civil litigation and acts while on the bench, related to the issues we’re discussing here.

    You may wish to read the Fordham Law Review on What Constitutes a Judicial Act for Purposes of Judicial Immunity, the introduction which states:

    “Under the established doctrine of judicial immunity,’ a judge is absolutely immune from a suit for damages for his judicial acts taken within or even in excess of his jurisdiction. Judicial immunity is necessary for the proper administration of justice and for the advancement of various policies. The two policies most often proffered by courts and commentators are judicial independence and the need for finality in judicial proceedings.”

    And:

    (By John O. Haley on “The Civil, Criminal and Disciplinary Liabilty of Judges)

    II. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY

    Judges in the U.S. enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for any act performed in the judge’s judicial role.2 Immunity applies for all federal judges and apparently all state judges, even with respect to the most egregiously ultra vires, corrupt or malicious acts,3 so long as the judge is acting within the scope of the court’s general jurisdiction pursuant to a judicial function. The principle of judicial immunity from civil liability was initially recognized as an applicable common law rule in the United States by early 19th century state courts.4 The U.S. Supreme Court first articulated and applied the rule in 1868 in an appeal from a ruling by a lower federal court in Massachusetts that had dismissed an action for civil damages brought by a former attorney against a Massachusetts Superior Court judge who had allegedly wrongfully disbarred him.
    ____________________
    2 The rule has been repeatedly articulated and applied in U.S. Supreme Court decisions for nearly a century and a half. See Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523 (1868); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 (1872); Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106 (1913); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991). A survey noted below of over 240 reported decisions involving judicial immunity decided by both state and federal courts between 2000 and mid summer 2005 revealed no inconsistent state or federal decision. For an outstanding study of judicial immunity from civil liability, see Jeffrey M. Shaman, Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability, 27 San Diego L. Rev. 1 (1990).

    While technically you are correct, I think you will find it very difficult to source any judge being held to account for their crimes while on (or off) the bench.

    Look into Title 1 of the Cal. Govt. Code commencing with Section 940…among others.

    Good luck with that concept.

  70. marina, on August 3, 2013 at 10:54 pm said:

    Charles, Your statement is incorrect. Judges who break the law are not immune…particularly in a RICO action. In the process of breaking the law a judge steps away from the shelter of his/her bench and robe and becomes an individual aka gone rouge. The best way is to then sue them in their individual capacity…obstruction of justice & corruption.

  71. GUEST, on August 3, 2013 at 8:01 pm said:

    Right on Charles. They’re all on the bandwagon.

    The list is the complete judges roster Jellybeans!

    I read somewhere that Cal-judges have been bribed with so many of the foreclosed homes they don’t even care about the losing Calpers any more!!!

    This author documents seeing a judge inspecting a house he had just foreclosed in his court. He just made a few hundred-K in a few minutes! what does he need Calpers for?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLkpbMgN3Bc

    Charles you’re also right on the other points, and that’s all due to fact they are bought in advance

  72. Charles Cox, on August 3, 2013 at 5:59 pm said:

    Jellybeans:

    That would be a dangerous road to travel and you’ll find that judges are immune from prosecution anyway. It should suffice to say;if yo uinvestingate you might discover that virtually all judges in California are part of the CalPers retirement system which is heavily vested in mortgage bonds. Good luck finding one that isn’t predisposed to rule for the banksters…I think there used to be one but he retired (tongue in cheek).

  73. Charles Cox, on August 3, 2013 at 5:53 pm said:

    Guest:

    It is almost impossible to get a judge to accept any cite; it matters not whether it is published; the are that corrupt (unless of course you’re a bankster lawyer then they’ll accept anything whether inapposte or not.)

    We see these judges act as prosecutors and spewing the same BS such that the bankster lawyers don’t even need to argue or present much of a case; just play “yes man.” The judges either don’t let the borrower’s lawyer finish a sentence during oral argument or he/she will let him speak and completely ignore anythign argued having already made up their mind in advance. To say litigating these cases is very frustrating is an understatement.

  74. Jellybeans, on August 3, 2013 at 2:57 pm said:

    Say – would be quite helpful to have that list of known bribed judges!
    How can I get it? Thx

  75. GUEST, on August 3, 2013 at 11:12 am said:

    Good point Charles:

    This is a new modification of 2007:

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_1115

    But its rare or impossible to get a judge to accept that the unpublished opinion you cite “…..is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel”

    That’s because judges have been paid off by foreclosing banksters & their fraudster lawyers.
    None of the bribed judges who’ve been discovered have ever been touched as far I know. & of course their frauds on foreclosed victims have never been undone because the judicial system is a part of this expanding crime.

  76. Charles Cox, on August 2, 2013 at 5:20 am said:

    Guest (re:Glaski “not useable at all. (not citable”))

    Please do not make legal opinions on this forum or elsewhere on something you may not be quite up to speed on.

    Re Cal. Rules of Court:

    Rule 8.1115(a) Unpublished opinion

    “Except as provided in (b), an opinion…must not be cited or relied on…”

    Rule 8.1115(b) specifically states:

    “Exceptions: An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on:
    (1)When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel”…

    Further, publication is being pursued in this case.

  77. GUEST, on August 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm said:

    Good opinion below. But unless its published its not useable at all. (Not citable)

  78. Abby in CA, on August 1, 2013 at 1:29 pm said:

    BIG WIN CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT (STATE) –BORROWER MAY CHALLENGE THE SECURITIZED TRUST’S CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP.

    FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/157511685/BIG-WIN-IN-CALIFORNIA-APPEAL-COURT-SAYS-BORROWER-MAY-CHALLENGE-THE-SECURITIZED-TRUST-S-CHAIN-OF-OWNERSHIP

  79. GUEST, on July 29, 2013 at 8:32 pm said:

    This Cal. decision is great for those fighting wrongful California foreclosures but not for this plaintiff because his lawyer blew it by missing court hearings….

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02860/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02860-4.pdf

    The rest of the court’s docket available free at below page:

    __________http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02860/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02860-7/content-detail.html

  81. Jellybeans, on June 30, 2013 at 10:53 am said:

    GOOD NEWS FOR THIS CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER-BORROWER—CERT FOR PUB CASE–FIDUCIARY DUTY-VERY UNIQUE CASE -JUNE 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/150902761/2013-CERTIFIED-FOR-PUB-UNIQUE-CALIFORNIA-WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNER-MICHAEL-FULLER-v-First-Franklin-California-Court-of-Appeals-broker-fiduciary-duties-But

  82. Jellybeans, on June 24, 2013 at 3:05 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA CODE 27388–REAL ESTATE FRAUD TRUST FUND

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/149797334/California-Government-Code-27388-Real-Estate-Fraud-Trust-Fund

  83. guest, on June 21, 2013 at 10:04 am said:

    Mafia hitman explains how massive amounts of real estate was plundered through foreclosures:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bs2byHPFkhM

    Above 1990’s video was posted in this page:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/12/illuminati-council-of-13-human-sacrifice-denver-colorado/

  85. Jellybeans, on June 17, 2013 at 3:59 pm said:

    this california judge gets it

    Chase class action -june 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/148418548/CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL-JUDGE-GONZALEZ-ROGERS-GETS-IT-Class-Action-Against-Chase

  86. Abby in CA, on June 4, 2013 at 2:47 pm said:

    look at this—what a federal judge says in California–he does not have time!!

    also states on the record that we should contact our senators!!

    what…because he does not have time…means our due process rights go out the window??

    look at attached case decisions….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145517381/LOOK-LOOK-FEDERAL-JUDGE-DOES-NOT-HAVE-TIME-AND-TELLS-US-TO-CONTACT-SENATORS-BOXER-AND-FEINSTEIN-AND-WAS-YOUR-PRIOR-LOAN-REALLY-PAID-OFF-PROBABLY-NOT

  87. Abby in CA, on May 20, 2013 at 9:18 am said:

    2013 CA APPEAL DECISION IN JOLLEY V. CHASE HOME FINANCE
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/142587700/SUMMARY-JUDGMENT-REVERSED-ON-APPEAL-IN-CALIFORNIA-2013-Scott-Call-Jolley-v-Chase-Home-Finance-CA-Appeal-2013

  88. Abby in CA, on May 9, 2013 at 11:58 am said:

    VICTORY!! CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER STOPS A FORECLOSURE USING THE NEW CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS. HIS ATTORNEY CAN COLLECT HIS ATTORNEY FEES FROM THE BANK. BECAUSE SINGH WON THE INJUNCTION–HIS ATTORNEY WILL GET PAID BY THE BANK!! FIND THOSE ATTORNEYS TO HELP YOU IN CALIFORNIA.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/140451108/VICTORY-CALFORNIA-MAN-STOPS-A-FORECLOSURE-USING-THE-NEW-CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-BILL-OF-RIGHTS-HOBR-5-9-2013

  89. http://about.me/seo.thailand, on May 2, 2013 at 10:56 pm said:

    That’s correctly what they are accomplishing when they include your web site in the lookup benefits. As soon as again making use of Google Webmaster Applications (or other most well-liked courses or web-sites) will be key in checking your Seo achievements.

  90. http://www.onesmartdollar.com/, on May 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm said:

    I am truly grateful to the holder of this web site who has shared this enormous paragraph at here.

  91. holymolly, on April 10, 2013 at 3:22 am said:

    PATHETIC DISTRIBUTIONS AMOUNTS FROM THE IFR-INDEPENDENT FREE FORECLOSURE REVIEW–THIS IS THE FINAL DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/135098749/PATHETIC-AMOUNTS-OF-IFR-DISTRIBUTIONS-TO-HOMEOWNERS-IT-IS-A-SLAP-IN-THE-FACE-FOR-WHAT-THE-CORRUPT-BANKS-HAVE-PUT-AMERICANS-THROUGH

  93. GUEST, on March 22, 2013 at 8:22 am said:

    WELLS FARGO CELEBRATES STEALING CALIFORNIA HOMES:

  94. ABBY IN CA, on March 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm said:

    in 1998 alone New Century originated $2 billion dollars in loans and made a net profit of 17.7 million. In 1999 the number is not negligible being less than $10 billion in loans.

    The judge’s order states ‘Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105, 363, and 554, the New Century Liquidating Trust’s ownership interests in the Pre-2000 Loan Files shall be and hereby abandoned. The Trust and Trustee shall have no further responsibility or obligations with respect to the pre-2000 Loan Files. The Trust is authorized to destroy any and all such Pre-2000 Loan Files……

    Additionally, on page 6, the judge orders the Motion GRANTED in part to permit the Trustee to abandon and destroy any post-petition banrkuptcy pleadings, drafts of post-petition bankruptcy pleadings, and/or post-petition correspondance…and it goes on…….

    All should have their attorney read the order. The attorney can decide if anybody not an objector (to the destruction and abandonment motion) can obtain their files. Remember, New Century had an operation in Mexico where they scanned and shredded loan files, including notes. (this has been verified with two indiduals-one of whom was a counsel employed by NC and one a sr. executive).
    That practice was eventually stopped.
    It is unknown, and you’d need your attorney to find this out, if the only
    file (for you) is an original or only a scanned image. Be thinking about the probable lack of security on scanned images in any computer system or imaging system. It is fairly easy to make changes to a scanned image. Think about the fact that the paper loan file was sent outside the borders of the USA (our SSN were on them) for scanning and shredding.

    as I said prior, read carefully the order

  95. GUEST, on March 19, 2013 at 12:26 pm said:

    Thanks Abby:
    A look at this sentence in that court’s decision shows how corrupt it is:

    “We affirm only on the causes of action for conversion, to set aside or vacate void trustee sale, for slander of title, and to quiet title.”

    So: that court says the bogus trustee sale was legit afterall!! how much more corrupt can a court get?

  96. ABBY IN CA, on March 19, 2013 at 11:08 am said:

    CALIFORNIA PRO PER WINS APPEAL AGAINST JPMORGAN CHASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/131275007/CALIFORNIA-Pro-Se-Wins-Appeal-West-v-JP-Morgan-Chase-March-2013

  97. ABBY IN CA, on March 15, 2013 at 4:24 pm said:

    GOLDMAN SACHS MAKES SURE THEIR SUBPOENA OF NEW CENTURY FOR DOCUMENTS AND FILES IS UPHELD

    DI 11101 IN THE NEW CENTURY BKR CASE FILED MARCH 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/130630775/GOLDMAN-SACHS-SUBPOENAS-RECORDS-AND-FILES-FROM-NEW-CENTURY-WHILE-THE-NC-BANKRUPTCY-STILL-ONGOING-2012-2013

  98. ABBY IN CA, on March 15, 2013 at 3:50 pm said:

    Keep in mind that when the judge is preserving the post 2003 documents and files it is ONLY for certain banking entities which have subpoenas. He is not preserving files or documents for homeowner/borrowers. Read the order very very carefully.

    here is a list of the subpoena parties that the order refers to:
    The Subpoena Parties are as follows: Ace Securities Corp., Ally Financial, Inc., Ally Securities LLC, Asset Backed Funding Corp., Asset Backed Securities Corporation, Banc of America Funding Corp., Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Credit Suisse (USA), Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corporation, Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, DB Structured Products, Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., EMC Mortgage LLC, First Franklin Financial Corp., First Horizon Asset Securities, Inc., First Horizon National Corporation, First Tennessee Bank National Association, FTN Financial Securities Corporation, GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co, Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, Goldman Sachs Real Estate Funding Corp., GS Mortgage Securities Corp., HSBC Bank USA, NA., HSBC Markets (USA), Inc., HSBC North America Holdings, Inc., HSBC Securities (USA), Inc., HSBC USA, Inc., HSI Asset Securitization Corporation, J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Long Beach Securities Corporation, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch and Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch Government Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated (n/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC), Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc., Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (successor-in-interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc.), Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., Mortgage IT Securities Corp., Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Nomura Holding America, Inc., Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBS Securities, Inc., Saxon Asset Securities Company, Saxon Capital, Inc., Saxon Funding Management LLC, Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC, SG Americas Securities Holdings LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, SG Americas, Inc., SG Mortgage Finance Corp., SG Mortgage Securities LLC, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Taunus Corporation, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., UBS Americas, Inc., UBS Real Estate Securities, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation, WaMu Capital Corporation, and Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation.

  99. Kimberly, on March 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm said:

    Respectfully this is irresponsible misinformation Anita/Abby. The order from Carey DENIES the Trustee’s request to destroy mortgage loan or servicing files from 2003 forward. Homeowners who need their New Century files can still make that request of the Trustee, and/or the Delaware Court. Telling them it is being shredded will make people think they can’t get those documents, and they can. But NOW is the time to make that request.

  100. ABBY IN CA, on March 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm said:

    LET THE SHREDDING OF EVIDENCE BEGIN. JUDGE ORDERS DESTRUCTION AND ABANDONMENT OF DOCUMENTS AND FILES FOR MORTGAGES IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123.

    HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS–IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY GOTTEN YOUR NECESSARY DISCOVERY—TOUGH LUCK!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/130604509/DESTRUCTION-AND-ABANDONMENT-JUDGE-ORDERS-THE-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-AND-HOME123-AND-BANKRUPTCY-DOCUMENTS-TO-BE-DESTROYED-IS-HE-AUTHORIZING-DESTROYI

  101. ABBY IN CA, on March 7, 2013 at 9:15 am said:

    FEB 2013 REPORT ON THE NATIONAL MORTGAGE SETTLEMENT
    19 BILLION ON SHORT SALES!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/129114667/National-Mortgage-Settlement-Feb-2013-Report-Ongoing-implementation-ALSO-KNOWN-AS-THE-50-STATE-AG-SETTLEMENT

  102. ABBY IN CA, on February 20, 2013 at 11:25 am said:

    HERE YOU GO–BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE’S LAW FIRM FILES LEGAL MOTIONS TO GET JUDGE TO APPROVE WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF MORTGAGE LOAN FILES—EVEN GOING BACK AS FAR AS 2004! THESE WOULD BE THE MORTGAGE LOAN FILES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (SECURITIZATION RELATED, OPERATIONS) FOR…………….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/126430700/IS-THE-BANKRUPTCY-COURT-GOING-TO-DESTROY-EVIDENCE-CRITICAL-FOR-HOMEOWNER-CREDITORS-HORRORS

  103. guest, on February 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm said:

    Thanks Abbey. The PDF and word versions of the same decision are available @
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A133202.PDF

    The MS-Word version can be obtained @ http://www.courts.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions-blank.cgi

  105. ABBY IN CA, on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 am said:

    AMAZING==NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IN CALIFORNIA ORDERS DEUTSCHE BANK TO ANSWER THE EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN 3 DAYS IN THE BRIAN DAVIES FORECLOSURE MATTER. THE SECOND LINK DESCRIBES HOW DEUTSCHE et al VIOLATED AN INJUNCTIVE STAY IN THE CASE:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120648676/NINTH-CIRCUIT-APPEAL-COURT-ORDERS-DEUTSCHE-TO-ANSWER-THE-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-IN-THE-DAVIES-CASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120386159/DAVIES-FILES-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-FOR-CONTEMPT-JANUARY-2013-FORECLOSURE-APPELLEE-IGNORING-INJUNCTION

  106. ABBY in CA, on December 28, 2012 at 1:06 pm said:

    Pro Se Homeowner files Motion to Recuse bankruptcy judge in Delaware re: her home/mortgage in California

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/118244956/PLAINTIFF-GALOPE-FILES-MOTION-TO-RECUSE-BANKRUPTCY-JUDGE-IN-DELAWARE-NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-CASE-07-10416

  107. Will, on November 18, 2012 at 1:25 am said:

    I filed a case in Santa clara superior where the defendants were not in the deed or title or in the recorders office and had no assignment, I have bank cerified copies of the note and deed confirming the trust did not recieve the assignment by the cutoff date and they have been bifurcated. 1st tenative Judge sua sponte cites Gomes with 10 days. In the vsac i demonstrate Gomes is inaplicable and for tender site Sachi ,Lona , Onofrio plus others and plead a full unconditional tender and the judge sustains with out lave to amend for failing to tender. at Oral I argue to no avail and bring standing of defendants. My loan is in a trust in the Calpers portfolio does it make sence now.

  108. Kern County Lawyers, on November 3, 2012 at 12:30 pm said:

    Pretty great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I’ve truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing for your feed and I hope you write once more soon!

  109. EILEEN WATTS, on October 26, 2012 at 6:22 pm said:

    So first i love your info only thing keeping me grounded while everyone else thinks i have lost it but wonder this ….(and i will explain all the players involved in a moment) the bank forclosed on our home of 23+ yrs. On 4/9/12 they filed UD andI answered next notice said must be hard within 20 ys took 34 days so one lawyer for one b ank and one judge could hear 11 cases one after another on aWed. Because Wed was the only day of the week he could make it.i was #10 and the judge ruled against all of us even though in my response i had docs showing fraud and the judgrs take they have the deed start packig cause all that other stuff didnt concern his court i needed to file in a different court and with almost a smile said i will even issue a writ to jelp you along and a few weeks later we were removed by the sheriff.so heres the players start countrywide did a loan mod we paid them 10000+3500 intrest only loan and they also male a codition that we signed they could withdraw payments on husbands payday we agreed but b of a took over and never took any payments(countywide clearly states they are the lender and servicer and if notes or docs are misplaced or lost they can create new ones.so they knew then what they were doing) when payments arent taken they report to credit bad debt i am sure they collected ins. Nothing but run around and claim we dont qualify for anything…forclosure starts file bk but credit shows the loan was transfered and they dont know to who.six months court thinks i dont get it and dismiss case wk later forclosure notice new lawyer file bk again and b of a steps up now as servicer.two years nothing but run around lawyer doesnt know whats up but i piss him off when i am tryin to tell him how to do his job withdraws as attorney of record next day judge grants releif of stay to have both cars repo and now we face abuse charges..except the USTrustee didnt even have his facts right.judge put others on her list and dismissed it all. Now 4 days before sale B of A tells me they mever owned the loan Impac lending did How and when did that happen ??? And dueshbag bank is the trustee for Issac2006-3pass through mortg. Cert.so now recon trust sells it at auction to who else but dueshbag bank who os who evicts us and all the dos not even signed in this co but another and posted on the house to contact for info on property B of A amd dept of Corp says impac couldnt of been the lender their liscence had been revoked years ago and when they tell me my property is secure and i show up to find people stealing my things the cops are busy but when i am on the prop they are there wothin min.best and new trick all utilities turned off…they reported us dead!! And to the law and everyone i need help…….

  113. K.S., on September 18, 2012 at 7:59 am said:

    Dear Neil:
    Thank you for your 8/29/12 enlightening seminar in Anaheim, Ca.
    Also, I have a contribution to the 9/11 anniversary: http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/9-12-12-911-bombshell1.pdf

  114. ABBY IN CA, on September 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm said:

    Los Angeles City Attorney Kicks Butt–files huge lawsuit against US Bank as Trustee for a myriad of securitized trusts! See If yours is listed!! Charges Illegal Evictions and Blight and various other violations! read the complaint here

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/104655945/Los-Angeles-City-Attorney-Kicks-Butt-files-huge-lawsuit-against-US-Bank-as-Trustee-for-a-myriad-of-securitized-trusts-See-If-yours-is-listed-Cha

  115. guest, on August 25, 2012 at 9:23 am said:

    http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/25 BANKING FRAUD SPECIAL

  116. usheeple, on August 24, 2012 at 8:49 am said:

    by corruption of “Fools on the Hill” http://presstv.com/Program/257046.html

  119. ABBY IN CA, on August 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm said:

    OH YES….THE CALPERS ALSO ADMINISTERS THE RETIREMENT PLANS AND INVESTMENTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURES!

  120. ABBY IN CA, on August 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm said:

    WONDERING WHY CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE VICTIMS NEVER WIN IN COURT? CHECK OUT THE JUDGE’S RETIREMENT INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE LOADED WITH MBS & ABS. ADMINISTERED BY CALPERS. WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/103728717/Wondering-Why-California-Foreclosure-Victims-Never-Win-In-Court-Judges-Retirement-Investments-Loaded-with-MBS-and-ABS

  122. ABBY IN CA, on August 15, 2012 at 12:50 pm said:

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME 123 CORP VICTIMS===
    BREAKING NEWS===THE IRS IS GIVING BACK $131 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE NEW CENTURY BANKRUPTCY. THIS STATED IN HEARING ON AUGUST 14 2012.

    IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO, CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO INQUIRE ABOUT A BANKRUPTCY CLAIM OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AGAINST THEM.

  123. ABBY IN CA, on August 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm said:

    I KNOW CALI IS IN NINTH CIRCUIT BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT APPEAL DECISION FROM 10TH CIRCUIT REGARDING TILA RESCISSION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102392474/10th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Overturns-heightened-pleading-standard-for-TILA-Rescission-Sanders-v-Mountain-America-Fed-Cr-Union-July-2012

  124. ABBY IN CA, on July 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm said:

    Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Judgment in National Multi-Million Dollar Mortgage Scam
    LOS ANGELES — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced defendants who ran a national loan modification scam were ordered to pay more than $4 million in penalties and restitution, including $2 million to consumers who were falsely promised modifications of their mortgage loans.
    More than 1,000 customers paid more than $2 million for loan modification services to Statewide Financial Group, Inc., which did business as US Homeowners Assistance and Webeatallrates.com, and was based in Orange County. In July 2009, the Attorney General’s office shut down the business, which had been in operation since January 2008.
    “These defendants took advantage of vulnerable people in extremely difficult circumstances, including many who faced imminent loss of their homes,” said Attorney General Harris. “The significant financial penalties imposed by the court let scammers know that severe consequences will flow to those who defraud California consumers.”
    The Orange County Superior Court ordered that every US Homeowners Assistance loan modification customer should receive a full refund upon request. The defendants were also permanently enjoined from engaging in the conduct that led to the lawsuit and were ordered to pay $2 million in civil penalties. It is unclear, however, how much money will be recovered and available to pay refunds or penalties.
    The prosecution of this action took nearly three years, culminating in a multi-week bench trial in March 2012. The business’ owners, Zulmai Nazarzai and Hakimullah Sarpas and Fasela Sheren (who went by the name Sharon Fasela), were all found liable for violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
    In a separate proceeding in late 2010, Attorney General Harris successfully prosecuted Nazarzai for contempt of court for his refusal to turn over $360,000 unlawfully taken by defendants as ordered by the court. He has been incarcerated in the Orange County jail since December 2010 because of his continued refusal to comply with the court’s order.
    Attorney General Harris formed the Mortgage Fraud Strike Force in May 2011 to investigate and prosecute crimes and wrong-doing related to mortgages, foreclosures, and real estate. The prosecution of this action is part of Attorney General Harris’ ongoing efforts to protect homeowners, which also includes the national mortgage settlement and the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.
    Copies of the court’s judgment and statement of decision are attached to the online version of this release at http://www.oag.ca.gov.

    # # #

    You may view the full account of this posting, including possible attachments, in the News & Alerts section of our website at: http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-judgment-national-multi-million

  127. CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ASSISTANCE |, on July 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm said:

    […] on March 23, 2010 at 7:38 am Said: Don-CA, BRIAN W DAVIES Plaintiff, V. NDEX WEST LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK. et al SECOND AMENDED […]

  129. usheeple, on June 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm said:

    partial bribe list of legislators stealing your homes:
    http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/HBORFINALVOTE#ACCE

  131. ABBY IN CA, on June 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm said:

    AMAZING RECUSAL OF FEDERAL JUDGES DOCUMENT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98468195/RECUSAL-LAWS-FEDERAL-JUDGES

  132. CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ASSISTANCE, on June 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm said:

    […] on March 23, 2010 at 7:38 am Said: Don-CA, BRIAN W DAVIES Plaintiff, V. NDEX WEST LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK. et al SECOND AMENDED […]

  133. Chris, on June 14, 2012 at 6:05 am said:

    @ steve

    Yup, the bankruptcy filing and the bar date, Hmmmmm, classic “pump and dump” of New Century, read the 2006 dispensations and the 2007 dispensation of the trust, to the same players.

    Then read the different variations of the Uhland numbers, they are two different versions of the same declarations. The Supreme Court of the land has said” the bar date IS elastic…they call it “excusable neglect”. Even if someone knew about the bankruptcy, that would not mean they would know they are claimants! The logic is very flawed. Those of you on the blog; the outrageous amount of money being used to fight the homeowners from New Century is 95% trust-5% of money for claims of homeowners.

    Crime does pay, evidently. Particularly white collar crime. The originators used homeowners information to lie cheat and steal from lenders, investors and insurance companies. They were paid on the front end and never paid their repurchase agreements to the lenders. KPMG hid the liquidity of NC, willfully and deliberately, to abscond with loans proceeds. There are loans out there that have not been funded (no liens), the bk court has allowed transfers of mortgages as collateral from the theft of the funds to the investors and a majority of their loans never went into any trust, making them unsecured debt. It gets better, there were payments from FDIC, FHA, TARP, master insurance, default insurance…pick your poison.

    Then sold the servicing rights, more money for NC, to SUB-PRIME servicers, 84% of their loans were sub-prime according to documents. Which, means even the “conventional” loans 80-20% ratios were forged to place them in that “junket” to get relief. Now, we have homeowners who have multiple buyers of their loans and even if you get one scoundrel off the note, the potential for others to come after you is very real.

