687 Responses

  1. Thanks Abbey:
    this was their Petition for Rehearing which was denied:

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


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


  4. @ 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



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


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


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

  9. @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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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)”

  12. 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.

  13. 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!







  17. Below California v. Foreclosure Mill Lawyers in PDF:

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




  19. @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.

  20. @ 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.

  21. @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.

  22. @ 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…

  23. @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.

  24. @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?

  25. 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!.

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

  27. @ 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.

  28. @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.


  29. @ 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.

  30. 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


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


  32. @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…

  33. 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…

  34. Consumer Rights Defenders [CRDefenders.com] LITIGATION NEWS UPDATE:
    from Steve Nelson, J.D., Executive Director – 818.453.3585
    August 1, 2013 GLASKI V. BOA Changes the Tide again!!!!!
    The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District has issued a 29-page opinion which reversed the trial court’s grant of Bank of America’s demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) as to certain claims made by the homeowner, including his claims for Wrongful Foreclosure, Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, Cancellation of Instruments, and Unfair Business Practices under CA’s Business and Professions Code sec. 17200. The decision was issued yesterday (July 31, 2013), and is styled Glaski v. Bank of America et al, No. F064556.
    The decision has been stamped “Not to be Published”. However, we have been advised that papers are being filed to cause the Opinion to become a published decision, and the Opinion relies on numerous published decisions in reaching its result.
    The Complaint alleged that the mortgage loan had not been properly transferred to the WaMu securitized trust, which closed in December of 2005. The alleged transfer (by assignment) was not until June 15, 2009. The homeowner alleged that the non-judicial foreclosure was wrongful because it was initiated by a nonholder of the DOT which failed to comply with the trust documents as to when the loan had to be transferred to the trust, and thus the purported transfer by JPMorgan Chase to the WaMu securitized trust in 2009 was void, resulting in the foreclosure being void as well. The Court rejected decisions from other states which