    Homeowners never contracted to sell their long-term mortgage value to hidden entities. Now, we are all responsible for the contracts made by Originators” like New Century. The values of our homes is 40-70-% off and after all the profits generated from this massive Ponzi scheme, we are held responsible for the actual dollar amount of the loan, even now underwater and subject to short sale indebtedness and further a total loss in foreclosure, by people who knowingly, willingly and fraudulently assigned out notes to debt collectors, title companies and lawyers. The vast majority of these mortgages are paid; check Maricopa County, AZ, Collins, TX and counties in NC, where BOA does business. Daunting work, but you can find satisfactions of deeds in the thousands, Hmmmmm again, minute after minute being recorded. I think, just my thoughts, most of the satisfactions are recorded by other entities, being held until foreclosure and then being recorded. Far too many deed entries for people to be coming to the deed office, by the hundreds or thousands each day. Just my thoughts, as I said. Makes no sense.

    Footnote: simonee has a, pay for, web site, selling a book about unlawful detainer (UD), she lost hers and is using other people work to sell. Watch out…

    As for the New Century bankruptcy and homeowners; anyone who sells my note and personal information, using my home as collateral is liable, period! In fact we never signed a contract with the lender, we signed it with the originator They owe the lender, we only agreed to pay the trust. If they did not make one…tough luck for them. They lied and cheated, I DID NOT!

  134. Bijaya kumara das Brian d Grover, on May 31, 2012 at 7:16 pm said:

    Goi: Great job on the PI’s. Now you need a win on the clear title.

  135. Bijaya kumara das Brian d Grover, on May 31, 2012 at 7:06 pm said:

    Goi: I assume when you are referring to Kumar you ment me so my email address is groveey@wildblue.net

  137. goi, on May 26, 2012 at 11:01 pm said:

    Gary: I posted my previous order awarding my house FREE & CLEAR. Again, here are the docs: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90184879/I-Won-my-House-FREE-CLEAR-Here-s-HOW

    Here is the Court Signed Preliminary Injunction: http://www.scribd.com/doc/94942849/Preliminary-Injunction-Signed-Court-Order-April-2012

    I just received ANOTHER P/I ruling last week on a different house. I’ll post AFTER JUDGE SIGNS IT. On this second one I have NO MONTHLY PAYMENTS to escrow with the court…!!!

    In response to your question: I voluntarily dismissed a federal case and re-filed back into state court. I’m ‘ProSe’ on that house, and quickly lost in state court with a Res Judicata tentative ruling; which I’m appealing next week. Again, going ProSe resulted in quick loss…. My ‘2’ Preliminary Injunctions came WITH ATTORNEY Jason doing appearances and pleadings.

    Getting TWO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS on TWO SEPARATE HOUSES is INCREDIBLE in California Courts.

  138. Jeff, on May 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm said:

    goi, I didn’t see anything related to a PI, just the order for a UD and a complaint. Also, you dismissed a Federal Case recently it looks like

  139. goi, on May 25, 2012 at 2:26 am said:

    kumara : need an Email address from you. Here is the court order you asked for: Judge ruled for ‘2’ Preliminary Injunctions: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90184879/I-Won-my-House-FREE-CLEAR-Here-s-HOW

  140. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on May 24, 2012 at 9:22 pm said:

    what judge in CA ruled this way ? please email me ASAP getting ready to refile lawsuit for wrongful UD, theft of property rights with fraud documents

  141. goi, on May 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm said:

    CRD: YOUR post has some valuable and ‘accurate info’. I’m “2 for 2” on my Preliminary Injunctions with another one being ordered today (Which are RARE in California) I have stopped TWO Unlawful Detainer actions using Jason. UD: where the bank wanted to ‘take possession’ of the house while we battled it out in court. I’ll post the Signed Court Order next week (awaiting court copy). Here’s the other court order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90184879/I-Won-my-House-FREE-CLEAR-Here-s-HOW

    Going to court ‘self represented’ is surefire to go from ‘homeowner’ to homeless…. (my opiinion). I have not seen any ProSe bloggers who have prevailed (yet)…

    I continue to share my experiences….

  142. guest, on May 23, 2012 at 8:34 am said:

    Bankruptcy courts may be unable to render final judgments in some matters: http://legalnews.arnstein.com/wp-content/uploads/Thomson-Reuters-News-Insight-5-10-12.pdf

  143. guest, on May 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm said:

    Thanks ABBY, can I send you the bills???

  144. ABBY IN CA, on May 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm said:

    @guest
    I’m so glad you are going to take over all the research and posting here on LL. Thank you Thank you Thank you!!

    However, if you are an opposing counsel or any counsel, I hope you have the honesty to not bill your hapless client for all the time you will be spending researching, posting and blogging!

    Go for it! I look forward to all the information you will provide us.

  145. guest, on May 3, 2012 at 9:12 pm said:

    Abby: Thanks, but is there a problem providing link to sources? like: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/102295.P.pdf and:
    http://sedm.org/Litigation/PracticeGuides/LitQuickRef.pdf

  146. ABBY IN CA, on May 3, 2012 at 4:47 pm said:

    LANDMARK TILA OPINION JUST CAME DOWN TODAY!!

    BORROWER NEED NOT FILE TILA LAWSUIT WITHIN 3 YEARS IF THEY DID SEND THE NOTICE OF TILA RESCISSION WITHIN 3 YEARS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/92307831/MAY-3-2012-LANDMARK-COURT-OF-APPEAL-OPINION-ON-TILA-REX-GILBERT-V-RESIDENTIAL-FUNDING-DEUTSHCE-BANK-AND-THE-TRUSTEE

  147. ABBY IN CA, on April 25, 2012 at 11:02 am said:

    LITIGATION QUICK REF GUIDE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/91249249/QUICK-REFERENCE-GUIDE

  148. goi, on April 19, 2012 at 3:29 pm said:

    I won my CALIFORNIA house FREE & CLEAR. Here is HOW I DID IT…!!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/90184879/I-Won-my-House-FREE-CLEAR-Here-s-HOW

    Don’t GO IT ALONE…!!!!

  149. goi, on April 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm said:

    I won my house FREE & CLEAR. Here is HOW I DID IT…!!!
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/90184879/I-Won-my-House-FREE-CLEAR-Here-s-HOW

    Don’t GO IT ALONE…!!!!

  150. Guest, on April 15, 2012 at 9:53 pm said:

    Bogus reports & stats by U.S. Treachery

  153. ABBY IN CA, on April 15, 2012 at 11:34 am said:

    SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT-APRIL 12 2012- FACTORS AFFECTING…..

    SOME ASTOUNDING STATISTICS WITHIN..CA HOME PRICES DECLINED 38.9% SECOND IN NATION BEHIND NEVADA AT 49.9%…OTHER STATS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/89529518/CA-38-9-NV-49-9-FL-37-4-AZ-36-8-Declines-in-Home-Price-report-on-FACTORS-AFFECTING-IMPLEMENTATION-Special-Inspector-General-for-TARP-Report

  154. ABBY IN CA, on March 31, 2012 at 11:35 am said:

    HAWAII JUDGE SEABRIGHT GETS IT!! BIG WIN FOR HOMEOWNER WILLIAMS. DEUTSCHE HAD NO STANDING. LOAN ORIGINATOR NEW CENTURY IN BKR SO RED FLAG GOES UP ABOUT THE FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT!!

    THIS POST HAS DISCUSSION, AND THE COMPLAINT AND OTHER RELEVANT CASE DOCUMENTS.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/87479128/GOT-NEW-CENTURY-WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNER-READ-JUDGE-SEABRIGHT-S-DECISION-HERE-AND-COMPLAINT-ETC-no-evidence-that-plaintiff-was-validly-assigned-the-Mort

  155. ABBY IN CA, on March 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm said:

    READ JOHNSON’S COMPLAINT WITH EXHIBITS HERE AGAINST HSBC AND BOA–HE SURVIVED THE BANKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86935746/GREGORY-JOHNSON-V-HSBC-BOA-HIS-COMPLAINT-AND-HOW-HE-RESPONDED-TO-BANKS-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-PLUS-EXHIBITS-MARCH-2012-CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL-COURT-SOUTHERN

  157. ABBY IN CA, on March 22, 2012 at 2:44 pm said:

    A FASCINATING READ ON INSIDE PROCESSING OF COLLATERAL OF COUNTRYWIDE-BAC IN THE DEPOSITION OF MICHELE SJOLANDER WHO GAVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO HAVE OTHERS ENDORSE THE PROMISSORY NOTES. SHE DOES NOT KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86389331/MUSTANG-ENGINE-HOTMAN-WAND-COLD-DARK-ROWS-OF-COLLATERAL-DEPOSTION-OF-COUNTRYWIDE-BAC-MICHELE-SJOLANDER-SHE-GAVE-POWER-OF-ATTORNEY-FOR-ENDORSING-NO

  158. goi, on March 20, 2012 at 8:33 am said:

    Good to hear from ya: I could take ‘hours’ explaining my experiences with bogus realtors, self proclaimed expert witnesses, so-called forensic auditors and dozens of attorneys who claim to ‘make the banks cry’ while they try to be a ‘dining room table lawyer’. Most attorneys won’t even take foreclosure cases because the homeowner cannot afford to pay them AND they don’t want a reputation “defending deadbeats” (I’m sure there are many other reasons). , I prevailed in ’1′ house and have if FREE & CLEAR. My only ‘loss’ was a ProSe (self represented) case; [got ‘out motioned’ by bank] Calif is the TOUGHEST for the homeowner! READ THIS: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/18/MNMD1NGUO6.DTL I am defending ’9′ houses; have used 4 attys; 3 auditors & bought (& ret’d) many ‘Do It Yourself’ foreclosure defense courses. [ALL were junk] DO NOT go into court ProSe against a well financed bank attorney. You will LOSE. Hire your own ‘competent atty’; get a good auditor who has an ‘expert witness’ in their pocket. The one’s that REALLY GET IT are: Atty JASON ESTAVILLO [510-982-3001] and auditor LAWRENCE ASUNCION [650-355-8873]. All others I’ve used were ‘worthless’ (but took my $$ anyway). With these guys the bank will negotiate when they see the strength of your LEGAL TEAM, specific AUDIT, expert witness and CASE documents..! BTW: I am NOT being paid to endorse these guys. They are just GOOD…!!! (Tell Em: Kris in ‘Cally’ sent ya…) Winning a house FREE & CLEAR is a LongShot. The goal is to get the bank to negotiate principal reduction, reduced rate, longer terms or cash for keys. The Pre-Emptive legal Steps you take BEFORE foreclosure starts and the motions made during discovery will determine the outcome. I’ve been through enough trials to know this. Our paralegal has TONS of data on MERS and securitizatoin. Email me if you want to know more about the resources I found and USE….

  159. Guest, on March 14, 2012 at 8:24 am said:

    Banks & NAR push bogus reliefs to buy time to foreclose:
    http://speakingofrealestate.blogs.realtor.org/2012/02/16/key-issue-to-watch-debt-cancellation-relief/

  160. ABBY IN CA, on March 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm said:

    MARCH 12 2012 OIG HUD AUDIT REPORT ON BANK OF AMERICA–ILLEGAL NOTARIZATIONS AND THEY USED PERSONNEL IN INDIA TO VERIFY JUDGMENT FIGURES BUT BOA EMPLOYEES COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY DID IT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85234954/OIG-HUD-AUDIT-REPORT-OF-BANK-OF-AMERICA-MARCH-12-2012-THEY-USED-PERSONNEL-IN-INDIA-TO-VERIFY-JUDGMENT-FIGURES-BUT-BOA-EMPLOYEES-COULD-NOT-EXPLAIN-HO

  161. Guest, on March 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm said:

    ABBY:
    Foreclosures have additional options like fabricating entire loan & foreclosure docs through guys like these. http://www.lsnj.org/NewsAnnouncements/Foreclosure/materials/EXHIBITBLenderProcessingServices.pdf

  162. ABBY IN CA, on March 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm said:

    MARCH 12 2012 OIG HUD AUDIT OF CHASE–NO EFFECTIVE CONTROLS OF FORECLOSURE PROCESS–NOTARIES PERFORMED ILLEGAL NOTARIZATIONS

    YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE AS NEW EVIDENCE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85232926/CHASE-HAD-NO-EFFECTIVE-CONTROL-OVER-ITS-FORECLOSURE-PROCESSES-OIG-HUD-AUDIT-REPORT-ON-CHASE-MARCH-12-2012-NOTARIES-DID-ILLEGAL-NOTARIZATIONS

  163. ABBY IN CA, on March 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm said:

    MORTGAGE LOAN FRAUD REPORTS ROSE IN CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84844295/March-5-2012-Mortgage-Loan-Fraud-Reports-Rose

  164. ABBY IN CA, on March 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm said:

    AMICUS BRIEF FROM NCLC IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT MCOMIE-GRAY IN NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL CASE RE: TILA AND 3 YEAR

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84723587/NCLC-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-McOmie-Gray-TILA

  165. ABBY IN CA, on March 9, 2012 at 11:26 am said:

    THANK GOODNESS THE ATTORNEYS FILED A PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING IN THE MCOMIE-GRAY TILA APPEAL DECISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84712205/McOmie-Gray-Opinion-2-8-2012-TILA-and-Petition-for-Rehearing-Ninth-Circuit

  166. ABBY IN CA, on March 8, 2012 at 1:55 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS ARRESTS 3 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR LOAN MOD SCAM. TODAY.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84553358/AG-Kamala-Harris-Arrests-3-Attorneys-in-California-for-Loan-Mod-Scam-March-8-2012

  167. ABBY IN CA, on March 8, 2012 at 11:03 am said:

    SOMETHING GOOD FOR HOMEOWNER IN HER APPEAL IN SEVENTH CIRCUIT- SEE ORDER, OPINION, MOST APPEAL FILINGS HERE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84525682/REVERSED-ON-SOME-COUNTS-AND-REMANDED-WIGOOD-V-WELLS-FARGO-HAMP-LOAN-MOD-DENIED-TO-HOMEOWNER-SEVENTH-CIRCUIT-COURT-OF-APPEALS-OPINI

  169. ABBY IN CA, on March 6, 2012 at 1:55 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS WARNS US TO BEWARE OF MORTGAGE SETTLEMENT SCAMS-

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84178097/CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-WARNS-BEWARE-MORTGAGE-SETTLEMENT-SCAMS-MARCH-2012

  170. ABBY IN CA, on March 5, 2012 at 2:28 pm said:

    TRIAL BEGINS FOR FIRST WORLD LEADER ON CRIMINAL CHARGES OVER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83988083/First-World-Leader-to-Face-Criminal-Charges-Over-Financial-Crisis-march-2012

  171. ABBY IN CA, on March 5, 2012 at 8:47 am said:

    Congress approved HR 347 and it will empower federal agents to arrest and bring felony criminal charges against citizens engaged in political protests anywhere in the USA.

    OUTLAWING THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT: HR 347 MAKES FREE SPEECH A FELONY

    The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    At 7:03pm ET on Tuesday, 28 February 2012, our 112th Congress violated this covenant with the American people by voting 399 to 3 in favor of H.R. 347, a bill which breezed through the Senate with unanimous consent and now lacks only corporate fascist puppet President Barack Obama’s signature to become law. The three patriots who voted Nay were Paul Broun (R-GA-10), Justin Amash (R-MI-3) and Ron Paul (R-TX-14). The traitors who voted Yea are listed here:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

  172. ABBY IN CA, on March 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm said:

    BRAND NEW OCCUPY PROTESTS AT THE CRIME SCENES–COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICES ACROSS CALIFORNIA–MARCH 12 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83566790/OCCUPY-THE-CRIME-SCENE-ALAMEDA-COUNTY-RECORDER-AND-AT-THE-CONTRA-COSTA-COUNTY-RECORDER-AND-ACROSS-THE-STATE-OF-CALIFORNIA

  173. Charles Cox, on February 29, 2012 at 3:39 pm said:

    Isn’t there ANYONE that can educate these people before they draft this junk! They have no idea what a “CREDITOR” is and continue to cater to the whims of servicers! Speaking of “servicers”…a $25 fee to record a notice of default? Now THAT’S punitive!!!! [NOT!!!] AND since when was the statute of limitations for Fraud reduced from 4 to 1 years requiring an extension; let me see…new legislation giving 90 days’ notice before commencing eviction proceedings (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean) when there’s already Federal legislation doing what they’re purporting to legislate; $10k CIVIL penalty for robosiging…I guess forgery and recording fraud (both felonies) aren’t worthy of prosecution (and the fines involved) so they’ll make it a simple civil penalty now?…on and on…ignorance…massive, abject ignorance!!! Never ceases to amaze…

  174. Abby in CA, on February 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS 2-29-2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83231093/2-29-2012-Press-Release-Kamala-Harris-Homeowner-Bill-of-Rights

  175. I, on February 26, 2012 at 8:00 am said:

    Neil, Aggey, Guest,, So, federal judges & employees are also conspiring to foreclose people’s homes, just as California state judges and employees are doing that according to this new U.S. Supreme Court motion which means the entire country is rigged.
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/2-4-12-salessi-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-with-the-supreme-court-with-live-hyperlinks.pdf

  176. Guest, on February 24, 2012 at 10:31 am said:

    Wake up sheeple: Where does this help consumers? Look at bottom of page 38, they want to enhance foreclosure process so that all their robo-signings go undetected!!

  177. Abby in CA, on February 22, 2012 at 6:54 pm said:

    Tammy Freeman v. Quicken Loans -Oral Args Transcript at the US Supreme Court re: RESPA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82506786/Tammy-Freeman-v-Quicken-Loans-US-Supreme-Court-Oral-Argument-Transcript-of-2-21-2012-Case-10-1042-Re-RESPA

  178. Abby in CA, on February 21, 2012 at 9:47 am said:

    CA Laws Regarding Attorney Solicitations and Link for other states—-

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82304421/CA-Laws-Regarding-Attorney-Solicitations-Business-and-Professions-Code

  179. Simonee, on February 20, 2012 at 11:44 pm said:

    Do you have a claim against New Century Mortgage?
    February 20, 2012 2:53 pmSimoneeLeave a CommentEdit
    New Century Mortgage is currently in the process of wrapping up its bankruptcy proceedings, having successfully skirted dealing with the feared “floodgates” of borrowers claiming to be known claimants harmed by New Century’s, and its associates in enterprise, predatory lending practices. So let’s take a quick look at few facts.

    ■New Century originated approximately 100 Billion in Mortgage loans between January 2004 and April 2007
    ■Estimates put the number of discrete borrowers between 2 to 3 million individual loans. (According to the Center for Public Integrity, the average loan size at the subprime lending peak in 2005 was $183,000 per loan (See here Read under the “Deeper and Deeper in Debt, ¶3) – that would put the number of borrowers closer to the FIVE million mark)
    ■The Missal Report states that, at a minimum, 10% of those loans were subject to TILA/RESPA Violations, state and federal violations, faulty appraisals (overvaluing property) among other actionable deficiencies.
    ■The Missal Report details that New Century was provided monthly reports that detailed, on a loan level basis, the precise reason for an investor refusing the loan because of the above mentioned problems.
    ■The Missal Report details how New Century created Bid Sheets detailing the obvious deficiencies and problems of the above identified loans that were then sold to investors as “Scratch and Dent” loans at a discount.
    The Liquidating Trustee, Alan Jacobs, and the Creditors Committee (made up of the likes of Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo and Credit Suisse) claim that they “never knew” of any borrower having a potential claim. Really? Jacobs claims that upon reviewing the debtor’s books and records, he can’t identify any borrower that may have a potential claim against the Estate of New Century. Missal could find these records, but Jacobs and the crew can’t. What do you think – is he lazy, stupid, or a liar?

    The Court has ruled in the Galope Claim that constructive notice by way of placement of ads in the Wall Street Journal and the Orange County Register are sufficient. Sigh. The Wall Street Journal, in 2007/2008, reported:

    ■Paid readership of approximately 1.2m in 2007 – so the Court assumes that what, 100% of the New Century customers read the WSJ? And that of course does not deal with the other 800,000 to 1.8 million borrowers (assuming the 3m count is correct and not the 5m).
    ■The profile of a WSJ reader in 2007/2008 is an individual with an annual income of 191k and a personal net worth of 2.1m – does this describe a subprime borrower?
    ■The Orange County Register has a readership of approximately 650,000 daily readers
    ■The profile of the daily reader is has an annual income in excess of $100,000 annually
    If you add the 1.2 million readers from the WSJ with the 650,000 readers of the Orange County register, and assume that the number of borrowers IS less than 2 million – you still can NOT rationalize that these two publications were sufficient. If you follow the Center for Public Integrity estimate of borrowers, the notifications fall woefully short of providing constructive notice to all New Century borrowers.

    Testimony by New Century counsel confirms that their intended audience was the financial firms (those that funded New Century Mortgage) and the employees of New Century Mortgage (the individuals that perpetrated and executed the predatory loans). Of course the Judge has expressed his “weariness” of the case and that apparently is a sufficient basis upon which to allow New Century Mortgage to continue its victimization of borrowers.

    A homeowner would have to claim that they are one of the “scratch and dent” borrowers or that they were subject to a “kick out” by New Century Mortgage investors. The only way to find that out is through discovery because they sure as heck won’t tell you – even though by law they were required to do so. The Missal Report also details how Patrick Flanagan, a Sr. Executive at New Century, negotiated contracts with investors that they would not kick out more than around 2.5% of the loans for known problems. This means the investors – you know the ones sitting on the Creditors committee like Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo and Credit Suisse – closed their eyes and took the Loans knowing they were taking Notes that were subject to claims by the borrowers. Missal, not surprisingly, was unable to verify this – think Deutsche Bank is going to admit that they intentionally ignored problematic loans? Does anyone know what that does to their precious “holder in due course” status? Doesn’t the UCC state that in order to claim HIDC status when the investor purchases the Notes they are claiming that they were unaware of any known “claims”??

    I am exploring this interesting aspect …and if you are a New Century Mortgage borrower…you might want to spend some time reading the Missal Report (Click HERE to down load a partial report). Compare YOUR loan to those characteristics describe as being a basis for a “kick out” (starting around page 109 of the report) and then discuss it with your attorney NOW. You have to ask, if New Century KNEW…then weren’t you entitled to ACTUAL notice and not just constructive notice of the deficiency??

  180. Guest, on February 19, 2012 at 9:42 am said:

    WHAT NOW?

  181. Guest, on February 19, 2012 at 8:53 am said:

    America hijacked 250 years ago:

  183. Abby in CA, on February 15, 2012 at 8:54 am said:

    PRESS RELEASE–IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THE FREE FORECLOSURE REVIEW–THEY’VE EXTENDED THE DEADLINE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81710589/YOU-HAVE-TIL-JULY-31-2012-FOR-THE-FREE-OCC-FORECLOSURE-REVIEW

    BE CAREFUL IN SIGNING THEIR FORMS. MINE HAD THE WRONG LOAN NUMBER ON IT…NOT THE LOAN NUMBER IN MY LOAN DOCUMENTS…AND THEY WANT YOU TO SWEAR TO THE TRUTH…SO I SAID IN A LETTER ..YOU WANT ME TO LIE ABOUT THE LOAN NUMBER!! IT IS NOT MY LOAN NUMBER.

  185. Abby in CA, on February 13, 2012 at 7:12 pm said:

    Federal Thrift shift would mean asset windfall—

    By Christine Williamson
    Published: September 5, 2011

    Index fund managers vying next year for the biggest RFP in U.S. history — managing $150 billion for the Federal Thrift Savings Plan — need to be prepared to do it on the cheap, perhaps only for profits from securities lending.

    TSP=Thrift Savings Plan=federal retirement

    Proposal would put value of unused leave into Federal Thrift Savings Plan
    Federal Thrift’s G Fund gets payments restored
    BlackRock picks multiasset exec from PIMCO ranks

    Sponsored Links

    The case for mid-caps and indexing as a 401(k) option
    Indexing beyond large cap–Rounding out your plan options with more passive choices.
    S&P Target Date Indices can help plan sponsors select and monitor target date funds.

    BlackRock Inc., New York, currently manages all four of TSP’s passive commingled funds that will come up for bid in 2012.

    The $287 billion federal thrift plan, a defined contribution plan, is the largest retirement plan in the nation; it overtook the $228 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System for that honor in 2009.

    If TSP officials continue their nearly quarter-century tradition of awarding management of all four index funds to a single manager, the $150 billion mandate will be the largest ever in the U.S., said David F. Holmes, partner at Eager, Davis & Holmes LLC, Louisville, Ky.

    Mr. Holmes said in an e-mail that the largest previous search was in 2003, when an $18 billion equity index fund manager was sought by the now-$52 billion Washington State Investment Board, Olympia. Barclays Global Investors won the Washington mandate.

    BlackRock inherited the TSP business through its 2009 acquisition of BGI. BlackRock and predecessor firms have run the money for 24 years.

    “Although the organizational name and affiliation has changed a number of times — from Wells Fargo Institutional Investors to Nikko Investment Advisors to Barclays Global Investors and now BlackRock — the same group of financial professional based in San Francisco has won the competitive bids for the TSP asset management contracts since they were first issued in 1988,” Thomas Trabucco, director of external affairs at Washington-based TSP, said in an e-mail.

    BlackRock executives no doubt are keen on retaining the TSP business, which represented about 44% of BlackRock’s U.S. defined contribution assets as of June 30 and 4.1% of the $3.7 trillion BlackRock managed for all clients as of the same date.

    Besides BlackRock, index fund managers large enough to handle such a big assignment include Northern Trust Global Investments, BNY Mellon Asset Management, State Street Global Advisors and Vanguard Group Inc., sources said.

    Officials at all four firms declined to comment on the possibility of bidding on the TSP business next year.

    Pensions & Investments estimates winning the TSP assets would increase Northern Trust’s U.S. defined contribution assets by 322%; BNY Mellon’s by 255%; SSgA’s by 89% and Vanguard’s by 41%, based on Dec. 31 data provided to P&I.

    But the prestige of managing a big chunk of the nation’s largest defined contribution plan is probably a bigger motivation than the economics of the deal.

    Information on the plan’s website shows net administrative expenses including “the management fees for each investment fund and the costs of operating and maintaining TSP’s record-keeping system” were 2.4 basis points for the S Fund (U.S. small-cap stock) and 2.5 basis points for each of the other funds. The TSP does its own record keeping with support from some outside vendors.
    No fee

    Industry sources speculate BlackRock is not charging an investment management fee. “At 2.5 basis points, the fee is just too thin. The lowest fee I’ve ever seen for even the most plain-vanilla equity index fund is 10 basis points,” said a securities lending specialist who asked for anonymity.

    “No one is going to be able to compete for this business on price because it’s effectively zero,” said Justin White, associate director, Casey, Quirk & Associates LLC, Darien, Conn.

    Mr. White, a defined contribution plan specialist consultant to money managers, said “participants in traditional corporate 401(k) plans could never pay this low a fee for plan management. Only the federal government could offer a plan at such a low fee.”

    Securities-lending revenue on the fund’s three equity index funds are the likely source of profits for BlackRock, said Mr. White.

    Neither Mr. Trabucco nor BlackRock spokeswoman Lauren Trengrove would discuss the details of the profits generated by BlackRock from its management of TSP’s securities-lending program.

    However, the anonymous securities-lending specialist agreed with CQA’s Mr. White that “there is no way that BlackRock could be managing these assets at something less than 2.5 basis points in fees without securities-lending income.”

    The specialist estimated that BlackRock could generate $91 million per year in securities-lending revenue on TSP’s $130 billion in equity index assets. Applying the typical revenue split of 60% to the plan sponsor and 40% to the money manager, BlackRock’s cut would be about $36 million.

    Few details are available about the RFP that will be issued next year for managers to run the $287 billion plan’s four externally managed investment options. Mr. Trabucco confirmed in an interview that RFPs should be issued next year “when they are ready.” He said the plan’s general consultant, Hewitt EnnisKnupp, is assisting.

    Up for bid: the F Fund, a U.S. fixed-income index fund, which totaled $20.4 billion as of July 31; the $78.2 billion C Fund, a U.S. common-stock index fund; the $27.4 billion S Fund, a U.S. small-cap equity index fund; and the $24.4 billion I Fund, an international stock index fund.

    The index options of the fund were last rebid in 2006, Mr. Trabucco said in the e-mail. By law, all of TSP’s externally managed investment options must be passively managed.

    The G fund, which totaled $137.7 billion as of July 31, is managed internally with the U.S. Treasury in government securities. It is not up for tender.

    Reporter Hazel Bradford contributed to this story.
    — Contact Christine Williamson at cwilliamson@pionline.com

  186. Abby in CA, on February 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm said:

    Yes, and here is something Neil posted on LL

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/judges-conflict-of-interest-pensions-are-in-mortgage-backed-securities/

    and Neil posted this and read down thru blog posts

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/homeowners-investigating-judges-conflict-of-interest/

    and you may want to read this to start research into Blackrock

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35925017/Are-Federal-Judges-Retirement-Plans-invested-in-MBS-ABS-Maiden-Lane-and-Blackrock

    and

    If you go to http://www.tsp.gov you will see that this is the portal for one of the retirement plans management system for federal judges (reference General Counsel letter also posted by this ScribD poster).

    Look around and you will see that http://www.tsp.gov states it uses BlackRock.

    BlackRock manages investments in MBS (mortgage backed securities) and ABS (asset based securities) etc.

    The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) operates a series of mutual funds and other accounts in which government workers can invest their retirement funds. Some of the funds are managed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, a U.S. government body, and other funds are managed under contract by the BlackRock Institutional Trust Company.

    Federal employees would include FBI, SEC etc.

    more on TSP
    Types of TSP Investment Funds

    There are a number of funds offered by the 2010 Thrift Savings Plan. The determination of which plan you are eligible to chose from starts with your coverage by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), the TSP is one part of a three-part retirement package that also includes your FERS basic annuity and of course, your Social Security. If you are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or are a member of the uniformed, the TSP is a supplement to your CSRS annuity or military retired pay. The following are the types of TSP funds that are available:

    G Fund – This is a government securities fund. These types of funds are a unique type of government security not available to the general public and are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. The G Fund was the initial fund established by the TSP when it began operations on April 1, 1987.

    F Fund- This TSP is a Fixed Income Index fund which is invested in the BlackRock’s U.S. Debt Index Fund. It tracks the Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index, a market capitalization-weighted index, very closely. The F Fund was made available to Federal employees back in January 1988, but was limited to only a portion of contributions. Starting in January 1991, all restrictions on F Fund contributions were lifted.

    C Fund – This fund is a Common Stock Index fund. The C fund is invested in BlackRock’s Equity Index fund. Thus, it replicates the total return version of the S&P 500 index. The C Fund was also opened to federal employees in January 1988 and was subjected to the same restrictions as the F Fund until January 1991.

    S Fund – This is a Small Capitalization Stock Index fund. It is invested in BlackRock’s Extended Market Index Fund. This ensures it tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Completion TSM index. The S Fund was opened to federal employees in May of 2001.

    I Fund – International Stock Index fund is the final type of TSP. IT is invested in BlackRock’s EAFE Index Fund. Thus, it replicates the net version of the MSCI EAFE index (An index designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets outside of the U.S. & Canada). The I Fund opened to employees in May 2001.

    see http://www.tsp.gov

    Fund Management

    Summary of the Thrift Savings Plan

    G Fund
    F,C,S, and I Funds
    L Funds

    G Fund

    The G Fund assets are managed internally by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The G Fund buys a nonmarketable U.S. Treasury security that is guaranteed by the U.S. Government. This means that the G Fund will not lose money.

    F,C,S, and I Funds

    The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board currently contracts BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (BlackRock) to manage the F, C, S, and I Fund assets.

    The Board invests the assets of the F, C, S, and I Funds in commingled trust funds managed by BlackRock. These trust funds are comprised of investments by tax-exempt institutions like the TSP, such as pension plans and endowments. Investing collectively in this way can be advantageous because it reduces trading costs. The securities held in these commingled funds are held in trust and they are not assets of BlackRock, nor can they be used to meet the financial obligations of BlackRock.

    The F, C, S, and I Funds are index funds, each of which is invested in order to replicate the risk and return characteristics of its appropriate benchmark index. For example, the C Fund is invested in a stock index fund that fully replicates the Standard and Poor’s 500 (S&P 500) Index, a broad market index made up of the stocks of 500 large to medium-sized U.S. companies. The C Fund’s objective is to match the performance of the S&P 500. The F, C, S, and I Funds remain invested in the BlackRock funds regardless of the performance of the securities markets or the overall economy.

    BlackRock Funds
    Although the BlackRock funds operate in a manner similar to mutual funds, they are not, in fact, mutual funds and are not open to individual investors. Furthermore, they are trust funds that are regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency, not by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and therefore do not have ticker symbols.
    L Funds

    The L Funds are invested in the five individual TSP funds based on professionally determined asset allocations.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    also see

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/07/20/mark-stopa-to-foreclosure-judge-i-am-concerned-at-your-decision-to-continue-presiding-over-mortgage-foreclosure-cases-given-your-personal-ties-to-the-banking-industry/

    see my next post—

  187. Guest, on February 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm said:

    Abby. Are you saying that federal judges pension plans have invested in theses toxic mortgage back securities? Do you have any details? Recently a U.S. Supreme Certiorari was filed claiming this the same thin against California judges, because CALPERS is heavily invested in those papers.

  188. Abby in CA, on February 13, 2012 at 12:44 pm said:

    HAVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT A FEDERAL JUDGE’S MISCONDUCT?
    HERE ARE RULES AND FORM.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81494462/Judicial-Misconduct-Complaint-Form-the-Rules

    –be pondering, the federal judges have retirement plans and most are managed by Blackrock. Blackrock handles the Maiden Lane ‘toxic’ MBS….and other MBS investments

  190. Guest, on February 10, 2012 at 6:42 pm said:

    AG’s sold out the public one more time. A national boycott of making any mortgage payments is probably the only way to rise against these criminals, namely, banks law-enforcers, and courts, Or, does anyone know of any other way?

  191. Abby in CA, on February 10, 2012 at 4:21 am said:

    Article on what to say for a late filed proof of claim in bankruptcy–

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/36390688/What-to-say-for-a-Late-Filed-Proof-of-Claim-for-Bankruptcy

  192. Abby in CA, on February 10, 2012 at 4:01 am said:

    @Steve
    and one additional point regarding my prior post—–

    The Creditor has a very credible and reasonable explanation for failing to file the Claim before the Bar Date. The Creditor was not on notice of the bankruptcy filing. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding excusable neglect.

    and my disclaimer applies to this post as well.

  193. Abby in CA, on February 10, 2012 at 3:55 am said:

    @Steve
    Well the pro se who got the judge to sign the order on the pro se Motion to Accept Late Filed Proof of Claim as Timely filed used the following:

    —Pursuant to Rule 9006(b)(1) of the Bankrutpcy Rules, the Court may permit a proof of claim to be filed after the bar date if the failure to file a timely claim was the result of “excusable neglect.” The determination of whether the failure to file a timely claim was due to excusable neglect is an equitable one and requires consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Associ. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993) (affirming judgment holding creditor’s delay was due to excusable neglect). Thus, excusable neglect is not limited to situations where a creditor’s late filing was due to circumstances beyond the creidtor’s control, but also encompasses situations where the omission was caused by the creditor’s “inadvertance, mistake or carelessness.” Id. at 388.

    —In determining whether the excusable neglect standard is met, courts examine the following four factors enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Pioneer case: (i) “the danger of prejudice to the debtor,” (ii)” the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,” (iii) “the reason for the delay, including whether it was within reasonable control of the movant,” and (iv) “whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 395; see also, NRG Energy, Inc. v. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors (In re O’Brien Envtl. Energy, Inc.), 188 F. 3d 116, 125-130 (3d Cir. 1999). Consideration of those factors in light of the circumstances present here clearly demonstrates that the Creditor’s late filing was the result of excusable neglect.

    Pro se filed the claim in 2009 with the Bar Date for New Century being in 2007.

    Thus, if a lawyer cannot do the same for the client up in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the New Century bankruptcy case, then Heaven Help Us All!!

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor offering legal services. I am offering discussion on this blog for the sake of educational purposes only. Always consult a competent attorney in your jurisdiction.

  194. Steve, on February 9, 2012 at 10:19 pm said:

    Dear Abby,

    I have no interest in recruiting clients for a bankruptcy action. I really made my post not as an attack on you, but just to show the obvious. There is no claim made by this group that is going to prevail. Feel assured, if there were valid claims, there would be no shortage of attorneys willing to represent these pro se homeowners. I wish you all the best.

    Regards,

    Steve

  195. bruce, on February 9, 2012 at 9:38 pm said:

    hi, anybody know what the new settlement means for people who have been foreclosed on after the dec 31st 2011 deadline? i apologize for my ignorance on these matters, but realistically speaking, is it better to just walk away from the house and let them foreclose? i am reading a lot of conflicting information, that taking them to court has been working for some, but it seems that when i do the research on actual cases, the courts seem to be showing homeowners no love. we have managed to save some money from walking away the mortgage payments, but i’m unsure if that money would be well spent on an attorney that “gets it”. any info would be appreciated, thanks!

  196. Abby in CA, on February 9, 2012 at 8:55 pm said:

    @Steve
    with all due respect do you know about this pro se who filed the claim on Nov. 22, 2008?

    In a 14 page opinion published June 7, 2011, Judge Carey ruled that publication of notice in only two newspapers was insufficient information to grant a motion to dismiss based on adequacy of notice.
    Background
    New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (the “Debtor”), filed voluntary petitions for bankruptcy on April 2, 2007 and the claims Bar Date was established as August 31, 2007. On July 23, 2007, the claims agent published a notice of the Bar Date in The Wall Street Journal and The Orange County Register. Opinion at *3. On November 22, 2008, the plaintiffs in the adversary proceeding that gave rise to this opinion (the “Whites”) filed a claim. The Trustee for the Debtor objected to the claim on August 13, 2010, and the Whites filed this adversary complaint on November 10, 2010, requesting the Court cancel their mortgage note. After the Court consolidated the adversary proceeding and the claim, the Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and (2) for asserting claims after the bar date.
    Judge Carey began his discussion of the Motion to Dismiss by examining the subject matter jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. Ultimately determining that because the Debtors “did not, at the time of the bankruptcy filing, and do not now, have any interest in the Note or Mortgage,” the Courts lacks subject matter jurisdiction to order rescission or cancellation of the Mortgage. Opinion at *7. Judge Carey then granted this portion of the Motion to Dismiss.
    Judge Carey then turned to the Motion to Dismiss as far as it pertained to the late-filed claims. The Whites argued that they did not receive adequate notice of the bar date, and therefore, their claims should not be barred. The Trustee argued that as the Whites were unknown claimants, publication of the bar date in the two newspapers was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. Opinion at *12-13. Judge Carey cites extensively to Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 1995), in discussing the adequacy of service.
    In Chemetron, the debtors published notice in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and seven local newspapers, satisfying the Third Circuit that the debtors had met their due process burden. In the instant case, Judge Carey held that the Trustee has not proved that publication in one national newspaper and one local newspaper is sufficient to meet due process requirements. Opinion at *14. He then denied the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss.

    @Steve
    and there was one pro se who filed a proof of claim in 2009 and Judge Carey signed the order that it was timely filed.

    and there are cases where claims are re-instated, isn’t that correct?

    and even if a claim is dismissed, one can appeal, correct?

    and even if a claim is dismissed, does that preclude a person form proceeding with an Adversary Proceeding?

    So, now I can let you take over and you can pay PACER to go read and to keep us all posted on what all the pro se’s are doing up in Delaware.

    OK Steve? Carry on!

  197. Steve, on February 9, 2012 at 7:49 pm said:

    Abby in CA, on February 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm said:
    @Steve-and just who are you? Which attorney firm do you work for? Hahn & Hessen or Blank Rome? What homeowner/borrower cases have you read about? Heard of appeals? There are still many the judge has NOT ruled on! So who are you and what do you do? Are you trying to be stealth?

    I’m not really sure what difference it makes if I work for a certain law firm or not. I have been following the bankruptcy after seeing your many posts. You can simply go to the Court’s website or PACER and read the orders and decisions. Do you read any of them? Maybe you could tell me what homeowner still has any kind of claim after the court ruled Ms. Galope’s claim was time barred. It appears that all the pro se claims were untimely. Following the logic of Ms. Galope’s decision, all the other claims that are not denied now will be shortly. If you had a valid claim you needed to file you claim by August 31, 2007. You may read the Hon. Judge Carey’s decision here:

    http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/Opinions/opinions_carey.htm

    I’d love to hear your thoughts……..

  198. Abby in CA, on February 9, 2012 at 4:41 pm said:

    STATE BY STATE LIST OF AMOUNTS OF THE FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81116415/2-9-2012-AG-Foreclosure-Settlement-Amounts-BY-STATE

  199. Abby in CA, on February 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm said:

    AG Kamala Harris’ Youtube announcement of Foreclosure Settlement for California

  200. Abby in CA, on February 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm said:

    @Steve-and just who are you? Which attorney firm do you work for? Hahn & Hessen or Blank Rome? What homeowner/borrower cases have you read about? Heard of appeals? There are still many the judge has NOT ruled on! So who are you and what do you do? Are you trying to be stealth?

  201. Steve, on February 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm said:

    Abby in CA wrote:

    WHAT WHAT?? THE WORSE SUBPRIME PREDATORY LENDER STILL IN BANKRUPTCY SINCE APRIL OF 2007 AND THE LIQUIDATING TRUST IS BRINGING IN MONEY?? THEY STILL HAVE OVER $34 MILLION IN CASH!!
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80589022/NEW-CENTURY-TRUST-RAKING-IN-THE-MONEY-IN-THEIR-BANKRUPTCY-QTRLY-REPORT-ENDING-12-31-2011
    IF ANY OF YOU HAD YOUR LOAN ORIGINATED BY NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE OR HOME123 CORPORATION…CONTACT A LAWYER TO DISCUSS FILING A CLAIM AND AN AP UP IN THAT BANKRUPTCY.
    THE BKR TRUSTEE (APPOINTED) PAYS HIS COUNSELS BETWEEN 100K & 300k PER MONTH.

    The Bankruptcy Court has DENIED these late filed claims. Homeowners CANNOT recovery anything.

  202. Abby in CA, on February 6, 2012 at 10:09 pm said:

    NEW-ACTION PLAN TO STOP FORECLOSURES-COMMUNITY BASED

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80735841/Action-Plan-to-Stop-Foreclosures

  203. Ready to "throw off", on February 6, 2012 at 7:54 pm said:

    Quoting the Declaration of Independence:
    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
    Are we done yet? No AG or State that purports to take down the banks can ever succeed. Occupy was a joke. We need real Americans to tell the courts NO MORE OPPRESSION.

  204. Abby in CA, on February 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm said:

    CALL CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN LEAVE HER AN URGENT MESSAGE TO NOT SETTLE WITH BANKS.

    CALL 916-322-3360
    PRESS 1 FOR english
    PRESS 7 FOR where you can record your message–it will ring a couple times then voice prompt to leave message.
    when done PRESS 2 to mark the message URGENT

    FAX her at 916-323-5341

  205. Abby in CA, on February 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm said:

    WHAT WHAT?? THE WORSE SUBPRIME PREDATORY LENDER STILL IN BANKRUPTCY SINCE APRIL OF 2007 AND THE LIQUIDATING TRUST IS BRINGING IN MONEY?? THEY STILL HAVE OVER $34 MILLION IN CASH!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80589022/NEW-CENTURY-TRUST-RAKING-IN-THE-MONEY-IN-THEIR-BANKRUPTCY-QTRLY-REPORT-ENDING-12-31-2011

    IF ANY OF YOU HAD YOUR LOAN ORIGINATED BY NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE OR HOME123 CORPORATION…CONTACT A LAWYER TO DISCUSS FILING A CLAIM AND AN AP UP IN THAT BANKRUPTCY.

    THE BKR TRUSTEE (APPOINTED) PAYS HIS COUNSELS BETWEEN 100K & 300k PER MONTH.

  206. Abby in CA, on February 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm said:

    podcast- california attorney wins free house before ninth circuit court of appeals

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80497167/Attorney-Wins-Free-House-Before-Ninth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-PODCAST

  207. Abby in CA, on February 4, 2012 at 10:20 am said:

    feb 3 2012–OCCUPY LA’s Letter to Kamala Harris urging her to not settle and to place a moratorium on foreclosures

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80482362/Occupy-LA-s-Letter-to-Kamala-Harris-Feb-3-2012

  208. Abby in CA, on February 4, 2012 at 9:39 am said:

    EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT–IN DEPTH EXPLANATION AND EXAMINATION BY————

    CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL REPORT ON ‘EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY AND FORECLOSURE MITIGATION.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80479311/WORSE-CASE-OR-BEST-CASE-Examining-the-Consequences-of-Mortgage-Irregularities-for-Financial-Stability-and-Foreclosure-Mitigation-Congressional-Overs

  209. Abby in CA, on February 3, 2012 at 12:34 pm said:

    JUDGE DENIES EMER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE–FURTHERING THE COVER-UP OF ILLEGAL NOTARY ACTS

    New Century Mortgage and Home123 Corporation have been in bankruptcy since 4-2-2007 in Delaware under Judge Kevin Carey. The appointed bankruptcy trustee, Alan Jacobs, has retained a NYC law firm Hahn & Hessen to represent him. Under testimony to a pro se Alan Jacobs admitted he pays Hahn & Hessen 100K-300K per month!

    The bankruptcy judge and the trustee are clearly prejudiced against the homeowners (now about 15 of us) who are fighting them up in that court. the judge recently announced at a hearing that he would not give anybody a free home.

    He also failed to do the right thing and order all the employee-notary journals brought to court for examination.

    This homeowner discovered pervasive assignment fraud by the notary-employees of these companies. They were all California notaries. Their fraudulent and invalid assignments are recorded across the USA.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80403480/NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-BANKRUPTCY-JUDGE-DENIES-EMERGENCY-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-REGARDNG-PERVASIVE-NOTARY-FRAUD-NOTARY-WAS-EMPLOYEE

  210. Abby in CA, on January 31, 2012 at 4:32 pm said:

    Larry
    I don’t offer any services. I have been a very long time poster on LL and Neil has in the past cited my posts.

  211. Abby in CA, on January 31, 2012 at 3:33 pm said:

    Michigan AG asked to not sign onto the DOJ Foreclosure Settlement!!
    Breaking News. Read the reasons why folks.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80022389/SHROUDED-IN-SECRECY-MICHIGAN-AG-ASKED-TO-NOT-SIGN-THE-FORECLOSURE-SETTLEMENT-DEAL-JAN-31-2012

  212. Larry, on January 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm said:

    Abby in CA – Do you have a web site or other place describing your services and/or experience? I don’t see any contact information in your posts.

    Thanks

  213. Abby in CA, on January 31, 2012 at 10:13 am said:

    DO NOT LET WASHINGTON DC TAKE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AWAY- USE THIS WORD TEMPLATE TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS TO FIGHT ROBO-SIGNING AND DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79983969/FORECLOSURE-VICTIMS-CALL-TO-ACTION-PROTECT-YOUR-RIGHTS-USE-THIS-TEMPLATE-TO-FAX

    FEEL FREE TO MODIFY THE TEMPLATE. IT ALSO LISTS KEY FAX NUMBERS FOR WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

    YOU CAN USE RINGCENTRAL FOR FAX SERVICES $9.99 PER MONTH, NO CONTRACT. YOU SET UP FAX NUMBERS ONCE AND THEN USE OVER AND OVER AGAIN

  214. disableddad, on January 30, 2012 at 7:46 am said:

    Abby,
    Your experience with the INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE REVIEW PAPERWORK is identical to mine. I have my loan number that is evidenced on my note and my DOT and the BANK has a completely different number. My “eligibility” was based on my address. Sounds like a fantastic idea to let those who screwed us run the review.
    DUH

  215. Abby in CA, on January 28, 2012 at 11:48 am said:

    ALARMS GOING OFF— DOUBLE SPEAK–SETTLEMENTS ALMOST A DONE DEAL!! ROBO-SIGNING CAN NO LONGER BE AN ISSUE

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/obama-administration-mortgage-fraud-settlement_n_1236708.html

    AND
    EXCERPT
    Any final agreement will be narrowly focused to release banks from claims related only to documentation errors and other so-called robo-signing conduct, said the person, who declined to be identified because the talks are ongoing.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/27/bloomberg_articlesLYGVL007SXKX01-LYH04.DTL

  216. disclosurerealty, on January 27, 2012 at 9:05 pm said:

    http://quran.com/2/85 Evictions-(a History of)

  217. Abby in CA, on January 27, 2012 at 5:04 pm said:

    DOJ ISSUES 11 SUBPOENAS TODAY–MORE TO COME!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79635033/11-Subpoena-s-Issued-by-DOJ-More-to-Come

  218. Abby in CA, on January 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm said:

    BEWARE AND BE CAREFUL IF YOU ARE DOING THE INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE REVIEW PAPERWORK — REMEMBER THE OCC CONSENT ORDERS WITH THE BIG BANKS? YOU HAVE UNTIL END OF APRIL TO SUBMIT THE PAPERWORK.

    IN EXAMINING MINE, I SEE THAT THE BANK INVOLVED IN MY FORECLOSURE HAS LISTED ITS LOAN NUMBER BUT NOT THE LOAN NUMBER THAT IS ACTUALLY ON MY NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST (MORTGAGE IN SOME STATES).

    IN FACT, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE REAL LOAN NUMBER ANYWHERE ON THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW FORM.

    AND ON THE LAST PAGE WHERE THEY WANT YOU TO SIGN IT SAYS ‘by signing this document, I certify that all the information is truthful. I understand that knowingly submitting false information may constitute fraud. I affirm that I am the borrower or co-borrower of the mortgage loan on the property noted within this document, and I am authorized by all borrower(s) to have my signature grant permission to proceed with this request for review.”

    IT’S A TRAP. NOT ONLY THE ‘AFFIRMATION’ BUT THEN THEY WANT YOU TO CERTIFY ALL INFORMATION IS TRUTHFUL WHEN THEY DON’T EVEN USE THE LOAN NUMBER CONTAINED WITHIN THE EXECUTED LOAN DOCS, LIKE YOUR DEED OF TRUST OR NOTE.

    BEWARE. I’D CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

    HERE IS LINK TO THE FREE FORECLOSURE REVIEW-OCC

    http://independentforeclosurereview.com/

  219. Abby in CA, on January 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm said:

    STEPS ON HOW TO WRITE COMPLAINT AND ASK FOR INVESTIGATION INTO YOUR MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATION AND SECURITIZATION FRAUD FORECLOSURE ISSUES.- NEW INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79626467/TAKE-ACTION-NOW-How-to-Get-Your-Loan-Origination-Fraud-Securitization-Issues-Related-to-Your-Foreclosure-to-the-New-Fraud-Task-Force

    ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION VICTIMS. ALSO WAMU, COUNTRYWIDE ETC.

    EVEN IF YOUR ORIGINAL ‘LENDER’ IS DEFUNCT—-DO IT

  220. Abby in CA, on January 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm said:

    Michelle Salcido v Aurora Loan Services

    Cal Western is foreclosure trustee. Federal District Court in California

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79518739/Michelle-Salcido-v-Aurora-Loan-Services-Decision-Filed-1-17-2012-Judge-H-Matz

    Accordingly, Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, but only against Cal–Western.

    The tender rule is not absolute, however, and “tender may not be required where it would be inequitable to do so.” Onofrio v. Rice, 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 (1997)

  221. Abby in CA, on January 25, 2012 at 11:43 am said:

    BANK OF AMERICA POSES GRAVE THREAT TO FINANCIAL STABILITY – PETITION FOR ITS BREAK-UP

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79368118/BANK-OF-AMERICA-POSES-GRAVE-THREAT-PETITION-CALLS-FOR-BREAKUP-OF-BANK-READ-PRESS-RELEASE-PETITION-AND-LETTER-HERE

  222. Abby in CA, on January 25, 2012 at 11:08 am said:

    Occupy Davos build igloos –what is Davos?–a place in Switzerland where about 2600 world leaders and finance folks are meeting at the World Economic Forum. Hotel rooms run $500 so the OCCUPY folks are staying in their own built igloos.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79364915/Occupy-Davos-Protesters-Build-Igloos

  223. Abby in CA, on January 22, 2012 at 4:02 pm said:

    OBAMA PUTTING PRESSURE ON AG’S TO SETTLE===
    CALL TO ACTION FOR MONDAY JAN. 23 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79039854/CALL-TO-ACTION-JANUARY-23-2012-OBAMA-PUTTING-PRESSURE-ON-Attorney-General-Kamala-Harris-TO-SETTLE

  224. Abby in CA, on January 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm said:

    FILED WRIT IN CALIFORNIA TO KEEP OBAMA OFF THE BALLOT AND STOP HIS FUND RAISING- 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78908574/2012-California-Writ-to-Keep-Obama-Off-Ballot-Stop-Fund-Raising

  225. Abby in CA, on January 19, 2012 at 10:14 am said:

    California Class Action Complaint – Huezo v US Bank -TILA etc.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78761719/CALIFORNIA-HUEZO-V-US-BANK-Class-Action-Complaint-TILA-US-BANK-as-Trustee-SASCO-MBST

  226. Abby in CA, on January 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm said:

    HOT BIG CLASS ACTION AGAINST CHASE–FOR ALLEGED BANKRUPTCY FRAUD, FABRICATION, PHOTOSHOPPING ETC. AND ENTERED AS EVIDENCE INTO BKR COURT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78575176/READ-COMPLAINT-HERE-CLASS-ACTION-AGAINST-CHASE-Accused-of-Brazen-Bankruptcy-Fraud-CHASE-HOME-FINANCE-PHOTOSHOP

  227. Abby in CA, on January 7, 2012 at 11:44 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA APPEAL DECISION—IF THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT HAS THE TERMINOLOGY ‘IF ANY’ THEN IT’S VOID!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77521475/CALIFORNIA-APPEAL-DECISION-Anolik-vs-EMC-THE-NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT-IS-VOID-IF-THE-TERM-IF-ANY-IS-USED

  228. Abby in CA, on January 6, 2012 at 3:29 pm said:

    ANYBODY WANT TO BE A MOLE AND DO THIS WEBINAR—GET THE INSIDE SCOOP & REPORT BACK

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77393372/REGULATORY-MORTGAGE-WEBINAR-FEB-8-2012

  230. Abby in CA, on January 5, 2012 at 4:31 am said:

    IF YOU HAD ANY OF THESE NOTARIES ON YOUR ASSIGNMENTS—TAKE ACTION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77218523/If-You-Had-Any-of-These-Notaries-on-Your-Documents

  231. Abby in CA, on January 5, 2012 at 3:36 am said:

    OCCUPY THE ROSE PARADE PHOTOS HERE–ORDERLY-JAN 2012
    IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77215946/OCCUPY-THE-ROSE-PARADE-PHOTOS-HERE-ORDERLY-MARCH-JAN-2012

  232. Abby in CA, on December 29, 2011 at 11:00 am said:

    to Guest
    maybe, but we refuse to be ‘sheeple’

  233. Guest, on December 29, 2011 at 10:08 am said:

    Abby: this is probably another scam to entertain the U.S.Sheeple to buy time to steal more houses…while believing their DOJ will do something…

  234. Abby in CA, on December 28, 2011 at 8:23 pm said:

    FINANCIAL FRAUD ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE (USDOJ-ERIC HOLDER)

    EASY ONLINE REPORTING!! GO HERE CLICK ON THE GREEN BUTTON ‘REPORT FRAUD’

    http://www.stopfraud.gov/

  235. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on December 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm said:

    Their lawyer in CA says we are barred from any claim since we did not file in time. How could we if we were not notified of the BK.

    If you want her name and number it is on the Business look up or just drop me a note.

    They responded to our law suit by letter only not sufficient to reply but the default was not allowed by the clerk of the court since they sent a letter 2 times to us and the court and he figured they replied.

  236. Abby in CA, on December 28, 2011 at 11:33 am said:

    Abby in CA, on December 28, 2011 at 11:32 am said:

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION VICTIMS OF PREDATORY LOANS. UPDATE. THEY ARE STILL IN BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE WITH $30 MILLION IN CASH.

    MORE AND MORE HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS WHO HAD PREDATORY LOANS ORIGINATED BY THESE COMPANIES ARE FILING CLAIMS AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS UP IN THEIR BANKRUPTCY. THE JUDGE AND THE BKR TRUSTEE HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE ‘FLOODGATES’ OPENING WITH HOMEOWNER/BORROWER FILING LAWSUITS WITHIN THE BANKRUPTCY (AND CLAIMS). THE BKR TRUSTEE, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEYS WHO GET BETWEEN 100k-300k PER MONTH TO REPRESENT HIM, HAS INDICATED HE INTENDS TO HAVE THE BKR COMPLETE IN 2012.

    NO HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS WERE EVER NOTIFIED OF THEIR DECLARING BANKRUPTCY ON 4-2-2007 AND MANY ARE JUST NOW LEARNING THIS. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE IF YOU CAN FILE A CLAIM AND/OR LAWSUIT UP THERE.

    HERE, THE JUDGE UP IN DELAWARE HAS AGAIN ISSUED A STAY ON A PRO SE HOMEOWNER/BORROWER’S ADVERSARY PROCEEDING. SHE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DO DISCOVERY. THAT JUDGE DID THE SAME THING TO ANOTHER PRO SE HOMEOWNER/BORROWER.

    (NOTE TO WAMU PEOPLE–YOU MAY BE ABLE TO DO SAME, SO CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO SEE IF YOU CAN FILE CLAIM AND/OR LAWSUIT)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76666231/12-2011-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-BANKRUPTCY-JUDGE-DOES-IT-AGAIN-STAYS-A-SECOND-PRO-SE-s-ADVERSARY-PROCEEDING-PREVENTS-DISCOVERY

  237. Abby in CA, on December 27, 2011 at 10:07 am said:

    WATCH MR RAJA TALK ABOUT HOW HIS SIGNATURE ON A MORTGAGE LOAN TURNED INTO $92 MILLION OF FRAUDULENT TRIPLE A RATED BONDS SOLD TO INVESTORS!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76593304/HOW-ONE-MAN-S-SIGNATURE-ON-HOME-LOAN-TURNED-INTO-FRAUDULENT-92-MILLION-WORTH-OF-BONDS-WITH-TRIPLE-A-RATINGS

  238. Abby in CA, on December 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm said:

    AG KAMALA HARRIS FILED PETITION TO ENFORCE INVESTIGATIVE INTERROGATORIES IN CALIFORNIA AGAINST FREDDIE MAC AND FANNIE MAE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76266421/CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-PETITION-TO-ENFORCE-INVESTIGATIVE-INTERROGATORIES-FANNIE-MAE-FREDDIE-MAC

  239. Abby in CA, on December 19, 2011 at 12:11 am said:

    USDC Vogan v Wells Fargo, US Bank

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76026663/Vogan-v-Wells-Fargo-US-Bank-as-trustee-for-WSMBS-USDC-Eastern-District-Calif-granting-in-part-denying-in-part-motion-to-dismiss

    read sections discussing TILA, Tender, Jurisdiction, assignment, mbs, cutoff date

  240. Abby in CA, on December 18, 2011 at 11:03 pm said:

    Alys Cohen (Nat’l. Consumer Law Center) testimony == preview of the Foreclosure Review Forms (OCC) and she discusses things such as

    Fees are a profit center for Servicers etc.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76022962/Testimony-of-Alys-Cohen-Before-US-Housing-SubCommittee-Alys-from-Nati-l-Consumer-Law-Center-12-13-2011

  241. Fred Flinstone, on December 17, 2011 at 1:45 pm said:

    Bankruptcy Trustee pays 100-300K per month to attorneys but frets that pro se homeowner-creditors may take liquidation monies away from the likes of Deutsche etc.

    attorney witness testifies she never thought of homeowner-borrower’s of New Century Mortgage to become creditors!! no notice given to homeowner-borrowers that New Century delcared banktuptcy.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75946262/NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-TRUSTEE-PAYS-COUNSELS-100-300K-PER-MONTH-WORRIES-ABOUT-PRO-SE-HOMEOWNERS-MAKING-CLAIMS-THAT-THEY-WILL-TAKE-LIDQUIDATION-MONIES

  243. Abby in CA, on December 15, 2011 at 2:57 pm said:

    Congressmen write letter to Obama in support of Kamala Harris not going along with multi-state settelments!! 12-15-2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75812809/12-15-11-California-Congressmen-Write-to-President-Obama-in-support-of-AG-Kamala-Harris-not-going-along-with-multi-state-setllement

  244. Abby in CA, on December 15, 2011 at 11:58 am said:

    MAX’S TIPS ON SPOTTING FAKE MORTGAGE DOCS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75799016/Max-Gardner-s-65-Tips-FOR-FAKE-MORTGAGE-DOCUMENTS

  245. Abby in CA, on December 13, 2011 at 8:09 am said:

    THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF FILING A BANKRUPTCY APPEAL–SOME GOOD TIPS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75570481/THE-NUTS-AND-BOLTS-OF-FILING-A-BANKRUPTCY-APPEAL

  246. Fred Flinstone, on December 12, 2011 at 6:59 pm said:

    AGENDA FOR COURT IN DELAWARE – MORE PRO SE HOMEOWNERS ARE FIGHTING THE NOTORIOUS SUBPRIME LENDER

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75515999/NEW-CENTURY-LIQUIDATING-TRUST-AGENDA-FOR-DEC-13-2011

  247. Abby in CA, on December 7, 2011 at 10:37 am said:

    CALL TO ACTION—REMIC VIOLATIONS-KEEP THE PRESSURE UP AND TELL DC TO DO THEIR JOBS!!

    EASY STEPS TO TAKE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75026187/CALL-FOR-OCCUPY-THE-IRS-PUT-THE-PRESSURE-ON-VIOLATIONS-OF-FEDERAL-LAWS-NOTHING-IS-BEING-DONE-INSTITUTIONAL-INVESTORS-ALERT

  248. Abby in CA, on December 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm said:

    TWO POWERFUL WESTERN STATES ATTORNEY GENERALS ANNOUNCE ALLIANCE FOR INVESTIGATION INTO LOAN ORIGINATIONS, ILLEGALNOTARY ACTS, ROBO-SIGNING ETC

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74932232/TWO-POWERFUL-ATTORNEY-GENERALS-ANNOUNCE-ALLIANCE-ON-INVESTIGATIONS-INTO-FRAUD-ROBO-SIGNING-ILLEGAL-NOTARY-ACTS-LOAN-ORIGINATION-DEC-6-2011

  249. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on December 5, 2011 at 3:17 pm said:

    No doubt Neil: Those people are nuts. My Great-Great-Great-Great grandfather of 1825 was pony express from Sadalia MO to St Louis, which became I believe the USPS. I was unbelievable when Clinton closed the Sunday availability of post marking but I guess you can do it by machine now. People are expendable (Hal, turn the air back on, Hal, 2001 space Odyssey) they think. It is so sad that all the wonderful things that come out of the College Grant Programs for the Market and royalties are not used For J Q public the Treasury. Greatest example now is the touch screen developed by NASA, our taxes should not exist.

  250. Abby in CA, on December 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm said:

    MORE OUTRAGE- IT’S THE PRINCIPAL OF THE THING!!

    So, the US Government bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions, yet our US Postal Service tracing its roots to 1775 and one of the few US Government agencies explicitly authorized by the US constitution is waffling with debt and budget problems to the point now where US Post Offices are going to be closed and just announced is that the US Postal Service will NO longer deliver first class mail on the next day.

    I strongly suggest you email President Obama -here is the place to go to do that:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    AND contact your local Congressmen to complain.

    Think about how outrageous this is!! Bailing out banks (profiteers tied to the stock market) but NOT our own United States Postal Service.

    Please express your outrage.

  252. Abby in Ca, on November 29, 2011 at 11:40 am said:

    AFFADAVIT FROM JOHN O’BRIEN, REGISTER OF DEEDS IN MA – RE: STEVE NAGY OF NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORP.

    (NOTE Steve Nagy left those companys in Dec. of 2007–information obtained from discovery in the DE bankruptcy case for New Century)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74173393/NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-HOME123-CORP-S-STEVE-NAGY-KNOWN-ROBO-SIGNER-OR-SURROGATE-SIGNER-AFFADAVIT-FROM-JOHN-O-BRIEN-OF-MA-REGISTER-OF-DEEDS

  253. FredFlinstone, on November 19, 2011 at 12:01 pm said:

    here is the link to the california notary guides/laws by year

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/handbook.htm

    you should be aware that you request copies of the notary journal pages from the county in california where the notary was/is commissioned. The Secyt. of State of California does not keep any notary journals. There is a minimal fee associated with getting the copies of the pages and I’d request that the pages be certifie

  254. Charles Cox, on November 19, 2011 at 11:37 am said:

    And…fraudulent recording can be a felony with substantially more in fines.

  255. Charles Cox, on November 19, 2011 at 11:36 am said:

    FredFlintstone,

    You may wish to check notary non-compliance as there could very well be a $10k fine associated with wrong-doing accordingly.

  256. FredFlinstone, on November 19, 2011 at 10:13 am said:

    OUTRAGE–OUR CALIFORNIA COUNTY RECORDERS WILL RECORD ANYTHING!! EVEN IF IT IS FRAUDULENT. THIS PERSON SENT ALONG AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE NOTARY SAYING SHE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN HER NOTARY JOURNAL RELATED TO THE RECORDING- A PROPERTY RELATED DOCUMENT–AND THIS IS A CALIFORNIA NOTARY AND THE NOTARY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA NOTARY LAWS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/73211240/OUTRAGE-ALAMEDA-COUNTY-RECORDER-WILL-RECORD-FRAUDULENT-DOCUMENTS-EVEN-IIF

  257. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on November 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm said:

    Thanks Mr. Cox:
    yes I have thought of that and writ of replevin since they sold the house to the foreclosing Beneficiary while in court. also I am in USED Superior court and need help they are playing games by moving dates and slaming time lines. 2:11-cv-02370-LKK-DAD. Send me a email and I will send you the case if you like groveey@wildblue.net

  258. Charles Cox, on November 18, 2011 at 6:15 pm said:

    Look into writ of mandamus if you have to…

  259. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on November 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm said:

    A felony it may be but in El Dorado County the DA will not prosecute and in CA the Dept of Business sends you a letter and does nothing, The SEC will not prosecute and the FBI just takes you information and does nothing – 2 calls since Feb 23 2011 and both were to take information because of my call as to what was happening and they were just returning my call and I even carrier the documents to the FBI and Filed the Documents with The County DA (he sent a letter saying it is a Civil matter and would not prosecute. Good luck and if you get someone to help let me know.

    I am in USED Superior court right now and need all the help I can get.
    11-15-11 I submitted a sum certain Default judgement on 3 of the lenders in the chain of events for failure to appear or respond to the summons and complaint 9-8-11 (one did send a letter but was not filed timely an did not plead because they are in Chapter 11 and claim we are to late for a claim against them) and I just checked and the Clerk of the court still has not entered the default as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 a b1. Help?

  262. FredFlinstone, on November 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm said:

    occupy oakland protestors and aclu sue the city of oakland!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/72822068/OCCUPY-OAKLAND-PROTESTORS-AND-ACLU-SUE-CITY-OF-OAKLAND

  264. Guest, on November 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm said:

    Israeli style eviction of Americans into concentration camps:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLRAFgBh37w

  265. Abby in CA, on November 12, 2011 at 9:55 am said:

    EVICTION NOTICE TO OCCUPY OAKLAND 11-11-2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/72486611/EVICTION-NOTICE-TO-OCCUPY-OAKLAND-NOV-11-2011

  266. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on November 7, 2011 at 8:32 pm said:

    Thanks for the videos.

    I still need help they are blocking my attempt to see the Sr. Judge and making me present to the Magistrate. any ideas?

  267. Jay, on November 6, 2011 at 11:17 pm said:

    CIA (Robert Steele) evil of ruling banks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gWfyC3rzN8&feature=related

  268. Guest, on November 6, 2011 at 10:41 pm said:

    More on who rules the 99.9% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUqFKYXUt2E&feature=related

  269. Guest, on November 4, 2011 at 9:02 am said:

    FBI (Ted Gunderson): who rules the 99.9% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwgw1rtWjgw&feature=email

  270. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on November 2, 2011 at 11:17 am said:

    Any one can help me ? I need some one to help with the TILA and RESPA sum certain calculations the first lender failed to respond to the summons.

  271. Li, on November 2, 2011 at 9:16 am said:

    Because they don’t care about us 99%

  272. Guest, on October 29, 2011 at 5:00 pm said:

    FBI (Michael Doyle) on U.S. agenda against 99.9%: “Steal oil and maintain U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency” http://www.towersofdeceit911.com/

  273. Joe, on October 28, 2011 at 9:12 pm said:

    VETERANS v. Bankster COPS = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro1lFShEQ2o

  274. Guest, on October 28, 2011 at 9:27 am said:

    Bombing by Cops and AG is all we get folks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OZLyUK0t0vQ
    as GADDAFI was treated when attempted to create true gold-based currency: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL7YdhqvEEo&feature=email

  275. Abby in CA, on October 28, 2011 at 7:32 am said:

    ACTION ALERT–PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND HELP CALIFORNIANS —AND PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS PETITION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70662342/ACTION-ALERT-CALIFORNIANS-NEED-HELP-ASK-OUR-AG-TO-HALT-FORECLOSURES-UNTIL-INVESTIGATION-COMPLETE-PLEASE-SIGN-PETITION-AND-DISTRIBUTE

  276. Abby in CA, on October 27, 2011 at 2:43 pm said:

    check with your attorney if you think the entity who filed your UD (eviction) fits into the vexatious category!!
    see next post down

  277. Abby in CA, on October 27, 2011 at 2:13 pm said:

    Here are the California statutes regarding Vexatious Litigants—if you are a real fighter, the banksters are filing in court that you are vexatious—this should help you.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70559323/California-Statutes-on-Why-You-Cannot-be-Deemed-a-Vexatious-Litigant

  278. Abby in CA, on October 27, 2011 at 1:07 pm said:

    “JUSTICE FOR HOMEOWNERS” – CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER PRESS RELEASE—CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70563995/Justice-For-Homeowners-Congressman-George-Miller-Press-Release-10-27-2011

  279. Abby in CA, on October 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm said:

    Congressional Letter to Calif. AG Kamala Harris-commending her on not settling with banks!! 10-27-2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70559647/CONGRESSIONAL-LETTER-TO-CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-COMMENDING-HER-FOR-NOT-SETTLING-WITH-BIG-BANKS-DEFENDING-HOMEOWNERS

  281. Guest, on October 26, 2011 at 1:52 pm said:

    Gaddafi-cation of U.S. Banksters is long overdue…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEmt5Uo_MFM&feature=related

  282. Abby in CA, on October 24, 2011 at 12:42 pm said:

    over 4000 claims in the new century bankruptcy in delaware-still an active bankruptcy

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70131994/NEW-CENTURY-LIQUIDATING-TRUST-THE-CLAIMS-REGISTER-AS-OF-OCTOBER-2011

  284. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on October 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm said:

    The reason he was so scared is that they were trying to plug a whole. Paulson though it could be done with $.01.

    Little did he know this blog was out there and many like it.

    He is nuts and was then and is now. Catherine Austin Fitts Solari.com had it nailed on the head. $700,000 could not protect 700 trillion in default swaps.

    At least any loan with out clear title will not get our (USA) assets as of 10-1-11. We have the 4th power the power of the Jury and they are trying their best to stop us. Dont give up the fight.

  285. Guest, on October 21, 2011 at 8:52 am said:

    Grover, which planet do you live in? remember Hank Treason Paulson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hprFek–2Vw

  286. bijaya kumara das brian d grover, on October 20, 2011 at 8:49 pm said:

    All except the US Treasury because FHA and Fannie and Feddy will not back any instrument that can not prove clear title in 90 days from 10-01-2011. Thank God for some one who put that in the bill.

  287. Guest, on October 19, 2011 at 12:27 pm said:

    Now that all crimes have been committed, and everything plundered by the corrupt banking system, and that it is too late to help the 99.9%, Clown Attorneys General back secularization of mortgage loans by only 5% of the entire mortgage amount, as opposed to its current 0%, see below:
    http://www.sec.gov/comments/df-title-ix/asset-backed-securities/assetbackedsecurities-40.pdf

    And while, fraudsters like title industry, real estate, etc. are against 5%, and are pushing to dump all the fraudulently foreclosed houses as their prime target, as they confess:
    “In
 other
 words,
 the 
important 
goal 
of
 clearing
 historically
 high
 foreclosure 
inventory
–
a
 necessary 
condition 
for
 a
 stabilized 
housing
 market
–will
 be 
undermined.” As you find in this link:

    http://www.sec.gov/comments/df-title-ix/asset-backed-securities/assetbackedsecurities-36.pdf

    While fraudsters Morgan, etal. boast of having counterfeited all securitization at 6 cents to the $$:
    “In 2009 and earlier, for every $100 of securitization, only $0.06 dollars of capital (i.e. 6 cents) is required, since dealers could theoretically sell all but the IOs and residuals, for instance.” As you find in the following link: As you find in the following link:

    http://www.zigasassociates.com/Text/JPMorgan_analysis.pdf

    Morgan also calls: “Credit Demand: The raw materials for securitization”. “A key challenge for securitization going forward will be finding the raw materials, credit, to produce the securitizations.” The above quote means that the credit made out of the 6 theoretical cents to the dollar, which is itself overblown, because with the six trillions of “fraudulently securitized” real estate these fraudsters created over 600 trillions of counterfeit derivatives and sold it around the world, now collapsing other countries’ economies, in addition to destroying USA.

  288. Abby in CA, on October 19, 2011 at 3:23 am said:

    THAT TRANSCRIPT LINK INVOLVES MISSING ENTRIES IN A NOTARY JOURNAL

  290. N.Light, on October 14, 2011 at 8:06 pm said:

    Grover and Guest, thank you both for your answers. Well we just have to keep on fighting the banks and the judges as well. May be we should make a list of the judges that side with the fraudulent banks and make sure that homeowners look out for them.

    We have the right to ask judges to remove themselves from certain cases for their bias and unjust behaviors. So long as we have the will there will be a way.

    N.light

  291. Guest, on October 14, 2011 at 10:48 am said:

    N.Light- Grover is right, but corrupt courts make sure only banks win!

  292. Bijaya Kumara das Brian D Grover, on October 14, 2011 at 9:09 am said:

    you can file a suit at any time

  293. N.Light, on October 14, 2011 at 8:46 am said:

    I have a question to anyone who know, is it true that if a homeowner is in foreclosure in Ca cannot file a suit until the foreclosure procedure is finished? Thank you in advance.

  294. Jacquie Figg, on October 9, 2011 at 10:22 pm said:

    NONE OF US, AS MEMBERS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS IN AMERICA WERE EVER GOING TO OWN OUR PROPERTIES – it was always only the American Dream – now we are waking up and discovering that we left the fox in charge of the chickens. That we have no Government. That we are indebted to the international bankers that took over our Government long ago; and having been encouraged in the purchasing of many wonderful toys and gadgets that ended up in the trash dump, using what appeared to be an endless pile of credit we have dug ourselves into a very deep hole and proved before the entire world that: THE PERFECT SLAVE THINKS HE’S FREE when the USSR crumbled. WE WERE NEVER FREE either think about it when did you ever have a free choice – if you are a member of the middle or lower class then probably never because you were always in pursuit of some necessity and your choices were always limited, even your two weeks’ vacation [for those who took them] was limited to what you could afford and by your fear of being replaced, no general healthcare, no job security. Very simply put here is the evidence that you were and are still be conned by your president, by your senators and by your congressman all the way down to the local powers that be who will say they owe you as an individual no duty, which is why we need a class bigger than there has ever been:

    1. When you signed your promissory note your name was written in the upper and lower name, for example: John Doe. This created the funds as only the flesh and blood living breathing being can do.

    2. All “loans” are federal even my private loan was a federal loan because the money was or went from and/or into a bank insured by FDIC or else it was repaid with their checks, and was in FRN’s etc, [see 12 USC 2602]

    3. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, which states: “The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.”

    4. Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83. “Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation.” This includes but is not limited to our automobiles.

    Thus the Banks and the State or the United States are for these purposes are in fact one and the same or are at least conducting in a civil conspiracy against the Good People of this and of every one of the Several States in the united States of America;

    FIRST COMES THE BAIT:
    You and I, [3 times I’ve been foreclosed on, which is why I’ve researched this and tried out and tested various theories over 15 years – there was no power of sale granted in the last one which still didn’t stop them and here’s why] are BAITED with the American Dream of Homeownership, at this time you are the KING and the bank will do anything to get your business. [I owned property in England big difference is that there you KNOW because it says in the deed and in the pre-sale advertising that property purchase is only a lease for x number of years or x number of years remaining on the X number of years lease] – Here, however, it implies in the Grant Deed which is the second instrument of the three instruments generally issued in this composite contract is issued upon receipt of the valuable consideration which is your Note, the first of these instruments that are issued. That although the Note is executed by one or more of the real people of one of the Several states, NOW COMES THE SWITCH – your GRANT DEED was not granted to you but was in fact issued in the name of the fiction created by and under the STATE, that is using the example John Doe from above as you signed your Note, your GRANT DEED, however, has your name written as JOHN DOE, which the STATE retains control over, if you don’t believe me go and ask the Recorder to put the DEED in your real name, i.e. as John Doe instead of the JOHN DOE it presently says.

    The third and last of the documents issued in the composite contract is the DEED OF [no] TRUST, which issues after the GRANT DEED, the trustee never holds the documents to see if you pay or default and immediately gives them to the state/bank as soon as you leave the room, and possible the Recorders office [see points 3 and 4 above], and although the intent with which you created this so called trust that you thought meant something [VIP] was for you to someday have your own piece of the American Dream not for the STAE and the BANK to own YOURS and ALL property and escheat you out of it while you were still alive; But YOU was disillusioned, because you were only granted a “MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE” just one of the many layers in regards to land titles and you was never given the Land Pattern to begin with and the Deed is of no effect. If you was going to own the property then don’t you think you would have been given the real title and paperwork and the re[al] property properly and lawfully described and not some legal description of some lot nearby and that ownership would have been in your real name and not a corporate fiction created under and by the STATE

    There are more layers to this as under the DEEDS in which our present ownership is recorded is the LAND PATTERN owned by the state, under that is the SPANISH LAND GRANT – for the likes of California, etc., and who knows what is under there. All attorney know this and there job is to eliminate the middle class – the practice of ATTORNMENT is to turn property over which an attorney does by putting on the ceremony we see in court which is to gain the acquiescence of the poor to maintain the class structure and the unequal protections of the law – going through the motions and keeping up the appearance of law in my cases they didn’t keep up the appearance of law and I was taken out under threat of doing so at gun point with deputy sheriff saying that county counsel told him to continue despite my filing a BK and said he had judges breathing down his neck – I also discover the frauds being conducted by Clerks in the court who withheld notices required under CCP 1161.2(c) within 2 days for 11 days for an attorney who openly boasts that his cases will be “uncontested” because he does not serve notice of process and gets a writ issued in 12 days so you are served notice of a concluded unlawful detainer action by the Deputy sheriff which is a violation of criminal codes for forcible entry.
    As I say above, I negotiated and granted no POWER OF SALE in my contract, and was in foreclosure with a HUD ripoff I paid too much for at the time of this purchase, my second foreclosure was one I borrowed on to purchase this one and was one of the first predatory loans made by Long Beach Mortgage aka AMERIQUEST, who was made my servicer. In court most of you will be told something like: “well if you were stupid enough to agree to grant the bank power of sale under a private contract..” implying that it is your own stupid fault or at least made to feel stupid – don’t you believe that crap for a second nor that you had a choice in that matter – that this taking is not a violation of due process or that it is not a federal question as those are all misrepresentations of the material facts that are not disclosed to you even by your attorney POWER of SALE Ladies and Gentlemen is not conferred by the private contract it is a grant kept hidden in a federal statute that is reserved to a FORECLOSURE COMMISSIONER(S) appointed by HUD, [see 12 USC 3754] who I believe to be the very same commissioner that hear the UNLAWFUL DETAINER action and the FEDS are renting the room for that day. That is who is really foreclosing on all of our homes the same PERSONS who you see almost every night on the TV saying they are doing all they can to end this crises; the very same persons who are leading you to believe that they are trying to help with even more useless legislation to add to the rest of the garbage they write about fictional characters, fictional properties and colorable laws that grant us fictional rights, fictional remedies that we will never be allowed to exercise because we are the wrong class and the only class that comes under their with-prejudice codifications, that is YOUR president, YOUR congressman and every other corrupt member of just about every area of Government where an attorney has effected the writing of the Standard operating procedures and every corporation and industry where these same attorneys have very successfully infiltrated and infested at every level and ALWAYS with a PIECE FOR THE ATTORNEY AND A PIECE FOR THE BAR and none for ME and YOU – and in so doing these so called court officers have tuned the FEDERAL and STATE “governments” into non-GOVERNMENTS, an extremely dangerous quasi-corporate entity that pretends it is government for as long as you do business with it under contract but are all CORPORATIONS or oligopolies having eaten up every “truly private” entities that the middle class would have any ownership in having purchased some permit or license therefrom and thus granted these pirates some share and interest therein. A de facto government entity that is operating for a profit for their shareholders who are neither YOU or I, but are foreign investors who dictate where our jobs go under their demand for profits yet they all claim that they are immune – they are NOT; These are the same persons who waived a TRUSTEES liability because that liability was for the STATES own frauds and is written in civil code 2924, this is the very same persons who are stopping you from filing a LIS PENDENS or a NOTICE OF PENDING ACTION even though you have an action pending and is the very same persons who will circumvent you from ever having a trial by a jury of your peers in an unlawful detainer action or a wrongful foreclosure and will deny you an injunction; However, you look at it YOU WAS NEVER GOING TO OWN YOUR PROPERTY

  295. Guest, on October 8, 2011 at 9:29 pm said:

    U.S. BANKRIMES date back to 1760. TESTIMONY:
    http://100777.com/myron

  296. Mortgage, on October 7, 2011 at 8:03 am said:

    Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account helped me a appropriate deal. I have been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered bright clear concept

  297. Tim, on October 4, 2011 at 10:09 am said:

    Timothy McFarlin, Attorney at Law
    McFarlin & Geurts LLP
    4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025
    Irvine, CA 92614
    Ph. 949-544-2640
    Email: tim@mcfarlinlaw.com

    Timothy McFarlin is a Partner at McFarlin & Geurts, a firm with expertise in a variety of practice areas including real estate law, bankruptcy and reorganizations, business litigation, consumer law and mortgage litigation.

    Tim McFarlin has previously worked for the Honorable Christopher M. Klein, Chief US Bankruptcy Court Judge, Eastern District of California as a judicial extern. Additionally, Mr. McFarlin also worked for Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee in the Central District of California, in areas of law related to Business Law, Consumer Bankruptcy, Commercial Bankruptcy, and Foreclosures. Mr. McFarlin maintains a strong working relationship with Chapter 7 Trustees as well as the US Trustee.

    He is admitted to practice law before all Superior and Federal Courts in the State of California including the Southern District of California, Central District of California, Northern District of California, and Eastern District of California.

    Tim has been a speaker at Orange County Bar Association Events, Real Estate Division, related to foreclosures, mortgage litigation and short sales, and is a member of the Orange County Bar Association as well as the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. He’s also been cited and quoted by USA Today, and a variety of local publications such as the Orange County Register on topics related to bankruptcy and foreclosure.

    He graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) with a B.A. degree in Economics, with an emphasis in Accounting. Mr. McFarlin received his J.D. from the University of California at Davis (King Hall). Mr. McFarlin focused specifically on bankruptcy, litigation, and business law.

  298. Tim, on October 4, 2011 at 10:06 am said:

    Barbara Gilbert, Attorney at Law
    Foreclosure Defense & Litigation
    2230 West Chapman, #203
    Orange, CA 92868
    Ph. 949-854-1838
    Email: legallink1@gmail.com

    Barbara is a lawyer that is representing homeowners against banks for all the right reasons… she’s passionate about it; she has studied the field and specific case law extensively and knows the foreclosure crisis. Barbara doesn’t handle loan modification work… she is focused squarely on foreclosure defense litigation and is an up-and-comer in the field of personal bankruptcy.

    Barbara is wicked smart and you would discover that within minutes of talking with her.

    Barbara is a devotee of Max Gardner’s teachings and is committed to being an important part of his “army” of attorneys, dedicated to fighting banks on behalf of homeowners. She graduated from Southwestern University School of Law in 1981… top 25% of her class… Dean’s List and Member of Law Review, 1980-81. Throughout the 1990s, Barbara specialized in insurance defense, working for State Farm, and responsible for filings to jury trials… in fact, she completed 15 jury trials during those years.

  299. Tim, on October 4, 2011 at 10:05 am said:

    Mark Zanides, Attorney at Law
    Law Offices of Mark Zanides
    9560 Research
    Irvine, CA
    Ph. 949-545-6526
    Email: mzanides@mnzlaw.com

    Attorney Mark Zanides is the managing partner of a firm he started to help other lawyers’ process and negotiate loan modification agreements with lenders and servicers. He also takes on a number of clients directly.

    Mark Zanides isn’t just another lawyer helping homeowners obtain loan modifications. He spent his legal career as a federal prosecutor. He was the Assistant United States Attorney, Criminal Division, from 1979 to 2006.

    Mark was the Chief of the Anti-Terrorism Unit, International and National Security Coordinator from 2003 to 2006. He was also Coordinator for the Securities and Commodities Task Force.

  300. Tim, on October 4, 2011 at 10:03 am said:

    Julie Greenfield, Attorney at Law
    Greenfield Law Offices
    339 San Marino
    Irvine, CA 92614
    Ph. 949-863-9586
    Email: juliegreenfield@cox.net

    Julie Greenfield has spent some 30 years as a mortgage banking compliance attorney, and now she’s changed sides and represents the good guys… homeowners who need their loans modified and other professionals that help homeowners get loans modified. Julie is at the top of the food chain when it comes to loan modifications. She simply knows EVERYTHING about mortgage banking compliance and she’s one of the most sensitive, caring and dedicated lawyers you will ever meet.

    Julie went to the University of Pennsylvania and Villa Nova Law School. She is also the Vice Chair of the Consumer Financial Services Committee for the California State Bar, she’s very active member of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Consumer Financial Services, and she’s a member of the Governing Committee of the Conference on Consumer Finance Law. Julie has also been an expert witness in Truth in Lending and loan modification cases.

  301. Abby in CA, on October 1, 2011 at 2:45 pm said:

    PROTEST IN LA CALIFORNIA -SEE FLYER AND INFO HERE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67095031/PROTEST-IN-LOS-ANGELES-Occupy-Los-Angeles-CALL-TO-ACTION

  302. Joe, on September 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm said:

    ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER IS HUB OF COUNTERFEIT CRIMES: File0004 From:
    http://kareemsalessi.wordpress.com/litigation-discovery-documents/

  304. Guest, on September 28, 2011 at 11:58 am said:

    Misleading foreclosure statistics:
    http://www.dsnews.com/articles/proprietary-modifications-unchanged-foreclosure-starts-rise-2011-09-28

    while the above link reports two & half million foreclosures annually (2.5 million), last Sunday’s Orange County, Ca. Register, quoting official sources, said 3,600 homes foreclose every WEEK (15,000 a month) (180,000 a year) in O.C. alone, which has a total of 600,000 homes. So by end 2013 all O.C. homes must be foreclosed! Looks like numbers in above link are under-reported.

  305. Abby in CA, on September 28, 2011 at 1:05 am said:

    HOMEOWNERS ARE SITTING ON TICKING TIME BOMBS—

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66642522/HOMEOWNERS-SITTING-ON-TICKING-TIME-BOMBS-VICTIM-HOMEOWNERS-BLAST-THE-NEW-CENTURY-LIQUIDATING-TRUST-WHICH-IS-ATTEMPTING-TO-DENY-THEY-ARE-CREDITORS-A

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION ARE IN BANKRUPTCY SINCE APRIL 2, 2007. 3 FORMER PRO SE’S FINALLY FOUND AN ATTORNEY AND HE HAS FILED THIS RESPONSE TO THE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUST’S OBJECTION TO LATE FILED PROOF OF CLAIM.

    THIS IS SUCH A LARGE BANKRUPTCY THAT THERE ARE OVER 10,00O DOCKET ENTRIES AND OVER 4000 CLAIMS.

    THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ALAN JACOBS RETAINED A LAW FIRM HAHN & HESSEN TO
    REPRESENT HIM IN THIS BANKRUPTCY.
    —THE HOMEOWNERS
    2 OTHER PRO SE’S WITHOUT AN LEGAL REPRESENTATION SETTLED FOR CASH IN 2010 IN AMOUNTS OVER 60K.

    2 OF THE ABOVE HOMEOWNER VICTIMS ARE IN MEDIATION WHICH WAS ORDERED BY THE JUDGE IN THE MATTER.

    THERE ARE NOW EVEN MORE HOMEOWNER VICTIMS FILING CLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUST.

    THIS FILING DISCUSSES THE ‘MISSAL REPORT’ WHICH SHOULD BE MANDATORY READING FOR ANY HOMEOWNER VICTIM.

  306. Guest, on September 25, 2011 at 6:58 pm said:

    Ian: Then type his case # so the scam comes into spotlight in his favor…

  307. Abby in CA, on September 25, 2011 at 6:45 pm said:

    Ian
    he is still on track with his case

  308. Guest, on September 25, 2011 at 6:01 pm said:

    Raja was probably paid off to keep quiet about that mass-counterfeit …

  309. Abby in CA, on September 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm said:

    petition for writ of certiorari filed by California woman fighting for her home–this is for the California Supreme Court

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66319181/Deamicis-CA-Supreme-Crt-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certioriari-FILED-9-22-11-1

  310. ian, on September 25, 2011 at 4:31 pm said:

    ABBY IN CA-
    I think that the guy who found his mortgage in 40 different pools posted as Raja- what happened to his case? We were in contact with each other, He showed up in court with a loaded pickup truck, with the PSAs and Mortgage Loan Schedules, 555 pages per pool, for each pool which contained his loan.
    About 25,000 pages of documents. His mortgage had been sold for somewhere over 90 million dollars total, as I recall. He was pro se I think. What happened?

  311. Abby in CA, on September 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm said:

    SF BAY AREA IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA—PROTESTS PLANNED THIS WEEK 9/26/2011

    PLEASE POST THIS WHEREVER YOU CAN. EVEN THE PROTESTS ON WALL STREET ARE NOT GETTING ANY MEDIA COVERAGE!! IF ANYONE CAN HELP WITH THAT, PLEASE DO

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66312466/CALL-TO-ACTION-PROTESTS-PLANNED-FOR-NORTHERN-CALIFORNIA-SF-BAY-AREA-THIS-WEEK-SEPT-26TH-2011-STOP-THE-BANK-S-RACKETEERING-STOP-FORECLOSURES

    INCLUDED IS A SPANISH VERSION OF THE FLYER

    TWEET, FACEBOOK, EMAIL, CRAIGS LIST, FAX OR PHONE==PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD

  312. Bijaya Kumara das Brian D Grover, on September 25, 2011 at 3:21 pm said:

    sounds like you loan was sold into many different pools, There is a movie to come out or has about a 500,000.00 house loan with a forensic audit that was parlayed into over 90 million. You might have the same.

    You may have an imperfedted lien and thus the note is just that not a mortgage any more for Mortgagee was satisfied upon first payment and no recording was made of the transfer to subsequent note holders and the chain of title was broken.

  313. Abby in CA, on September 25, 2011 at 3:02 pm said:

    I know of somebody who found his mortgage in over 40 different mortgage pools. seriously

  314. N.light, on September 24, 2011 at 8:40 am said:

    Had anyone heard or seen a case of a mortgage in 3 different Pools. CRC just filed a NOD on behave of Chase, after Chase supposedly assigned the Note & D of T to US Bank as trustee for B of A as trustee for LaSalle who is a trustee for WAMU Pass through certificate AR14. We found the original PSA under a different pool #, and we were sent by the SEC a 3rd PSA # earlier this year with a different #?

    After the loan closed MERS was the Beneficiary but now nothing in the filing about MERS as anything. Nothing was filed in the county since MERS in 2005 until the NOD was filed this month.

    I would appreciate any input or info. regarding this post, thank you.

  316. CalSurfer, on September 18, 2011 at 9:58 pm said:

    If anyone got a loan from GN Mortgage, LLC out of Woodland Hills, CA, please contact me at KPPI2U@gmail.com. Especially interest-only loans around 2007. Thanks!

  317. Tim, on September 18, 2011 at 5:35 pm said:

    Countrywide fails to narrow class action
    By Jill Redhage
    Daily Journal Staff Writer
    Bank of America-owned Countrywide Home Loans Inc. failed to con- vince a San Jose federal
    judge to significantly narrow a pro- posed class action against it.
    The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 168,000 homebuyers, accuses the mortgage lender of defrauding bor- rowers with option adjustable-rate mortgage loans.
    Countrywide, which was pur- chased by Bank of America Corp. in 2008, had hoped to shrink the size of the prospective class to approximately 2,300 borrowers by preventing the name plaintiff, Jay J. Ralston, from representing anyone who got a home loan from a different originator than he did. But U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Fogel rejected that effort in an order Monday.
    Ralston’s loan came from Mort- gage Investors Group, which is also a defendant in the lawsuit. Ralston v. Mortgage Investors Group Inc., et al., 08-0536 (N.D. Cal, Filed Jan. 24, 2008)
    The plaintiffs allege Countrywide, which purchased the loans in ques- tion, perpetrated the scheme that harmed all 168,000 borrowers in common, including Ralston, because Mortgage Investors Group and oth- er lenders used Countrywide’s loan
    documents concealed the fact that a borrower’s loan principal would increase after teaser interest rates reset to higher levels.
    “It’s not a ruling on the merits,” said Shirley Norton, a spokeswom- an for Bank of America, which this week announced plans to lay off 30,000 employees in the next few years, about Fogel’s ruling.
    She declined to comment on the ruling further. Brooks R. Brown and Robert B. Bader of Goodwin Procter LLP in Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively, serve as counsel to Countrywide. Brown referred questions to Norton.
    Jeffrey K. Berns of Arbogast & Berns LLP in Woodland Hills, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he never had any doubt about where the law stood on this issue.
    He said the amount of recoveries in the case could reach $1 billion, depending on the court’s rulings on key issues going forward. A class certification hearing is scheduled for Dec. 9.
    Although Fogel will start a new position next month as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., the Ralston case is one of 11 civil cases he plans to continue handling after his depar- ture.

  318. Sara, office mgr., on September 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm said:

    Attorneys who Get It are available with advice and solutions for your foreclosure needs. Send us a quick email with your name and return phone call number to “cr.defenders@yahoo.com” for a free telephonic consultation with an attorney. We can also help in pro se’s upon request with civil and bankruptcy matters. If matter is urgent, please indicate in your response.
    Helping consumers since 1988.

  319. GUest, on September 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm said:

    http://www.westregion.com/Title%20Insurance%20Pages/Cases/CaliforniaCases.htm
    California Cases – 2004 to Present
    Including Federal cases interpreting California law
    LISTED WITH MOST RECENT CASES FIRST
    Go to cases 2000 – 2003

  320. Abby in CA, on September 15, 2011 at 3:45 pm said:

    WILL GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN SIGN AB750 TO ESTABLISH A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CREATING A STATE OWNED BANK?
    SEPT. 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/65123909/WILL-THE-GOVERNOR-OF-CALIFORNIA-SIGN-AB750-TO-STUDY-THE-FEASIBILITY-OF-ESTABLISHING-A-STATE-OWNED-BANK-SEPTEMBER-2011

  321. Tim, on September 14, 2011 at 11:45 am said:

    TB,

    Locate a litigating BK lawyer in your area and file a 13. You do not have to be broke for relief. Have lawsuit transferred to BK court and force plaintiff to prove debt.

    This is not legal advice, see a LITIGATING BK attorney.

  322. TB, on September 14, 2011 at 9:25 am said:

    @ Tim. I need a second opinion! Servicer is suing for subrogation (2nd is with same lender) and judicial foreclosure in the name of the bank, who appears to have been paid by title insurance. No recorded Trust Deed, no note and no originals.

  323. Jeff, on September 14, 2011 at 9:15 am said:

    There’s a distinct pattern of what works and what doesn’t work in CA. Even, the court says so:

    5. This does not mean that a borrower who believes that the foreclosing entity lacks standing to do so is without a remedy. The borrower can seek to enjoin the trustee’s sale or to set the sale aside. (See generally Bernhardt, Cal. Mortgages, Deeds of Trust, and Foreclosure Litigation (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2009) §§ 7.23-7.31, pp. 538.2-538.11, pp. 538.2-538.11.)

  324. Tim, on September 14, 2011 at 8:49 am said:

    In other parts of the country, and in bankruptcy court, borrowers have had some success with the argument that since MERS is a “nominee” and “nominee” is not defined in the loan documents, that it does not have standing to initiate foreclosure.

    That argument has been far less successful in California, in large part because of these factors:

    Non-judicial foreclosures only require that the trustee on the deed of trust conduct the foreclosure.
    The deed of trust is recorded and so are any substitutions and assignments (in other states, MERS had tried to circumvent the recording statutes by not recording this transfers with the County recorder).
    The borrower (or “Trustor”) has signed the Deed of Trust and voluntarily consented to a 3rd party conducting the Trustee’s sale, regardless of who the beneficiary is.
    Recently, in the case of Robinson v. Countrywide and MERS, the California Court of Appeals again shot down the borrower’s arguments for wrongful foreclosure and cited faithfully from the case of Gomes v. Countrywide. The Gomes case is allegedly seeking cert to go to the California Supreme court so I will be following that trend with interest.

    The Robinson court stated: “We agree with the Gomes court that the statutory scheme (§§ 2924-2924k) does not provide for a preemptive suit challenging standing. Consequently, plaintiffs‟ claims for damages for wrongful initiation of foreclosure and for declaratory relief based on plaintiffs‟ interpretation of section 2924, subdivision (a), do not state a cause of action as a matter of law.

    (Robinson v. Countrywide; Case no. E052011, Sept. 12, 2011)

    What’s the bottom line? Both the Robinson Court and the Gomes Court have made it pretty clear that in California, a borrower cannot challenge the foreclosure process solely on the grounds that the lender did not have authority to foreclose.

    I want to be clear though that this could have a different result under a judicial foreclosure because in that circumstance, the court clerk is required to hand cancel the debt instrument, which requires the original promissory note.

    Lastly, my comment about these types of cases from borrowers is that the borrower is in default under the loan and judges know that the borrowers owe the money so there isn’t much sympathy for these types of “technical” challenges to a foreclosure.

    Instead, the lawsuits that have more traction are the ones where the borrowers have taken acts in reliance of promises of the lender, and have made efforts to make payments or sell other assets to pay the lender–but the lender foreclosed anyway or “dual tracked” them during this timeframe. In those circumstances, the borrowers as plaintiffs have been able to survive the demurrer stage of the lawsuit.

  326. Guest Correct, on September 3, 2011 at 3:00 pm said:

    Sara,

    You cannot “process” paperwork either…whatever that’s supposed to mean. You are either practicing law without a license and/or violating numerous statutes including B&P 6450 in not being a registered and bonded Legal Document Assistant. (and not being a registered and bonded Foreclosure Consultant with the Attorney General who has to review your advertisements by the way.) Review the statutes posted.

    Your two advertisements on this thread specifically state; and I quote:

    “File suit immediately and stop the banks with TRO injunctions. Attack standing. Attack the right to assign. Attack the assignee’s rights, MERS etc. You have a right to ask for pre-litigation discovery of the bank’s paperwork”

    That is legal advice plain and simple (and inaccurate as presented I might add). Everything you’ve each stated in your second paragraph(s) of your twin postings and advertisements are equally in violation.

    You either can’t/won’t read or don’t care…again it doesn’t matter the results are the same if you’re doing what you’ve admitted here in writing. Stop it NOW!

  327. Guest, on August 30, 2011 at 10:28 am said:

    SHOCKING EXPOSE: California & Federal Mafias interests in stealing your homes is to maximize value of public employees retirement funds (see page 7)
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/8-23-11-g043669-opposition-to-afrct-dismiss-appeal-motion.pdf

  328. Sara, on August 29, 2011 at 12:46 pm said:

    As posited, the assumption is the “we” helped someone. We process paperwork, only. The beneficiary of that work receives same and processes the filing. Clearly in pro se’s carry the burden of successes.
    Thanks for the inquiry.

  329. Guest Correct, on August 29, 2011 at 12:45 pm said:

    “Mr. Nelson,”

    There is no “gap” you can legally fill in California between legal counsel and the client. You should know better. Even If you don’t know any better be prepared; because I can guarantee you the local District Attorney and/or Attorney General will be in touch with you.

    You are either ignorant of the laws in California or are with malice and forethought, violating them. Either way the results are the same.

    This isn’t “criticism” nor is it legal advice, but facts. Even if, you were registered with the Attorney General as a foreclosure consultant and posted the 100k bond (which if you did, your advertisement here would afford your bond to be attached); you still cannot do what you’re claiming. It IS the unatuthorized practice of law. Only attorneys can do what you claim. Not even a Legal Document Assistant can do what you calim and wouldn’t. Their bond would also be at risk for the unauthorized practice of law. (Look up what a scrivner can and cannot do)

    So you want something (or think you somehow deserve to have anything) offered (which I wouldn’t waste my time with exept for anyone that might not know better than to contact you), how about this…take a read and take a hike:

    California Civil Code sections 2945-2945.11

    http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/pdf/mortgage_civil_law.pdf (yes, from the Attorney General’s Office)

    Think you’re immune or have arguments you can win to the contrary, you may wish to read this: http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/UPLpublic.pdf

    California Business and Professions Code sections 6540-6456 et seq and plenty of others.

    You want to argue? Go ahead on, perhaps you’ll find out what it costs to have to hire “high priced counsel” yourself and contact a bail bondsman to solve the problems you’ll be facing if you keep it up.

    Please cease and desist advertising your illegal practices on this forum forthwith.

  330. Guest, on August 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm said:

    GLOBAL HOLOCAUST is in the works:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfcjmiNI_Nc&feature=related

  331. Guest Correct, on August 29, 2011 at 6:25 am said:

    Guest,

    I doubt they will or then can because what they say they are doing appears to violate a number of statutes in California. Violations of the unauthorized practice of law and Foreclosure Consultant Act to start.

    Districts attorney and attorneys general love to go after these kinds of “low-hanging fruit too”…People…be careful, be very careful.

    Those that “get it” and are practicing law WITH a license do NOT have to advertise for clients like this…not to mention the number is from Van Nuys…that’s where the banksters live…

  332. Guest, on August 28, 2011 at 11:18 pm said:

    Can you name a single property address that you helped save from bank crooks?

  333. Groveey Grover, on August 22, 2011 at 5:22 pm said:

    It is going to be okay for those who fight themselves. https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/

    This is a great rendition of why you should fight for keeping your property.

    Thank you all for you help with my case.

    Sincerely,

  334. Guest, on August 20, 2011 at 1:19 pm said:

    Foreclosure Criminals Newsletter Takes Joy at Klown Harris (AG) busting a few lawyers
    http://www.dsnews.com/articles/index/california-officials-take-down-national-foreclosure-rescue-fraud-ring-2011-08-19

    This documentary tells it all:

    American Holocaust Video

  335. Peter, on August 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm said:

    So why doesn’t California AG Kamala Harris go after the foreclosure frauster law firms like Pite Duncan in San Diego? THAT’S WHERE SHE SHOULD HAVE STARTED! This is just a joke and a waste of resources. Those people wouldn’t have been defrauded by Kramer if fraudster bank law firms were stopped.

  336. Jeff, on August 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm said:

    Once again, the mortgage servicers and banks continue to……ah what’s the point we all knew that the AG wasn’t going to do anything about the fraud that they are perpetrating….

  337. Charles Cox, on August 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm said:

    A big I told you so is perhaps due but still…seems to me very interesting how they can completly fail to go after the banksters that caused the problem in the first place…

  338. Abby in CA, on August 18, 2011 at 12:17 pm said:

    WATCH OUT LAWYERS–CALIFORNIA AG MAY SEIZE YOUR ASSETS–READ THE TRO HERE—KAMALA HARRIS JUST COMPLETED HER PRESS CONFERENCE–SHE IS GOING AFTER CERTAIN LAWYERS AND FIRMS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62593273/LAYWERS-BE-CAREFUL-CALIFORNIA-STATE-AG-MAY-FREEZE-YOUR-ASSETS-AUG-18-2011-TRO-ASSET-FREEZE-AND-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-AGAINST-LAWYERS

  339. Abby in CA, on August 18, 2011 at 11:58 am said:

    Press Release
    August 18, 2011
    For Immediate Release
    Contact: (415) 703-5837
    Print Version
    Attachments
    Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Sues Law Firms Engaged in National “Mass Joinder” Mortgage Fraud

    SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced that the California Department of Justice, in conjunction with the State Bar of California, has sued multiple entities accused of fraudulently taking millions of dollars from thousands of homeowners who were led to believe they would receive relief on their mortgages.

    Attorney General Harris sued Philip Kramer, the Law Offices of Kramer & Kaslow, two other law firms, three other lawyers, and 14 other defendants who are accused of working together to defraud homeowners across the country through the deceptive marketing of “mass joinder” lawsuits. “Mass joinder” lawsuits are lawsuits with hundreds, or more, individually named plaintiffs. This is the first consumer action by the Attorney General’s Mortgage Fraud Strike Force.

    Kramer’s firm and other defendants were placed into receivership on Monday, Aug. 15. The legal actions were designed to shut down a scheme operated by attorneys and their marketing partners, in which defendants used false and misleading representations to induce thousands of homeowners into joining the mass joinder lawsuits against their mortgage lenders. Defendants also had their assets seized and were enjoined from continuing their operations. Nineteen DOJ special agents participated as the firms were taken over Wednesday, Aug. 17, along with 42 agents and other personnel from HUD’s Office of Inspector General, the California State Bar, and the Office of Receiver Thomas McNamara at 14 locations in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Sixteen bank accounts were seized.

    “The defendants in this case fraudulently promised to win prompt mortgage relief for millions of vulnerable homeowners across the country,” said Attorney General Harris. “Innocent people, already battered by the housing crisis, were targeted for fraud in their moment of distress.”

    “The number of lawyers who have tried to take advantage of distressed homeowners in these tough economic times is nothing short of shocking,” said State Bar President William Hebert. “By taking over the practices of four attorneys accused of fraudulent marketing practices, the State Bar can put a stop to their deplorable conduct as part of our ongoing effort to protect the public.”

    It is believed that at least two million pieces of mail were sent out by defendants to victims in at least 17 states. Defendants’ revenue from this scam is estimated to be in the millions of dollars.

    As alleged in the lawsuit, defendants preyed on desperate homeowners facing foreclosure by selling them participation as plaintiffs in mass joinder lawsuits against mortgage lenders. Defendants deceptively led homeowners to believe that by joining these lawsuits, they would stop pending foreclosures, reduce their loan balances or interest rates, obtain money damages, and even receive title to their homes free and clear of their existing mortgage. Defendants charged homeowners retainer fees of up to $10,000 to join as plaintiffs to a mass joinder lawsuit against their lender or loan servicer.

    Consumers who paid to join the mass joinder lawsuits were frequently unable to receive answers to simple questions, such as whether they had been added to the lawsuit, or even to establish contact with defendants. Some consumers lost their homes shortly after paying the retainer fees demanded by defendants.

    This mass joinder scam began with deceptive mass mailers, the lawsuit alleges. Some mailers, designed to appear as official settlement notices or government documents, informed homeowners that they were potential plaintiffs in a “national litigation settlement” against their lender. No settlements existed and in many cases no lawsuit had even been filed. Defendants also advertised through their web sites.

    When consumers contacted the defendants, they were given legal advice by sales agents, not attorneys, who made additional deceptive statements and provided (often inaccurate) legal advice about the supposedly “likely” results of joining the lawsuits. Defendants unlawfully paid commissions to their sales representatives on a per client sign-up basis, a practice known as “running and capping.”

    Defendants’ alleged misconduct violates the following laws:
    -False advertising, in violation of section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code
    -Unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices, in violation of section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code
    -Unlawful running and capping, in violation of section 6152, subdivision (a) of the Business and Professions Code (i.e., a lawyer unlawfully paying a non-lawyer to solicit or procure business)
    -Improper fee splitting (defendants unlawfully splitting legal fees with non-attorneys)
    -Failing to register with the Department of Justice as a telephonic seller.

    Homeowners who have paid to be added to one of the lawsuits should contact the State Bar if they feel they may be victims of this scam. They can also contact a HUD-certified housing counselor for general mortgage related assistance.

    The Department of Justice has seized the practices of the following non-attorney defendants:
    Attorneys Processing Center, LLC; Data Management, LLC; Gary DiGirolamo; Bill Stephenson; Mitigation Professionals, LLC; Glen Reneau; Pate Marier & Associates, Inc.; James Pate; Ryan Marier; Home Retention Division; Michael Tapia; Lewis Marketing Corp.; Clarence Butt; and Thomas Phanco.

    The State Bar has seized the practices and attorney accounts of the attorney defendants:
    The Law Offices of Kramer & Kaslow; Philip Kramer, Esq; Mitchell J. Stein & Associates; Mitchell Stein, Esq.; Christopher Van Son, Esq.; Mesa Law Group Corp.; and Paul Petersen, Esq.

    Attorney General Harris is challenging the defendants’ alleged misconduct in marketing their mass joinder lawsuits; her office takes no position as to the legal merits of any claims asserted in the mass joinder lawsuits filed by defendants.

    Victims in the following states are known to have received these mailers, or signed on to join the case. This is a preliminary list that may be updated:

    Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington

    The complaint, temporary restraining order, examples of marketing documents and photos of the enforcement action are available with the electronic version of this release at http://oag.ca.gov/news.

  340. Abby in CA, on August 18, 2011 at 11:51 am said:

    CALIFORNIA AG GOES AFTER THE LAWYERS—-

    2 MILLION LETTERS SENT TO HOMEOWNERS IN 17 STATES –IT WAS ALL A SCAM– THE MASS JOINDER WAS A SCAM AND THE CALIFORNIA AG FILED A LAWSUIT AND INJUNCTION!!

    AG KAMALA HARRIS CALLS THE LAWYER A SCAM ARTIST—HE COMMITTED FRAUD AGAINST HOMEOWNERS—-

    READ THE COMPLAINT HERE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62590406/HOT-STUFF-AUG-18-2011-CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-SUES-LAW-FIRMS-FOR-MASS-JOINDER-SCAM-FORECLOSURES

  341. Charles Cox, on August 17, 2011 at 6:31 pm said:

    I sent this out in a bit of a hurry due to panic and not having the Petition but certiorari has not been granted yet so no reason to get into it yet. My guess is it won’t be granted given the Cal. Supremes already turned them down and assuming the US Supremes won’t want to touch this but if they do…then for sure these guys will need help as they lost the case before and we don’t need them losing this at the US Supreme level. I have a copy of the Petition if anyone wants it…go to http://www.bayliving.com/gomes.pdf will leave it up there for a while.

  342. Jeff, on August 17, 2011 at 6:20 pm said:

    How about a search in Google: amicus brief mers

  343. Abby in CA, on August 17, 2011 at 6:08 pm said:

    FORECLOSED ON CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER TAKES IT TO US SUPREME COURT- AUG 2011 – GOMES FILES WRIT OF CERTIORARI

    WE NEED AMICUS BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF HOMEOWNER

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62533811/FORECLOSED-ON-CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-TAKES-IT-TO-SCOTUS-AUG-2011-GOMES-FILES-WRIT-OF-CERTIORARI-IN-US-SUPREME-COURT

  344. Abby in CA, on August 17, 2011 at 5:52 pm said:

    ALL CALIFORNIANS

    California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris to Announce Mortgage-Related Enforcement Action

    WHAT: Attorney General Kamala D. Harris will announce a mortgage-related enforcement action.

    WHEN: Thursday, August 18, 2011

    Press Conference – 11:30 a.m (pst)

    Webcast at oag.ca.gov

  345. Jeff, on August 9, 2011 at 9:51 am said:

    As the sophistication of borrower’s who have opted to fight the banks has grown, it is very helpful to cite to the cases in which you have had success.

  346. Fighting MERS in Ca, on August 1, 2011 at 9:11 am said:

    I think that everyone is missing the #1 problem MERS has in CA.
    MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent and cannot legally assign the Promissory Note, making any foreclosure by other than the original lender wrongful, for the following reasons.
    1) Under established and binding Ca law, a Nominee can’t assign the Note. Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528
    2) On most Notes, the term Nominee is not included and MERS never takes ownership, making it unenforceable and unassignable by MERS.
    Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648
    3) Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of “authorized agent” in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure.
    Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, IS FLAWED!
    a) The Gomes case simply failed to address and apply the established and binding definition of a nominee.
    b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note.
    c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a borrower cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner.
    Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia

  348. Lonny, on July 29, 2011 at 9:44 am said:

    Letter from B of A notifying switch from LLC to NA – Asking to confirm knowledge of investor who is supposedly a Lehman trust which transfer was not recorded. Usual other scenario but no NOD filed. Any lawyer in SOCAL who knows this situation very well?

  349. Abby in CA, on July 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm said:

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE, HOME123 CORPORATION– THEIR BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE JUST FILED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT IN DELAWARE FOR PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2011. STILL 35 MILLION IN CASH

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60800461/NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-TRUSTEE-FINANCIAL-REPORT-FOR-PERIOD-ENDING-6-30-2011

  350. Abby in CA, on July 23, 2011 at 9:26 am said:

    TUESDAY’S AGENDA – NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE & HOME123 CORPORATION- FOR THEIR BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE FOR 7-26-2011

    SOME PRO SE’S UP THERE FIGHTING AND ONE IS SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60728756/NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-COURT-AGENDA-FOR-7-26-2011-SOME-PRO-SE-S-SCHEDULED-FOR-ORAL-ARGUMENTS

  351. Ruwack, on July 19, 2011 at 3:10 pm said:

    oops I meant 3604 not 3605

  352. Ruwack, on July 19, 2011 at 3:06 pm said:

    Here in Washington, often, judges require a bond to be established and payment into escrow ofan amout that equals mortgage payment before they will even consider the case. Can this be overcome by Cali. Commer. Code 3605 that should the note have been destroyed that discharge was voluntary on part of ‘lender’

  353. Abby in CA, on July 18, 2011 at 11:02 am said:

    I STILL NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS CAN TO CONTACT THE CALIFORNIA STATE AG OFFICE. READ THE LATEST—SHE MAY JOIN THE PROBE……

    THERE IS A LINK TO CHANGE.ORG TO SIGN A PETITION

    WE MUST KEEP THE PRESSURE UP ON THE AGs..

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60265695/CA-STATE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-KAMALA-HARRIS-CALIFORNIA-MAY-JOIN-PROBE-OF-WALL-STREET

  354. anonymous, on July 11, 2011 at 8:22 pm said:

    Abby: thanks for being so resourceful, but don’t count on Attorney’s General to help people. This lone plaintiff Kareem Salessi explains that the pile of these law enforcement clowns are smoke screens which are actually helping lenders loot and plunder this country from people like never ever before. Look at page 16 of this linked court brief plus all his other links from government offices who are actually accelerating foreclosures, but pretending they are doing good.
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/5-16-11-salessi-appellants-opening-brief-on-the-merits-g043669.pdf
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/5-16-11-salessi-appellants-opening-brief-on-the-merits-g043669.pdf

  355. Abby in CA, on July 11, 2011 at 6:35 pm said:

    An Online Petition to the State Attorney General of California

    Please sign.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-ag-kamala-harris-to-investigate-get-an-injunction

  356. Abby in CA, on July 9, 2011 at 10:39 am said:

    CALIFORNIA APPEAL DECISION- REVERSE AND REMAND ON ONE COUNT – VICTORY FOR HOMEOWNER JULY 2011 -DEMUCHA V WELLS FARGO

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59685594/VICTORY-FOR-HOMEOWNER-Mark-Demucha-v-Wells-Fargo-Calif-Appeal-reversed-and-remanded-on-one-count

  357. Abby in CA, on July 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm said:

    CALL TO ACTION

    CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS

    EASILY MODIFIED WORD DOCUMENT TO FAX TO CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    INVOLVES THOUSANDS OF HOMEOWNERS ACROSS THE USA, INCLUDING FLORIDA

    I APPRECIATE THIS VERY MUCH

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59633458/CALL-TO-ACTION-PLEASE-FAX-THIS-TO-CALIFORNIA-ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  358. Abby in CA, on July 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm said:

    CURRENT LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES WHO ARE LISTED BY THE AG OF CALIFORNIA AS LOAN MOD FRAUDSTERS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59631835/July-2011-From-the-Office-of-the-Attorney-General-State-of-California-Loan-Mod-Fraud-List-and-Tips-to-avoid

  359. Peter, on July 4, 2011 at 8:33 am said:

    NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for President! He knows the truth!

    http://www.thenation.com/article/161737/new-yorks-ag-takes-banks#comment-880913

  361. Ann, on June 27, 2011 at 8:47 am said:

    Excellent book on CA Foreclosue Defense:
    How to Fight to Save Your Home in California: Foreclosure Defense WRITTEN BY LAWYERS AND A PRO SE LITIGANT [Paperback]
    George Gingo (Author), Layne Hayden (Author), Berenice de la Salle (Author)
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1432770225/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=cyberfindzcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1432770225

  362. Abby in CA, on June 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm said:

    ANGELA SACCHI V MERS ET AL – SHE SURVIVES MOTION TO DISMISS FAC IN CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT

    ANGELA IS PRO SE – THIS DECISION COVERS A LOT OF DETAIL INCLUDING THE TENDER ISSUE IN CALIFORNIA – READ THE CONVERSATION EXCERPTS BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND OPPOSING COUNSEL.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58714765/Angela-Sacchi-v-Mers-June-24-2011-HOMEOWNER-SURVIVES-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-FAC-IN-CALIFORNIA-THIS-JUDGE-GETS-IT

  363. Abby in CA, on June 25, 2011 at 10:03 am said:

    WELL WRITTEN OPENING APPEAL BRIEF-CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY-FORECLOSURE-DAVIES-JUNE 2011-MERS-DEUTSCHE, INDYMAC, ONEWEST, QUIET TITLE, DECLARATORY RELIEF ETC.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58702918/DAVIES-OPENING-APPEAL-BRIEF-CALIFORNIA-BANKRUPTCY-COURT-NINTH-JUNE-2011

  364. Abby in CA, on June 23, 2011 at 1:37 pm said:

    BIG WIN IN CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT THE JAVAHERI CASE. CHASE DENIED MOTION TO DISMISS THIS WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE CASE.

    SEE MOST OF THE CASE LEGAL FILINGS HERE IN ONE DOCUMENT.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58579364/JUDGE-WRIGHT-DENIES-CHASE-S-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-5-CAUSES-OF-ACTION-JAVAHERI-CASE-FEDERAL-COURT-CALIF-wrongful-foreclosure-quiet-title-violation-o

  365. Jack, on June 20, 2011 at 9:16 am said:

    Dear km1usKe
    Injunction Bond is usually mandatory. Assuming this was for a preliminary injunction against a foreclosure then you are lucky to get it. Even monthly payments which you will have to pay until you get a permanent injunction is normal, then you can stop paying anything once you get the permanent injunction. If you had filed chapter-13 bankruptcy then you would need to pay this kind of monthly to the Chapter-13 trustee until the case is decided against lender or yourself, or a resolution is reached. So, If I were you I wouldn’t mess with what you have now and go for it without delay.

  366. Abby in CA, on June 18, 2011 at 5:08 pm said:

    HERE I’VE ADDED A SECOND APPEAL DECISION WHICH MIGHT HELP FOLKS IN UD IN CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58191093/TWO-IMPORTANT-APPEAL-DECISIONS-FOR-CALIFORNIANS-IN-UD-Ascuncion-v-Superior-Court-of-San-Diego-1980-THE-MEHR-DECISION

  367. Abby in CA, on June 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm said:

    THIS CALIFORNIA APPEAL DECISION FROM 1980 CAN PERHAPS HELP YOU MOVE YOUR UD CASE OUT OF LIMITED CIVIL COURT……READ CAREFULLY AND CONSULT AN ATTORNEY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58191093/IMPORTANT-APPEAL-DECISION-FOR-CALIFORNIANS-IN-UD-Ascuncion-v-Superior-Court-of-San-Diego-1980

    THIS WAS CITED IN A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AN UD (EVICTION) ACTION WITH A LARGER FRAUD CASE FILED AFTER THE TRUSTEE SALE AND DURING THE UD.

    THE UD JUDGE DID CONSOLIDATE TO THE LARGER FRAUD CASE.

    THIS IS A VERY VERY IMPORTANT CASE AND SHOULD HELP CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE VICTMIS.

  368. km1usKe, on June 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm said:

    I got a preliminary injunction granted today sounds like a victory except the judge wants me to post a $5000 bond and pay $2000 monthly. I am wondering if I really need the preliminary injunction and if so can I appeal the $5000 bond requirement. I am so confused. If anyone has any input I would really appreciate it. For those looking to get the preliminary injunction bond it seemed real simple to show that I would prevail on the merits.

  369. Jeff, on June 17, 2011 at 5:38 pm said:

    Does anyone have a sample CA template for an EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY WRIT OF POSSESSION? If so, can you email it to me at lv2hkup@gmail.com

  370. Jack, on June 13, 2011 at 11:46 pm said:

    Once again first part of “TENDER RULE”

    There are many situations where TENDER can be avoided. These sources with bits and pieces of them quoted here can be helpful. Is there a page where I could attach the PDF images of these cases?
    C.A.9 (Cal.),1987.
    In re Worcester (Famous case)
    811 F.2d 1224, 16 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 589, 7 Fed.R.Serv.3d 733, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,637
    “(2) debtor had made valid tender of payment of indebtedness owing, under California law, even though she admitted she could not borrow money and had none available;”
    “Fact that debtor who sought to set aside foreclosure sale did not have cash immediately available to support her tender of payment of indebtedness owing was not fatal under California law, which required one seeking to set aside foreclosure sale to make valid and viable tender of payment of indebtedness owing to cancel voidable sale under deed of trust. Cal.Civ.Code §§ 1493, 1495. or Irregularities in Judgment, Decree, or Sale.”
    “ California relation back doctrine, providing that title at foreclosure sale cannot be affected by adverse claims or interests arising after execution of deed of trust, applied only to title taken at valid foreclosure sale.”
    “FN7. Worcester asked the court: “To order an appraisal and sale of a portion of said real property to recover its market value for the benefit of creditors and remit the balance to Debtor, or to allow the Debtor to redeem said property.” Both these alternatives express Worcester’s willingness to pay. See Copsey v. Sacramento Bank, 133 Cal. 659, 662, 66 P. 7, 9 (1901) (offer to redeem must be made to set aside sale). Worcester’s offer to redeem is an offer to tender the amount of indebtedness, as she offered $7,922 more than the amount of her indebtedness.”

    ____________________
    N.D.Cal.,2010.
    Quach v. Citimortgage Inc.
    Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3211937 (N.D.Cal.)
    Borrower was not required to allege a present ability to tender full loan proceeds in order to bring a claim to rescind her loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for lender’s failure to provide her two copies of a notice of the right to rescind. 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3); Truth in Lending Act, § 125(b), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1635(b).
    ____________________
    N.D.Cal.,2010.
    Ngoc Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    749 F.Supp.2d 1022
    Because Plaintiff has not shown that the note or deed is “void,” and has not indicated a willingness or ability to tender the amount owed, Plaintiff’s first, seventh and tenth causes of action are dismissed on this basis as well.
    ____________________

    Court of Appeal, Second District, California.
    Debra KLINE, Calvin Wiekamp, and Debra Kline & Calvin Wiekamp, dba Calvin & Kline, a California general partnership, Appellants,
    v.
    REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF POMONA, et al., Respondents.
    And Related Cross-Actions.
    No. B129833.
    September 30, 1999.
    Appeal From the Superior Court for Los Angeles County Robert A. Dukes, Judge (Superior Court Case No. KC 022962)
    “Tender is an issue not to be decided at the procedural stages. At the procedural stage the Court only decides whether Plaintiffs have pleaded “enough facts to state a *10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Storm v. America’s Servicing Company et. al., No. 09cv1206, 2009 WL 3756629, at *6 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 6, 2009)(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). For the purposes of this Demurrer, it is irrelevant on whether or not tender is required since this case is at a Demurrer, a procedural stage. Therefore, the issue of tender should not have any effect on this appeal.”
    Forgery of any kind as long as it is not by borrower can negate TENDER RULE:
    This published case cites many great cases:
    Cal.App. 6 Dist.,2000.
    Schiavon v. Arnaudo Brothers
    84 Cal.App.4th 374, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8620, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,421

  371. Abby in CA, on June 13, 2011 at 8:22 am said:

    CALIFORNIANS–SOME VERY GOOD INFORMATION ON UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCESS AND LAWS HERE. IT IS CURRENT 2011

    http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/courses/ud/index.htm

  372. marina, on June 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm said:

    The link offered is not working….Please post up dated link.

    california-assignments-must-be-recorded

    I want to know the civil code for this because in my PSA it specifically states that only an Opinion of Counsel will be used for California properties in the Trust.
    IndyMac INDX 2006-AR4
    . thanks

  373. Abby in CA, on June 11, 2011 at 9:57 am said:

    CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY APPEAL NINTH CIRCUIT –WELLS FARGO HAS NO STANDING-UCC

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/57588867/9th-Circuit-BAP-Opinion-in-Veal-v-AHMSI-UCC-Applies-June-2011-Wells-Fargo-Has-NO-Standing

  374. Jack, on June 8, 2011 at 5:42 pm said:

    First part did not come through for some reason

  375. Jack, on June 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm said:

    Additional cases and links about “TENDER RULE”:

    http://www.lockelord.com/files/Event/6fd97f27-daef-4b46-9bac-15363461385f/Preview/EventAttachment/fd8a99bd-6b76-4c5b-8932-3310cb3ca852/TILARescission-Perdew.pdf
    2- Need not allege ability to tender. Bushong v. Paramount Equity Mortg.,
    Inc., Case No. 09-1080, 2010 WL 3945256, at *3 (D. Or. October 06,
    2010) (adopting the “most workable practice” rationale and holding that
    “Yamamoto does not sanction dismissal at the pleading stage for failure to
    allege ability to tender”); Quach v. Citimortgage Inc., Case No. 09-05607,
    2010 WL 3211937, at *3 (N.D. Cal. August 12, 2010); ING Bank v. Ahn,
    Case No. 09-995, 2009 WL 2083965, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2009)
    (noting that “Yamamoto did not hold that a district court must, as a matter
    of law, dismiss a case if the ability to tender is not pleaded. Rather, all of
    these cases indicate that it is within the trial court’s discretion to choose to
    dismiss where the court concludes that the party seeking rescission is
    incapable of performance.”); Agustin v. PNC Fin. Servs. Group, 707 F.
    Supp. 2d 1080, 1090 (D. Haw. 2010) (denying motion to dismiss TILA
    rescission claim for failure to allege ability to repay because “TILA itself
    contains no such requirement”).
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/attorneysteve/2011/05/18/hud-is-pissed–welcome-to-the-club-boys
    428 B.R. 266 (in re Giza)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38342327/Rescind-Your-Loan-Under-TILA-in-Bankruptcy-Court
    192 Cal.App.4th 218
    http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=USFN_E_Update&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17826
    http://thecenturionsview.blogspot.com/
    http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Doble-v-Deutsche-Bank.pdf
    Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2000.
    Dimock v. Emerald Properties
    81 Cal.App.4th 868, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5010, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6653
    “Because Dimock was not required to rely upon equity in attacking the deed, he was not required to meet any of the burdens imposed when, as a matter of equity, a party wishes to set aside a voidable deed. (See Little v. CFS Service Corp., supra,188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1359, 233 Cal.Rptr. 923.) In particular, contrary to the defendants’ argument, he was not required to tender any of the amounts due under the note.”
    Discussing Dimrock:
    S.D.Cal.,2011.
    Lofgren v. National City Mortg., Inc.
    Slip Copy, 2011 WL 109080 (S.D.Cal.)
    ““C. Wrongful Foreclosure
    Next, Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure fails because Plaintiff has failed to allege tender. Plaintiff argues she need not tender to set aside the foreclosure, ( see Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Opp’n to Mot. at 6), and she cites Dimock v. Emerald Properties LLC, 81 Cal.App.4th 868, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 255 (2000) to support that argument. However, Dimock involved a claim for quiet title, not a claim for wrongful foreclosure. For that claim, Plaintiff is required to allege tender. See Abdallah v. United Savings Bank, 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 286 (1996) (citing FPCI RE-HAB 01 v. E & G Investments, Ltd., 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1021-22, 255 Cal.Rptr. 157 (1989)) (stating plaintiffs are required to allege tender of the amount of their indebtedness to maintain any claim for irregularity in the sale procedure). Her failure to do so here warrants dismissal of that claim.””

  376. Peter, on June 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm said:

    Suggestion: Compare your Deed of Trust as originally recorded at the Recorder’s Office with any “copies” that you have received since. See if the original loan number has been whited out. Not really a true copy of the original then, is it? Check the Note as well. Contact me at KPPI2U@gmail.com if you’d like to compare or discuss.

  377. Abby in CA, on June 7, 2011 at 10:07 am said:

    READ YOUR ASSIGNMENTS CAREFULLY! EVEN MINE SAYS THE NOTE FOLLOWS THE DEED (OR MORTGAGE IN SOME STATES).

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/57300654/READ-YOUR-ASSIGNMENT-CAREFULLY-IT-MAY-SAY-THE-NOTE-FOLLOWS-THE-MORTGAGE-OR-DEED-THIS-COULD-MEAN-MELTDOWN-OF-THE-BIG-BANKS-INVESTORS-HAVE-BEEN-FLEE

  378. Abby in CA, on June 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm said:

    OK–suddenly the UD Judge who we thought did the right thing—-caused her tentative ruling to disappear from the court website & docket.

  379. Abby in CA, on June 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA UD JUDGE DID THE RIGHT THING—CITES A CASE WHEN NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON UD CASE POST JURY TRIAL—SHE CANNOT PROCEED

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/57229338/When-Notice-of-Appeal-Filed-in-Ud-Matter-in-California-Use-This-Case-JUDGE-CITED-IT-IN-A-TENTATIVE-RULING-IN-CALIFORNIA-UD-ACTION-AFTER-THE-UD-TRIAL

  380. Jack, on June 1, 2011 at 11:07 pm said:

    Yes, there are some scenarios. I will put a few things together. Meantime to climb one step up to the sources of corruption click on:

    Government for Sale: How Lobbyists Shaped the Financial Reform Bill

  382. Abby in CA, on June 1, 2011 at 3:45 pm said:

    IN CASE YOU NEED THIS–HERE IS THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL ETHICS GUIDE -JUDGES SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THIS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/56845785/CALIFORNIA-JUDICIAL-ETHICS-GUIDE-JUDGE-ARE-TO-FOLLOW-THIS

  383. Jeff, on June 1, 2011 at 2:44 pm said:

    Other than the case that Charles pointed out, how about ANY case that the courts applied the rule of law and ruled in favor of the homeowner in ANY scenario. I’m not seeing any on PACER, etc. (ie. I’m looking to see if anybody is making any headway in CA, as this state has some of the worst rulings against homeowners that I have ever read.)

  384. Jack, on June 1, 2011 at 11:23 am said:

    Once you are in UD it is too late to negate the Tender Rule which should have been negated in preventing a foreclosure by injunction, or bankruptcy.
    In UD legality of title could still be argued, for any of the good reasons that may exist, but with narrow limitations. But, even though this is the law, UD judges are so corrupted that they will outright tell you title can’t be litigated in UD for any reasons, meaning that must lose your home, and that if you want later on you can bring a “Wrongful Foreclosure” and “Quiet Title Action”.
    Then, in such an action you could argue that you did not need to tender for whatever legitimate reasons you had, for instance due to fraud, due to previous attempts in rescission, due to TILA violations, etc.
    Now, what scenarios are you looking for?

  385. Tim, on June 1, 2011 at 7:43 am said:

    In addition to Abby’s comment, if a homeowner fights the UD and loses the plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fee’s and costs. So beware…

  386. Abby in CA, on June 1, 2011 at 2:13 am said:

    Jack
    In California, once the non-judicial foreclosure has completed and once one is fighting in court in a UD or unlawful detainer, what is happening is that the courts out here are saying that one cannot allege wrongful foreclosure unless one tenders!! Case after case this is happening in and homeowners are losing.

    The first time a Californian gets to be in court is in the UD. It is very fast moving—once served a person only has 5 days to respond with a court filing.

  387. Jack, on May 31, 2011 at 5:52 pm said:

    Is someone looking for cases or statutes negating the “TENDER RULE”? If so, briefly say under what circumstances,…say, under Rescission, TILA, etc?

  388. Jeff, on May 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm said:

    Thanks for the case Charles. If you find anymore please let me know and I’ll do the same if I find any.

  389. Charles Cox, on May 31, 2011 at 12:55 pm said:

    Tim,

    With all due respect, these “scammers” you talk about, exc-mortgage brokers, et al, are contributors but hardly the army of scammers you describe. They are “going after” no different a demographic than they did in the first place to “sell” these loans for their parent mortagage and investment bankers. Kind of like blaming the soldiers for following their generals’ and politicians’ orders. To say these folks are specifically targeting working stiffs and the low income eldery is simply balderash. Comparing someone selling a frensic loan or securitization audit to the dirt-bags that over-inflated property values to profit on the backs of all of is, is putting all the blame where although some belongs, ceratinly not to the extent you describe. Loan modifications are bogus whether conducted by a mortgage broker; attorney or done by the individual themselves. You’re barking up the wrong tree and even though there is plenty of blame to go around, it wasn’t the group you attempt to chastise that created this mess, not by a long shot. Virtually all of these “con men” as you essentially call them, are in the same boat as the rest of us so look elsewhere for your wrath where it might do some good.

  390. Tim, on May 31, 2011 at 10:56 am said:

    As a nation, we are today awash with scammers who target working class homeowners at risk of losing their homes.
    We’ve always had con artists in this country. But today, we have thousands of scammers going after working class homeowners at risk of foreclosure. I’m talking about people that don’t have much to begin with, and as a result were not normally targeted by scammers, now being literally under attack.
    Today, there are an army of ex-mortgage brokers, trained to hunt for working class and lower income elderly homeowners, that are increasingly willing to lie about anything in order to rob homeowners of thousands of dollars by playing on the vulnerability that results from being at risk of foreclosure.
    Ever since the mortgage meltdown began, this group has been struggling to find a place to employ their skills. Some went to work for loan modification companies while others went into debt settlement, or the selling of forensic loan or securitization audits, and the like.
    But as of January 30, 2011, the FTC’s new MARS Final Rule took affect, and it made it essentially impossible for mortgage brokers to be involved in loan modifications nationwide, while other new regulations eliminated debt settlement as a place for ex-loan officers to make a living.
    This is a group of trained salespeople who are knowledgeable about mortgages, and expert at gaining someone’s confidence in order to get them to write a check, all too often for something that delivers no value to the homeowner. And it seems that as they’ve become more desperate, they’re less and less worried about getting caught, largely because they’ve learned that that crime does in fact pay.
    I would think that just about everyone in this country has learned that bankers or mortgage bankers don’t go to jail most of the time. To-date, there have been almost no criminal prosecutions as a result of the financial meltdown that has thrown this country into its depression… or deepening recession, if you’d prefer. And I think the lessons being learned include the reality that crime does in fact, very often, pay.
    We used to worship heroes, now we just want to “get away with it.”

  391. Charles Cox, on May 31, 2011 at 9:27 am said:

    Jeff,

    There are a few (not many, but there are some) cases where tender was rightfully not required (or bond or undertaking). For instance the Quintero v. Onewest et al case US District Court Case 09-CV-1561. Do your legal research.

    Tim,

    While your comments do reflect a lot of wasteful attempts to apparently litigate down the wrong path, you are missing recent rulings both in California and other States, particularly most recently, Oregon; that have been adequately litigated and where attorneys obtained favorable rulings.

    Look at Salazar in California (distinguishing Gomes); Hooker and LeMoss in Oregon and others.

    While your suggestions are indicitive of poor litigation practices by pro pers with inadequate resources and skills along with poor or incomplete advice potentially offered by counsel not experienced in litigating these matters, there are a few who do “get it” and are doing good work out there; they are just too few and far between.

    Disclosure: I am not an attorney and nothing stated in here is to be construed as legal advice.

  392. Tim, on May 31, 2011 at 8:58 am said:

    Actually Jeff, California courts are doing a cleansing of the poor. You must be employed and rich to live here.

  393. Jeff, on May 31, 2011 at 8:34 am said:

    In other words, you cannot challenge a foreclosure in California. If you can, please sow me 1 case where a preliminary injunction was granted with no tender required.

  394. Tim, on May 31, 2011 at 8:24 am said:

    Upside-down borrowers, frustrated with a lack of lender willingness to modify their loans and desperate to keep their homes, often turn to lawyers who promise to stop foreclosures and force lenders to modify loans. But all too often what appears to be a meritorious Complaint gets quickly thrown out by the Courts and the borrower ends up still losing their home… plus thousands of dollars in legal fees.
    Significantly, in these cases the borrower typically requests and is granted aTemporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the pending foreclosure sale. It appears as a quick victory. But a TRO is just a short-term stoppage for approx. two weeks at which point the borrower must convince the court to grant aPreliminary Injunction stopping foreclosure for the entire time it takes to get the case to trial which could be two years or more. Here is where the lenders are winning the war.
    The following analyzes several of the legal arguments raised against the lenders and what has happened in the Courts. The cases cited all originated in California state courts but were decided in the Federal courts. The decisions appear consistent with what is happening in other states.
    1. I MADE ALL THE TRIAL MODIFICATION PAYMENTS AND GAVE THEM ALL THE DOCUMENTS THEY ASKED FOR. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL THEM TO MODIFY MY LOAN – This argument is often raised as part of a lawsuit to stop a foreclosure from occurring. The underlying arguments are: 1) the lender did not handle my HAMP modification application properly (Negligence claim); or 2) I met the lender’s or HAMP’s loan mod requirements but the lender denied the modification anyway (Beach of Contract claim) ; or 3) the lender never intended to give me the modification, they just wanted to get my Trial Mod payments (Fraud claim). Most loan modifications on homes are being done under the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Where a borrower doesn’t fit HAMP’s guidelines, many lenders have their own “proprietary” modification programs. The legal question is whether a borrower can force the lender to modify if they fit within the guidelines. The courts routinely are saying: “No”. In January, 2011, in the case of Phipps v Wells Fargo Bank, the Federal Court ruled that a Borrower has no right to sue a lender to force a HAMP modification. Even before this, in the 2009 case of Pantoja v Countrywide Home Loans, the Federal Court ruled that California laws do not impose a duty to modify a mortgagor’s loan.
    2. THE LENDER PROMISED ME THEY WOULD EXTEND THE FORECLOSURE SO I COULD COMPLETE MY MODIFICATION BUT THEY THEN FORECLOSED ANYWAY. THE COURT SHOULD UNWIND THE SALE AND GET MY HOME BACK – Again the courts are routinely saying: “No”. In the 2010 case of Mehta v Wells Fargo Bank (Fed Ct decison 3/29/2011), the Court ruled: a gratuitous oral promise to postpone a sale is ordinarily unenforceable. Typically the loan agreements require that any modification be in writing and signed by all. Alternatively, the borrower must have proviuded the lender with some “consideration” to which the lender is not otherwise entitled. Merely submitting modification application documents is not consideration nor is it enough to have continued making Trial Mod payments. Without a written agreement with the lender extending the sale, the foreclosure will not be rescinded.
    3. IF THE LENDER CANNOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE, THE COURT SHOULD BAR THEM FROM FORECLOSING – This “standing” argument has received extensive publicity natonwide, especially concerning the rights of MERS to foreclose. Although early rulings tended to vary, Courts are more generally ruling in favor of the foreclosing lenders. As stated in Pantoja v Countrywide Home Loans, under California law there is no requirement to produce the original note prior to completing a non-judicial foreclosure (Trustee’s Sale). A different result could possibly arise in a Judicial Foreclosure although that process is extremely rare in a home foreclosure. Similarly, the courts agree that MERS has a right to foreclose when MERS is named in the Deed of Trust (which is most often the case).
    4. I WOULD HAVE PAID BUT THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE – California has a “Tender Rule” which requires the borrower to allege and to prove not that they “concievably” could have paid, but it was “plausible” that they would have paid. Simply put, actual proof of real capacity to pay is needed. Court rulings are consistent: If you couldn’t pay anyway, a defective notice was not the cause of the foreclosure.
    The bottom-line in all of this is to be wary in believing that just because the lender may have mishandled your loan modification, a court will help you out. At a basic level, a loan is a contract between the lender and borrower in which the lender gives the borrower money in exchange for the borrower promising to repay the loan on the terms in the written agreement. Courts will generally not interfere in the contractual agreements of parties unless one of the parties breaches the agreements or does some other illegal action.
    Obviously the above analysis just touches the surface of where the law is today. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases are moving through the courts as borrowers seek to keep their homes. In some cases, different courts will reach different rulings from those stated in this Article. However, it does appear that these decisions are likely to be widely followed. In fact, just yesterday a Sacramento Superior Court judge denied a Preliminary Injunction after having granted a TRO and allowed the foreclosure to continue. The judge’s legal reasoning cited all of the cases identified above and more.

  395. Jeff, on May 19, 2011 at 7:08 pm said:

    Press Advisory
    May 19, 2011
    Media Advisory
    Contact: (415) 703-5837
    Print Version

    May 23: Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Major Initiative to Protect Homeowners from Mortgage Fraud

    WHAT: Attorney General Kamala D. Harris will make a major announcement regarding criminal and civil responses to mortgage fraud. She will be joined at the announcement by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

    Immediately following the announcement, representatives of the Attorney General’s office will convene a roundtable where Los Angeles homeowners will describe the crimes, frauds, and other scams to which they have been subjected.

    WHEN:
    Monday, May 23
    2:45 p.m. – Announcement
    3:45 p.m. – Roundtable

    WHERE:
    Office of the Attorney General, 1st Floor
    300 South Spring Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90013

    NOTES:
    Please RSVP at agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov or 415.703.5837 by close of business on Friday, May 20.

    http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_advisory?id=2088

  396. Ann, on April 23, 2011 at 4:06 pm said:

    George Gingo Esq. an elite Foreclosure Defense attorney in Florida and California just publish a book about Foreclosure Defense Litigation Handbook for Californians. Check it out.

    ———————————————————————-

    If you have ever contemplated the prospect of fighting your own court battle, you know the feeling of panic that quickly strikes, knocking all of the confidence right out of you. After the butterflies in your stomach have subsided and your heart has stopped racing, you ask yourself: How will I ever be able to handle court procedure, rules and protocol, let alone argue my case? Well stop worrying because, if you have the courage to fight to save your home, we will show you, point by point, how to do it. Here is the Litigation Handbook you’ve been praying for. Includes: · Tips on Court Procedure · “Show Me the Note” Defenses · California Unlawful Detainer Defenses · Bankruptcy Mortgage Note Challenge FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS WITH SAMPLE MOTIONS AND OTHER COURT DOCUMENTS INCLUDED
    　

    To View the Table of Contents, Appendices, Conclusion of the Book, and to learn more about the Authors, go to

    http://www.baileyvpotter.com

    The Book is Now Available at Amazon

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1432770225

    　

  397. Jen, on April 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm said:

    What is an Assignment of Mortgage and Why Is It Important In a Foreclosure Action?
    Foreclosure is the process by which a financial institution (e.g., your bank/loan servicer) can reclaim your home and/or land if you fail to make timely mortgage payments.
    I had surgery and came back to work on 10/01/09, after being off for 4 months, GMAC never allowed us a loan modification, never gave us a reason for the denial except they started the foreclosure process.
    GMAC never responded to a QWR, in October 22, 2009, instead they chose to foreclose.
    * “There are so many people who, if they had received a meaningful modification, could have stayed in their homes.”
    In a foreclosure action, the bank files a complaint with the state court to foreclosure the property. Oftentimes, banks do not have the right to bring such action due to lack of an assignment of mortgage.

    Fact #1 August 27, 2010 GMAC mortgage sent me a letter informing me they could not find the assignment of this mortgage. Explanation it never happened, if you look at the property history or at the recorder’s office there is no record of any assignment.
    Now we have GMAC admitting they never had the assignment recorded.
    How much more proof do I need to show the harm caused to my family by GMAC’s actions we are demanding GMAC remediate all financial injury to borrowers caused by any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies.”
    The loan servicer never asserted an ownership claim to this property:
    at 8704 Milo Ct, Elk Grove CA 95624
    Fact #2 GMAC never submitted a Full Reconveyance, which is yet another CA law, they violated. When GMAC got around to submitting the Substitution of Trustee on 10/09/09 they went ahead and filed the Notice of Default the very same day, this is also illegal.
    Note: Prior to the auction on 2/5/10 the following never happened even though we were still in the home:
    Notice of sale is then posted as advertisement on the property as well as on one other public location. The big yellow home auction signs.
    Fact #3 Spot the Fraud:
    Cindy Sandoval, Assistant Secretary” who signed the simultaneously recorded Substitution of Trustee, purportedly for MERS. This document is also witnessed by Dee Ortega. in California. Nor is there any explanation provided as to why the so-called MERS executive and the so-called Executive executive have identical handwriting.

  398. Jack, on April 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm said:

    AT LAST SOMETHING SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING:

    http://kareemsalessi.wordpress.com/foreclosure-crimes/
    OCC Purported Enforcement Action Against Foreclosure Crimes:
    4/13/2011
     Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices
     Consent Order for Bank of America
     Consent Order for Citibank
     Consent Order for HSBC Bank
     Consent Order for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
     Consent Order for LPS; DocX, LLC; and LPD Default Solutions, Inc.
     Consent Order for MetLife Bank, N.A.

     Consent Order for MERSCORP and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)
     Consent Order for PNC Bank, N.A.
     Consent Order for U.S. Bank National Association, U.S. Bank National Association ND
     Consent Order for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

  399. John, on April 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm said:

    New CA Bankruptcy Order- Salazar v US Bank–Statutory Foreclosure Scheme Trumps MERS’ Proposed Alternative System

  400. John, on April 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm said:

    In California, a broker cannot shed it’s fiduciary duty by funding loan and then claiming no duty between lenders and borrowers. See Smith v Home loan Funding, Inc

  401. John, on April 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm said:

    In California, a plaintiff isn’t compelled by law to seek out or investigate a fraud for tolling purposes if done by a fiduciary. See.Hobart V Hobart….since a fiduciary is in a place of trust.

  402. Abby in CA, on April 7, 2011 at 5:56 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA IS RARE STATE THAT HAS LAW THAT SAYS MORTGAGE BROKERS DO HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO BORROWERS!! SEE THE CAL APPEAL COURT CASE HERE.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52530835/MORTGAGE-BROKERS-IN-CALIFORNIA-DO-HAVE-A-FIDUCIARY-DUTY-TO-BORROWER-1979-CALIFORNIA-APPEALS-COURT-CASE

  403. Abby in CA, on April 4, 2011 at 4:43 pm said:

    CLAUDIA ACEVES WINS PARTIAL ON HER APPEAL V US BANK NA & OPTION ONE

    CALIFORNIA PARTIAL WIN FOR HOMEOWNER

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52280305/ACEVES-V-US-BANK-NA-CALIFORNIA-APPEAL-PARTIAL-WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNER-BORROWER-OPTION-ONE-ASSET-BACKED-SECURITIES-CORP-HOME-EQUITY-LOAN-TRUST-SERIES

  404. Charles Cox, on April 4, 2011 at 6:27 am said:

    Be careful of the F word (Fraud),

    It has a high standard of proof and you must prove “intent”…not much success out there.

    You may however, wish to look into “constructive fraud” to lower the threshold (generally no “intent”)

  405. Simonee, on April 3, 2011 at 7:35 pm said:

    Marina,
    Argue FRAUD.

    In this matter before the court, the foreclosure is not a simple matter of “irregularities’ in the foreclosure sale – the wrongful foreclosure is being completed by parties with no legal rights to the Note or Deed of Trust, and as such, would not just be voidable, it would be VOID. According to the second edition of Black’s Law Dictionary something that is “void” is something that is “[o]f no legal effect; null”. The distinction of void and voidable is often of great practical importance.
    In Dimock v. Emerald Properties, LLC. (2000) 81 Cal.App. 4th 868, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255, the appellate court, in distinguishing Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 15 Cal.App. 3d 112, 92 Cal. Rptr. 851, held that tender is not required when a trustee goes forward with a foreclosure sale without any legal authority to do so. Consequently, the court held that a foreclosure sale was VOID and a complete nullity with no force and effect. Id. At 876. Accordingly, the court held that tender rule did not apply. Id. at 878.

    hope this helps.

  406. marina, on April 2, 2011 at 9:17 pm said:

    I haven/t found anything thing written in these blogs re fight ing the CA “Tender Rule”. Defendants always resort to this and the judge sustained their demurrer on this count, even the foreclosing trustee who has no standing on the matter as we never entered into a monetary contract together….Just is saying I have to pay up my 1M loan to before I can have my day in court. I am awaiting formal dismissal then fiing a new case. Want to have my guns ready for this arguement.

  407. Charles Cox, on March 31, 2011 at 11:22 am said:

    Unfortunately, the AZ bill failed in the House and didn’t pass. Too much lobbying by bankster reps.

  408. tin, on March 28, 2011 at 3:13 pm said:

    Abby,
    I took that into Dennis Cardoza’s office the day it hit the press. I have family living in Phoenix and I know they were so happy to see that bill pass.
    Now from what I got from Cardoza’s office is that he is trying to get something like that to pass. If everyone writes, emails or calls the folks in SAC…maybe something like that bill will pass here??

  409. Abby in CA, on March 28, 2011 at 1:16 pm said:

    CALL TO ACTION FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

    I MET WITH AN ASSEMBLYWOMAN FROM MY DISTRICT. SHE READ THE MATERIALS I PROVIDED TO HER ABOUT THE NEW ARIZONA LAW RECENTLY PASSED WHICH MAKES IT MANDATORY FOR ANY FORECLOSING ENTITY TO PROVE A CLEAR CHAIN OF TITLE BEFORE PURSUING A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE. WE NEED THE SAME FOR CALIFORNIANS.

    EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE HER CONSTITUENT, SHE IS CHAIR OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISTLATURE.

    SHE SAID SHE WAS INTRIGUED BY THE NEW ARIZONA LAW, BUT SAID SHE COULD DO NOTHING BASED ON WHAT ONE PERSON (ME) WAS TELLING HER.

    I URGENTLY NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE BY ADDING YOUR NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE LETTER TEMPLATE, AND MODIFY IT IF YOU WISH, AND FAX IT TO HER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. YOU CAN ASK FOR EMERGENCY LEGISLATION TOO.

    THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN’S FAX IS INCLUDED IN THE LETTER AS WELL AS A COPY OF HER BUSINESS CARD.

    THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

    MAYBE WE CAN MAKE LIFE BETTER.

    WORD TEMPLATE IS HERE:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51739663/CALIFORNIANS-CALL-TO-ACTION-FAX-THIS-ASSEMBLYWOMAN

  410. Abby in CA, on March 16, 2011 at 3:35 pm said:

    CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS LAUNCH STATE CAMPAIGN TO SUPPORT NEW LAWS AND RAISE REVENUE BY HOLDING BANKS ACCOUNTABLE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50896376/California-Homeowners-Launch-State-Campaign-to-Raise-Revenue-and-Plug-State-Budget-Hole-by-Holding-Banks-Accountable

  411. Abby in CA, on March 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm said:

    WILL THE JUDGE DO THE RIGHT THING?

    COULD ILLEGAL & IMPROPER NOTARIZATIONS CAUSE MEGA BANKS TO OWE THE IRS BILLIONS AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TOO?
    INVESTORS MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THIS.

    IF YOU GOT YOUR LOAN ORIGINATED BY NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THIS.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50478424/WILL-THE-JUDGE-DO-THE-RIGHT-THING-COULD-ILLEGAL-IMPROPER-NOTARIZATIONS-CAUSE-MEGA-BANKS-TO-OWE-THE-IRS-BILLIONS-AND-STATE-GOVERNMENTS-TOO-INVEST

  412. T, on March 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm said:

    Question to Neil Garfield:

    At bottom of page 14 of “APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF” in Exhbit A of this link’s pdf document the following laws are cited. Is this still California law? if so can it apply to current assignments? thanks. T

    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/2-18-11-rjn3-bk-appeal.pdf

    California statutes and its supreme court have long held that: “While a pledgee of evidence of indebtedness may assign his interest in the collateral, the assignee then having his rights, or may collect it when due, he, under Civ.Code §3006, may not without the assignor’s consent sell, compromise, or otherwise discharge the pledged debt or its security. REVERT v. HESSE et al. (1920); (Cite as: 184 Cal. 295, 193 P. 943). One for whom and subject to whose direction assignees of pledged mortgages act as trustees in taking the assignment of and releasing the mortgages is liable for the conversion thus accomplished through his agents. id.

  413. Jen, on February 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm said:

    My sub of trustee was returned to me by sac county recorders, Proffer financial is the only one allowed to sign off on this property, they were out of business in 07.
    GMAC never had ownership, they were not the orginial lender, also the broker from proffer financial is working again as a broker for another company in socal. I am contacting the dre on this guy.

  414. John, on February 28, 2011 at 3:09 pm said:

    California update….During my weekly pacer review, I have noticed that lenders are using the duel track method for foreclosing on property. Filing both non-judicial and judicial foreclosure, thereby testing the homeowner for strength of opposition, if none, will finish the judicial process with deficiency judgement on refinanced loans.

  416. simonee, on February 23, 2011 at 8:39 pm said:

    In regards to Gomes v Countrywide – I read that. He screwed the pooch without setting up his pleading properly. He never questions MERS and the “officers” signing for MERS, he produces a copy of the note and dot himself instead of making them produce it and he never questions the authenticity of the documents he includes in the pleadings. On a demurrer the judge considers everything in the pleading as the truth for the purpose of the Demurrer. (I learned that one the hard way) Had he questioned the MERS officer signing and their authority to do so, he would have survived the Demurrer. It is a lousy win for the banks — READ the case — they will quote it like they do Canseco v Ndex West but when you get into the body of the cases you realize that the securitzation was never really argued. Nothing about PSA, Purchase Agreement, mortgage schedules, assignments, etc. are in the case. It should not deter Californians whose loans were improperly (or not) conveyed to a REMIC.

  418. Jeff, on February 15, 2011 at 10:43 pm said:

    Great source For Statute of Limitation Questions:

    Rutter California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Statutes of Limitations
    By: Justice William F. Rylaarsdam, Justice Paul Turner, Forms Editor: Donna P. Bader

  419. John, on February 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm said:

    Should tender be required in a case when the pretender lender cannot prove ownership of loan?…hence, no interest, nor rights, or loss of alleged debt.
    I’ve read many pleadings for wrongful foreclosure that do not use this language to try to circumvent the tender issue.

  420. Peter, on February 12, 2011 at 7:38 am said:

    Hey all, my best guess is that John is an attorney that’s obviously getting in on the current fraudulant money making scheme in these foreclosures. It appears as though he’s trying to learn the ropes per his Feb. 1 shoutout. Uh, he would be one of those attorneys that you shouldn’t trust.

    I think it’s fantastic that we have someone like Charles that is willing to give of his time, is knowledgable and keeps up with what’s going on out there currently.

    The judges, who were on the side of the big “reputable” banks, are learning that they have been taken advantage of by these banks and they’re not very happy when they discover it. It makes them look like an idiot.

    We’ve seen this happen in several cases throughout the country. California is lagging behind because the attorneys out here are all about greed instead of doing the right thing and helping see to it that banks are following the law.

  421. Simonee, on February 11, 2011 at 7:52 pm said:

    You are making an assumption. And it DOES matter. Tough to understand..I know.

  422. John, on February 11, 2011 at 7:31 pm said:

    Simonee, In reply to…..”who do you tender to when the people foreclosing have no rights to do so?”

    What does it matter, you can’t tender!

    I know it’s tuff to understand.

  423. Simonee, on February 11, 2011 at 6:37 pm said:

    I find this whole tender issue fascinating; who do you tender to when the people foreclosing have no rights to do so? I think John, that you, like many judges continue to look at these foreclosures as simple real estate transactions gone bad. In reality they are no longer simple real estate transactions and/or foreclosures; when the homeowner can plead their case and demostrate to the courts that the loan is no longer a loan it will be an entirely different conversation and outcome. And that day is coming. So enjoy your new 900k house while you can…it may not remain yours if the rightful owner become aware of the fraud involved in the taking of their home.

  424. Charles Cox, on February 11, 2011 at 2:28 pm said:

    Yeah Peter, John is clueless…doesn’t even know what a “lender” or a “bank” is…jumps to ignorant conclusions, makes passive-agressive (and incorrect and probably libelous) aspersions…acts like he thinks he is smarter than an attorney or anyone else for that matter (and everyone is outl out to screw you)…he’s absolutely devoid of logic, contrary to what he might like you to think…typical of the other side that blames the home buyers (except him of course) for the foreclosure mess…

  425. John, on February 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm said:

    Tender, traditionally applied to trustors, is based upon the equitable maxim that a court of equity will not order a useless act performed. (Arnolds Management Corporation v. Eischen 158 Cal.App.3d 575. 578-579.) “A valid and viable tender of payment of the indebtedness owing is essential to an action to cancel a voidable sale under a deed of trust.” (Karlsen v. American Savings & Loan (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 112 at p. 117.) The court goes on to say… “The rationale behind the rule is that if plaintiffs could not have redeemed the property had the sale procedures been proper, any irregularities in the sale did not result in damages to the plaintiffs.” [FPCI RE-HAB 01 v. E & G Investments, Ltd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1021.]

  426. John, on February 11, 2011 at 12:04 pm said:

    Peter, Try and keep calm and think it through….all verbal promises outside of a contract are subject to 1 year SOL. As for all your robo-signed docs there is language in a recent case giving the servicer standing to foreclosure due to servicers lost of income. So beware, thats all I’m saying

  427. John, on February 11, 2011 at 10:41 am said:

    My ranting is the solution. Peter did not lose his $70,000.00, he bought a house with it. Period.
    Charles Cox sells high priced audits to attorney’s who in turn sells them to unsuspecting clients. Kinda like a circumventing move.
    This is my logic, in Ca the lender will do a non-judicial foreclosure, that act will put an end to it. Start saving your money to buy a house at a lower cost.
    If the bank decides to do a judicial foreclosure then you can fight (if you have claims).
    If you have money to burn then follow Cox’ advice and go see an attorney that you might not be able to trust.
    per Cox’s own words.

    “Indeed there are California attorneys that can properly plead claims…not many”

    I guess the few good ones will be wearing badges

  428. Peter, on February 11, 2011 at 10:22 am said:

    Hey Charles, I’m with ya. He also doesn’t seem to understand that these loans were MADE to fail. Mine also involves a $100,000 lien on the property from the previous owner that has yet to be reconveyed. The assignments of the Deed of Trust to the securitized trust were recently created all the assignors (robo-signers) work for the assignee and are out of date order. They have not yet been recorded. We were told we could refinance out of a 10-year interest-only loan as soon as we sold our other house. What do you think happened only weeks after we signed our loan docs? The market came crashing down. Right…tell me the broker, the agent and the underwriters didn’t know this was happening. And, the original “lender” was longer licensed to lend when we signed the docs. Also, the notary claimed by them that we signed in front of, we never met. Stewart Title held his journal.

    Doesn’t John realize that the former owner could come back and claim his home? I hope he’s got a good title insurance policy, if he was able to get a buyer’s policy.

    Should our home somehow be taken…we’ll be back.

  429. Ron, on February 11, 2011 at 10:05 am said:

    Come on guys, the American legal system is a totally organized crime:
    http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/rothschild.htm

    http://www.coleman300.com/Store/Details/372
    No offense to the honest 1% lawyer like Garfield…

  430. Charles Cox, on February 11, 2011 at 9:53 am said:

    Peter, Mark, John et al,

    The remarks of John are exactly why California and all other States have enacted some form of Unauthorized Practice of Law statutes. John is offering “real help”, not being an attorney, not understanding your case, not apparently understanding stare decisis among a whole host of other things, He is yet another example of someone that is part of the problem rather than the solution.

    Even his mentioning “lenders” “trolling to sell high priced audits to unsuspecting people” (BTW, I do not sell audits to people as John inferred) his mention of SB 94, etc. in the context he did, should cause you both concern and to nullify his ramblings.

    As was evidenced in John’s previous comments, he lacks any thorough understanding of what caused the “mortgage meltdown” and is apparently a champion of the Ponzi scheme that is the root of the problem. He will find out soon enough if he has in fact has purchased a “2.2mil property for 900,000 in N Ca.” as he has said. (although as is typical of his ilk; who apparently relish the opportunity to take advantage of others’ losses and has the blame-the- victim-and-if-I-screw-up-it-is-your-fault, left-coast attitude down pat)

    While there certainly is a section for attorneys and a separate website Neil has put together for them, there is no section for arrogant wannabe lawyers charading as homeonwners potentially taking advantage of someone elses’ loss, spouting off half-ass information lacking any basis in fact as it relates to your specific circumstances.

    Only an attorney is authorized to offer (and you should seek) legal advice.

  431. John, on February 11, 2011 at 9:35 am said:

    Peter, Looking back at Marks question about a loan originated in 2005 brings an inquiry? What possible claim could a plaintiff plead to toll the SOLs after 6 yrs.
    I would really like to hear it!

  432. John, on February 11, 2011 at 9:01 am said:

    Peter, In addition, this section of the blog is for homeowners to comment on not attorneys or their wanna be helpers trolling and selling high priced audits to unsuspecting people using half ass legaleze to influence. There is a section for attorneys.

  433. John, on February 11, 2011 at 8:37 am said:

    Peter, Here’s some real help, both your claims are without merit. Ca courts have ruled that your so called fraudulent appraisal was for bank purposes only and you should have gotten your own. You are expanding Marks question into the foreclosure side of it but none the less I’ll comment. Ca courts have ruled that robo signed docs in the face of foreclosure does not cause damage to a plaintiff that cannot tender the outstanding amounts. I myself can understand these rulings since I do not want to end up in a state that is unfriendly to lenders because of a few who cannot pay their bills.
    Ca has the best foreclosure laws for the borrower to start over and should utilize them.

  434. Peter, on February 10, 2011 at 11:03 pm said:

    John, I don’t know why you’re getting on Charles, he’s been one of the most insightful and helpful people on the California portion of this blog. It’s people like him who help to create victories…not those who say, “Oh, just give up and move on. Let them take your $70,000 down payment on a house in which you received a fraudulant appraisal and fraudulant documents signed by robo-signer.” Sounds more like the side you’re on.

    There are VERY few you can trust in CA…INCLUDING attorneys. I hate to say it, but you don’t seem to be on the same page as most on this blog. Charles is absolutely right on the SOLs.

  435. Charles Cox, on February 10, 2011 at 7:06 pm said:

    And SB 94 keeps me at bay from what? Suggesting Mark get legal advice rather than heed incomplete, incorrect and misleading information? Not sure what that has to do with loan modifications but I diigress.

    Indeed there are California attorneys that can properly plead claims…not many, but they do exist and they know how to advise on SOLs and that’s whom you should seek the advice from.

  436. John, on February 10, 2011 at 6:23 pm said:

    Hey Mark, Now you see why Ca needed SB 94, to keep the Cox’s at bay! Try and find a Ca attorney that can plead your claims correctly.

  437. Charles Cox, on February 10, 2011 at 5:44 pm said:

    Indeed, settlements can be construed to not be worth the paper they’re written on…evidenced by Governor Moon-Beam’s BofA/Countrywide Settlement(s)…grandstanding at best.

    Not sure how extensive you’ve been involved with these issues John, but the statement “:Longest SOL” is neither reasonably comprehensively accurate and I might suggest, not a term you should be giving to someone that might not know what you are reffering to.

    Equitable tolling has many more aspects involved that might apply to a number of COAs which have shown in a recent rulings to be far longer than one might expect. As SOLs relate to fraud, indeed from “when you should have known” (among other issues) leaves a lot open for an attorney to properly review and advise on(hence, the actual time involved could be far longer than a simple statement of the number of years for a given SOL might suggest. Such pat statements have the potential to mislead. (e.g.: there are a number of other SOLs that initiate from actually when disclosed)

    If you bought a home for $900k in N. Ca. it is a $900k home not a 2.2mil home and will probably continue to decline in value along with most other real estate in California, so I’m not sure what you were trying to infer by that statement. Anyone buying real estate particularly in California should seek appropriate qualified professional help.

    While it is true, the courts are not in favor of the homeowner generally speaking, the courts are not there to help [anyone], never have been and never will be.

    Again Mark, seek competent legal advice and take anything said on this and any other forum, with an appropriate amount of caution. Only an attorney fully conversant with your particular circumstances; skilled, trained and educated in the specific area of practice you need help in; and, experienced in the area your property is located and court you need to litigate in, can glive can give you the advice you need (this is not to be construed as legal advice, I am not an attorney but I am qualified to advise on real estate)

  438. John, on February 10, 2011 at 4:15 pm said:

    The settlement was for purchase loans only, the longest SOL is 4 yrs which is way past and the only tolling could possibly come form fraud however in Ca it’s when you should of known not when you knew. Good luck and save your money for a new lower priced home. I just bought a 2.2mil home for $900,000.00 in N Ca. The Ca courts are not in favor of the homeowner. Don’t get roused up thinking the courts will help.

  439. Peter, on February 10, 2011 at 4:02 pm said:

    Mark, I believe there is a settlement on those loans in California with the Attorney General’s office. Look up Wells Fargo lawsuit on Google. It sounds like you had a Pick-A-Pay loan.

    Charles, thanks…is that guy on “our” side?

  440. Charles Cox, on February 10, 2011 at 3:51 pm said:

    Mark,

    Take what you read with a grain of salt. Statute of limitations vary depending on what your causes of action might be. There maybe a potential for equitable tolling as well, again depending on what you’re referring to going after them for. Contact competent legal help to properly review your case for the advice you need.

  441. John, on February 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm said:

    To Mark, Move on…SOL is four years from signing note.

  442. Mark Waite, on February 10, 2011 at 10:23 am said:

    We refinanced our home in CA back in 2005 w/ WAMU. We were put into one of those option pay mortgages by a broker and, when we got around to selling the home, we ended up paying nearly $100k out of our pocket.
    Do we have any recourse against WAMU/Chase or should we just move on?

  443. Charles Cox, on February 9, 2011 at 11:40 am said:

    Get in touch with Charles Koppa down in San Diego. He can fill you in on this part of the scam. poppakoppa@hotmail.com

  444. Peter, on February 9, 2011 at 10:32 am said:

    Can anyone make sense of this (I’ve many like this)? Why would a home be sold in a foreclosure auction for $500,000 in November and then go up for sale for $377,000 in December. Apparently not on the MLS. What’s happening here? This home sold for over 1 million in 2006. Any tips out there?

    http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/foreclosing-red-carpet-hollywood-home-goes-from-1-million-to-377000-real-estate-with-financial-glamour/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DrHousingBubble-HowILearnedToLoveSocal+%28Dr.+Housing+Bubble+-+How+I+learned+to+Love+SoCal%29

  445. Peter, on February 6, 2011 at 8:14 pm said:

    If you live in California and signed into a Special Forebearance Agreement with Wells Fargo, please contact me at KPPI2U@gmail.com.

  446. John, on February 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm said:

    Shoutout…Does the originator still have legal rights under the deed of trust after selling loan in California? Caselaw?

  447. John, on February 1, 2011 at 11:58 am said:

    To Jeb, Can’t find the comment, please direct.

  448. Jeb, on January 29, 2011 at 6:10 pm said:

    Thanks for John’s LInk to Judge Rothschild’s ruling today. and see related comment at this link:

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/in_money-changers_we_trust_20101228/#375570

  450. John, on January 29, 2011 at 1:51 pm said:

    The Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles has ruled that banks are “legally bound by their loan modification promises,” and can be sued for fraud when homeowners rely on such promises and are damaged as a result”

  452. Jen, on January 26, 2011 at 12:31 am said:

    Jose, u also need to go to the recorders office and get copies of whats on file. Also a property profile and/or history go to a title company in your area. The TILA didn’t do anything for me.

  453. Jen, on January 26, 2011 at 12:29 am said:

    Seeking Remedy, u need to go to your recorders office and see what’s on file, also a property history and/or profile, check with your county recorders office and submit a sub of trustee, I was listed on the sale gmac had as the trustee and trustor.

  454. Seeking Remedy, on January 25, 2011 at 10:54 pm said:

    Another thing to my previous post.

    Clearly in my Deed of Trust, it says that a Trustee is appointed by Lender via a recorded instrument at the county. If the lender is gone, then this assignment can NEVER happen, right?

    I see this as a flaw in the Deed of Trust, at least mine!

  455. Seeking Remedy, on January 25, 2011 at 10:51 pm said:

    So Jen, from what you have found, if the Lender listed on the DOT is no longer in business, you can assign a different trustee by filing at the county? What if the existing Trustee is still in business? But the DOT does NOT say the Trustee can assign another Trustee. MERS is simply a Nominee. Definition of Nominee: A person or company whose name is given as having title to a stock, real estate, etc., but who is not the actual owner.

    Any other legal eagles out there care to add to this??

    ~Seeking

  456. Carlos, on January 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm said:

    .StansberryResearch.-Video on COUNTERFEIT
    if above link does not work use:

    http://www.ENDOFAMERICA34.COM

  457. Carlos, on January 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm said:

    StansberryResearch.-Video on COUNTERFEIT

    explains what is soon coming

  458. Jose Pineda, on January 23, 2011 at 8:09 pm said:

    Hello,Jose from Temecula ,CA
    I need and answer on the following.
    My lender send me a notice of default on october 1st, 2010, but the 3 year periot for Tila rescission ends on oct. 18, 2010, I did file for BK on Jan.14,2011. The question is, can I still aply for Tila Recsission.
    thanks, I will apreciate Your answer.

    Jose

  459. John, on January 23, 2011 at 8:44 am said:

    All jokes aside….if everyone photo shopped a Notice of Reconveyence and sent it in the bank would have to prove their case that they are the true lein holder. How would they prove the homeowner sent it? Their paperwork is all lies.

  460. Jen, on January 22, 2011 at 9:01 pm said:

    John,

    I would go to your recorders office and ask them the requirements for filing a Notice of Release of Lien, i’m not an attoney, but have been used and abused by them. I’m just sharing my nightmares and experiences and results I hope!!

  461. Jeff, on January 22, 2011 at 8:12 pm said:

    If I want to take someones house here in California, with all that I know now, I could submit an NOD, Substitution of Trustee, NOTS, Trustee Deed Upon Sale, and get to the UD stage all by following the exhaustive requirements of 2924. I could do it on the guy who lives up the street since he’s out of the country for most of this year.

  462. Peter, on January 22, 2011 at 8:01 pm said:

    Hire a robo-signer like the banks do!

  463. John, on January 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm said:

    Hi Jen,

    Thanks for responding, who helped with the language? I live in Contra Costa County and have a TILA recession claim that was ignored by BAC. Any help that you might suggest regarding filing a Notice of Release of Lien?

  464. Jen, on January 22, 2011 at 12:42 pm said:

    WHEREAS, Timothy L. Lawson and Genevieve P. Lawson as joint tenants was the original Trustor, LandAmerica Commonwealth was the original Trustee and Proffer Financial was the original Beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust dated May 15, 2006 and recorded on May 24, 2006 as Instrument No. in Book 20060524, Page/Image 0324, of Official Records of Sacramento County, California; and
    WHEREAS, the undersigned are all the Beneficiaries under said Deed of Trust; and
    WHEREAS, the undersigned desire to substitute a new Trustee under said Deed of Trust in place and instead of said original Trustee thereunder, in the manner provided for in the Deed of Trust;
    NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby substitutes Timothy L. Lawson and Genevieve P. Lawson whose address is: 8704 Milo Court, Elk Grove, CA 95624, as Trustee since Proffer Financial and Greenpoint Mortgage no longer have a Real Estate License in the State of California. GMAC Mortgage was never listed on the property profile, never assigned the mortgage or Full reconveyance . GMAC used MERS to obtain property, held the illegal auction on 2/5/10.

    The Lawson _____________________________________________

  465. John, on January 22, 2011 at 11:43 am said:

    To Jen,

    Who will sign for the “in the record current beneficiary” and the notarize their signature?

  466. Jen, on January 21, 2011 at 8:15 pm said:

    Made a trip to the county recorders office in Sacramento, found out I can submit a sub of trustee for my former house, this will show gmac never assigned the mortgage or submitted a reconv.

  467. John, on January 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm said:

    CCP §726(a).
    The One Form of Action Rule basically says that the lender is required to chase the collateral first, and the debtor second…if it still can. A long, long time ago, a foreclosing lender could choose whether to foreclose on the collateral or go after the borrower personally for a money judgment. The one action rule of CCP §726(a) says that the lender must go after the collateral first, and, if it is legally possible, go after the borrower personally for any deficiency after that. Whether that is possible will depend on how the other rules set forth below kick in and apply to protect the borrower. But if you get sued on a promissory note and the lender is not a “sold out junior” nor taken hasn’t taken steps to foreclosure on the collateral, this rule would apply.
    (I use the term “sold out junior quite a bit in this post. A sold out junior lienholder is the holder of a deed of trust that is junior to the first lienholder, and who has been denied a recovery due either to the foreclosure by the first lienholder, or because there isn’t enpugh value in the property to satisfy the junior debt after satisfaction of the senior debt. It is common for people to refer to such debts as “HELOCS,” but this isn’t technically accurate. A HELOC is simple a “home equity line of credit” that is secured by the subject property. It may be the most senior debt on the property or it may be a second, third…or tenth lien in order of its seniority. “HELOC” is a banking term; “sold out junior lienholder” is a legal term of art.)
    2. The Purchase Money Prohibition: CCP §580b.
    This is the best known rule and the one that applies more often than the others. If the loan that is being foreclosed on is a loan that was obtained for the purpose of purchasing the property, then no deficiency is allowed. It doesn’t matter if it’s a first, second or third. It doesn’t matter if it’s classified as a “HELOC,” a “seller carry back,” or, ultimately, a “sold out junior.” Purchase money is purchase money. Example: Homeowner buys a house for $300,000, with a first for $200, and a second for $60,000, both put on the property at the time of acquisition. If the first forecloses, both lenders are barred from getting a deficiency because both loans are classified as “purchase money.” However, where the borrower has refinanced the original purchase money loan, or got a later home equity loan, that later loan is not a purchase money loan and could form the basis for a deficiency if the other anti-deficiency rules don’t otherwise apply.
    But there is an exception to the exception: If the later loan was used to finance improvements to the property, then it can be a purchase money loan, and thus be a bar to a deficiency.
    3. The Non-Judicial Foreclosure, or “Private Sale Bar”: CCP §580d.
    This is the next most frequent rule. If the foreclosing lender has availed itself of the “power of sale clause” in the deed of trust, then no deficiency is allowed. Period. If they take the property back by means of a non-judicial foreclosure or trustee’s sale, then no deficiency. But unless one lender holds both loans, that only applies to the loan actually foreclosed on. Using the above hypothetical figures, though in this case making the second a non-purchase money loan, when the first forecloses, the holder of the first foreclosing loan is barred from seeking a deficiency both (1) Because it is purchase money, and (2) Because it has foreclosed by trustee’s sale. But the second, not being purchase money, and not being the one who foreclosed by non-judicial sale but having been wiped out by the foreclosure of the first, is not barred from pursuing a deficiency. In fact, in California, they have up to four years from the date of the breach of the contract to file a lawsuit seeking that deficiency.
    noted, there is an exception to the exception: If the holder of the first and the holder of the second are the same lender, and that entity forecloses on the first, it is also barred from seeking a deficiency on the second. This is important in California where lenders sometimes “stack” loans in order to get to a loan amount high enough to cover the high property values. It is also important to think about when the loans may have been sold to different lenders.
    (On a historical note, CCP §580d was passed in light of the foreclosures and abusive deficiency judgments obtained by lenders during the Great Depression. What we’re going through now is similar in many respects, though the ability of lenders to take the property and then chase the borrower who is already out of their home is limited by the passage of that statute. Small solace, to be sure, but it at least is doing what it was intended to do.)
    4. The fair Value Limitation: CCP 580a; CCP §726(b).
    This rule limits the amount of any possible deficiency to the amount by which the total debt exceeds the total fair value of the collateral. It only applies to deficiency judgments in judicial foreclosures, and, most importantly, it does not apply at all to sold out junior lienholders. Example: First mortgage of $450,000, and a second for $150,000, for total liens of $600,000. If the holder of the first forecloses and, it can be shown first at the time the first forecloses it can be shown that the property is only worth $400,000, then the foreclosing lienholder–on return to court seeking a deficiency–is limited to $50,000, regardless of what they sold the property for. So if they pay a commission of 6% ($24,000, and additional closing costs of $5,000, that $29,000 is generally barred. As for the holder of the $150,000 second? They can still come after the borrower for full payment, assuming, of course, such an action isn’t barred by one or the other of the above rules.
    5. The 3 Month Rule: CCP §580a.
    This rule applies only in the case of judicial foreclosures. What’s that? Literally, it is a lawsuit in which the lender obtains a “decree of foreclosure” from a court–by definition not using the trustee’s sale procedure–and is unable to be made whole from the sale of the property. Example: Loan balance of $500,000. Lender obtains a “decree of foreclosure” from a court, after which it then goes out and sells the property for $400,000. In order to get a recourse judgment against the borrower for the $100,000 shortfall, that creditor must bring an action within 3 months of the sale date or it is barred. An important carve out on this rule is that the 3-month limit does not apply to a sold out junior lienholder, the holder of the second in the above scenarios.
    It is highly doubtful that you will have to deal with this rule without being fully aware of the issue steaming down the tracks towards you, simply because it can only happen in a judicial foreclosure. And last, of course, if the debt is discharged in bankruptcy, there is no deficiency at all.

  468. Abby in CA, on January 14, 2011 at 11:55 am said:

    Oscar–no known form. Write a letter. You will need document ID of the actual recorded document and date etc….to provide the notary…who hopefully will look it up in his/her journal.

    so give title of document too….and if you know..who signed it

    be sure to contact secyt of state (if in Calif) and inquire why two different commission numbers—that is very strange…..

    if in another state..contact whatever entity commissions the notaries

    contact the county notary was registered in (by phone)…the county recorder….they may have the journal if it was completed (filled up)….so you might be able to purchase copy of page from them

    I’d start with them first

  469. Oscar G., on January 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm said:

    Abby in CA:

    Do you know if there is a sample letter template that I can use to ask to purchase copy of page related to my recording from the notary? (he is listed as being active, but has a different commission number)

  470. john, on January 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm said:

    Look at this….
    (1) Ramsey v. Vista Mortgage Corp, 176 BR 183 (TILA RESCISSION IN BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 CASE). In this case, the court laid down the test of when the three year right to rescind begins to run and specifically tackles the concept of when a loan is “consummated.” Several internal citiations also help clarify this point. Here is what the Ramsey Court said:
    “When Ramsey signed the loan documents on September 13, 1989, he knew who was going to provide the financing. Courts recognize the date of signing a binding loan contract as the date of consummation when the lender is identifiable.” The Court also cited to the Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d case (9th Circuit 1989), a NON-BANKRUPTCY CASE, and said: “the Ninth Circuit held that under California law a loan contract was not consummated when the borrower signed the promissory note and deed of trust because the actual lender was not known at that time.Under these circumstances, the loan is not “consummated” until the actual lender is identified, because until that point there is no legally enforceable contract.”

  471. Jen, on January 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm said:

    From: “MERS” 1000697gmacmortgage@GMACM.COM

    To: oaktown

    “Camelia Martin”

    MERS Inc provided us your below email request concerning your mortgage. So we can better research this situation, please provide your GMAC account number and/or your property address.

    GMAC MERS Department

    From: Camelia Martin [mailto:cameliam@mersinc.org]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:41 AM
    To: MERS
    Subject: Re: Contact Form Submission

    MERS did not receive any additional information and was also unable to research given the information provided. We forwarded to GMAC since it has your company name listed in the email.

    Camelia Martin
    Paralegal
    MERS
    1818 Library Street, Suite 300
    Reston, Virginia 20190
    t: (703) 761-2111 f: (703) 748-0183

    From: MERS
    Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:15:42 +0000
    To: Camelia Martin
    Subject: RE: Contact Form Submission

    Do you have any other identifying information, other than the contact name of Jenny Lawson? Without a property address, GMAC account number, MIN number or borrower SSN, we do not have any way of researching. Please advise. Thanks

    From: Camelia Martin [mailto:cameliam@mersinc.org]
    Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:35 AM
    To: MERS
    Subject: FW: Contact Form Submission

    Please see below for an email MERS received that mentions GMAC Mortgage. We cannot identify the MIN or MIN(S) that are related to the correspondence.

    Thanks.

    Camelia Martin
    Paralegal
    MERS
    1818 Library Street, Suite 300
    Reston, Virginia 20190
    t: (703) 761-2111
    f: (703) 748-0183

    From: Debbie Brown [mailto:debbieb@mersinc.org]
    Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:58 PM
    To: Rachel Weber
    Subject: FW: Contact Form Submission

    ——————————————-
    @yahoo.com[Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:57:52 PM
    To: Debbie Brown
    Cc: Dorris Hawkins
    Subject: Contact Form Submission
    Auto forwarded by a Rule

    Department: Corporate Division

    Contact Name: injured ex-homeowner

    Contact E-mail: could be anyone

  472. Abby in CA, on January 11, 2011 at 11:11 am said:

    Lisa D – then guess folks in florida would have to do discovery and/or depositions

    But all should check the notary stamp as many notarizations were done by California notarys…especially in the case of originations by New Century Financial or its subsidiary Home123 Corp.

  473. Lisa D., on January 11, 2011 at 6:37 am said:

    Abby in CA,
    All good advise BUT what if the notarization was performed in Florida where the notary is not required to keep a journal or fingerprint the person signing?
    That is why the Servicers get away with so much fraud in Florida!!!

  474. Abby in CA, on January 10, 2011 at 8:24 pm said:

    I understand the notaries are starting to conveniently lose or burn their journals due to all the focus on them now.

    this opens them up to even further legal troubles

  475. Abby in CA, on January 10, 2011 at 8:23 pm said:

    Oscar
    call the county recorder’s office where the notary was registered or the state agency responsible for notaries.
    In calif it is the secytary of state.

    inquire if notary is still an active notary—if so then the notary should have his/her journal. typically the notary has to list current address with secretary of state in calif. Find the notary and ask to purchase copy of page related to your recording (you can narrow down by date your doc was notarized–hopefully)

    if notary is no longer commissioned then he/she should have turned the journal in. In Calif. it is to the county recorder where he/she was registered.
    so then you call county recorder and offer to pay for copy of page.
    get it certified if possible

    also–you may want to ask for copy of the notary bond (from secyt of state or county recorder). it may give you clue to notary address.

    and…his/her true signature…even some notary signatures have been forged!!

  476. John, on January 10, 2011 at 5:41 pm said:

    The federal assignment law states as follows:

    SEC. 404. NOTIFICATION OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE LOANS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 131 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1641) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    NOTICE OF NEW CREDITOR.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other disclosures required by this title, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including—
    (A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor;
    (B) the date of transfer;
    (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor;
    (D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and
    (E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.
    (2) DEFINITION.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘mortgage loan’ means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.’’.
    (b) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—Section 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘subsection (f) or (g) of section 131,’’ after ‘‘section 125,’’.

  477. John, on January 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm said:

    To Jeff….,add this to your pleadings…., if the wrong plaintiff is named is the foreclosure notice, the homeowner hasn’t received proper notice of the foreclosure.

  478. John, on January 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm said:

    Ca Notary Handbook info……who ever figures it out please report back Thanks…..http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/handbook.htm

  479. John, on January 10, 2011 at 12:25 pm said:

    To Jeff…also the ruling says “irregularities in the sale” NOT irregularities in the foreclosure. There might be a diff

  480. John, on January 10, 2011 at 12:19 pm said:

    To Jeff…regarding tender….somehow plead if the courts will go forward to adjudicate your claims it will not be an useless act.

  481. Jeff, on January 10, 2011 at 11:19 am said:

    AHHH, here is what I was looking for:

    “No one can argue that 2924 was intended to sanction fraud or to abet a crime in progress. Just the opposite. The law’s very purposes include protection for both the debtor and the creditor.
    The three stated purposes of 2924 are: “(1) to provide the creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting debtor/trustor; (2) to protect the debtor/trustor from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.”
    Let’s break it down: purpose one relates to the creditor/beneficiary. If that isn’t the foreclosing entity, then purpose two and three would be frustrated. In order to fulfill purposes two and three, the identity of the creditor/beneficiary must be firmly established.
    Contained within 2924 is adequate protection for both the borrower and the true creditor if the courts will simply demand the fundamental evidence to prove the status of the foreclosing entity, and to determine that an obligation even exists.
    We are unprepared to concede the underlying notion that 2924 is the only applicable law. If other crimes are committed that ultimately prove to be the proximate cause of any default, they cannot be excluded. Simply, 2924 doesn’t supersede all other law. We have an appeal right on point.
    Recently, in the case of California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper, the Appellate Court held that the remedies of 2924h were not exclusive. They reversed the lower court and specifically held that provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC, Article 3 were allowed in the foreclosure context.”

  482. John, on January 10, 2011 at 10:15 am said:

    To Jeff…your false assignments will be heard at the unlawful detainer stage.

  483. John, on January 10, 2011 at 10:11 am said:

    To Jeff…if you have a NOD you must allege your CURRENT ability to tender for the reason I sent you before. The Judge might ask you to prove it somewhat.

  484. John, on January 10, 2011 at 10:03 am said:

    To Jeff…Contact this guy in Ca…..http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

  485. Jeff, on January 10, 2011 at 10:02 am said:

    The assignments were created solely for use as false evidence in the attempt to complete a C.C.C. 2924 non-judicial foreclose. So is proof of the forgery an effective means of showing the defendants fraud on the court and unclean hands?
    or do we still need to tender to the fraud?

    The assignments are forged instruments which convey nothing at all and were fabricated solely for use as false evidence to prove that they are in compliance with 2924. The instruments are forgeries and a fraud upon the court.

  486. John, on January 10, 2011 at 10:00 am said:

    To Jeff…Get a lawyer that knows how to attack at the unlawful detainer stage where you can plead the break in title claim that has merit. (if there is a break).

  487. John, on January 10, 2011 at 9:53 am said:

    Walk away is cheapest option in Ca. My opinion. OR start lawsuit before foreclosure.

  488. John, on January 10, 2011 at 9:47 am said:

    To Jeff….What kind of fraud? The trustee sale will go forward unless you convince the Judge you have a likely chance of winning. Rare However so will your case go forward.

  489. Jeff, on January 10, 2011 at 9:42 am said:

    anyone know how does the tender rule apply when there is fraud? or a securitized note? unknown entity in which to offer tender?

  490. John, on January 10, 2011 at 9:34 am said:

    A. Why is tender required? “This rule, traditionally applied to trustors, is based upon the equitable maxim that a court of equity will not order a useless act performed. (Arnolds Management Corporation v. Eischen 158 Cal.App.3d 575. 578-579.) “A valid and viable tender of payment of the indebtedness owing is essential to an action to cancel a voidable sale under a deed of trust.” (Karlsen v. American Savings & Loan (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 112 at p. 117.) The court goes on to say… “The rationale behind the rule is that if plaintiffs could not have redeemed the property had the sale procedures been proper, any irregularities in the sale did not result in damages to the plaintiffs.” [FPCI RE-HAB 01 v. E & G Investments, Ltd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1021.]

  491. Oscar G., on January 7, 2011 at 2:59 pm said:

    How does one go about getting a copy of the notary journal page? I suspect that the notary that notarized my deed of trust was a made up person… never appeared before a male when signing the deed of trust back in 2006, it was a female, yet the notary is from a male

  492. Abby in CA, on January 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm said:

    BIG BREAKTHRU ON INVALID ASSIGNMENTS – CALIFORNIA NOTARIES BECAME ROBO NOTARIES

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/46484089/New-Grandma-in-California-Does-Sleuthing-and-Discovers-Major-Robo-Notary-Operation

  493. Simonee, on January 6, 2011 at 12:09 am said:

    To Ron from 12/28 about Writ’s being a scam. They are NOT. They are a tool for the homeowner to call the judge on clear judicial error. I recently had a judge deny me the right to have a hearing on a Demurrer for a UD. I petitioned the Appellate Court and they stayed the proceedings until such time the Demurrer is calendared or he goes to their court and explains why the Demurrer should not have a hearing. LOL..the letter actually says, ‘You are commanded” to the judge.

    Less than 10% of petitions for writs are granted; they are specific to clear error. I paid nothing for filing it. And now i get my hearing…the petition for the Writ was an incredible tool!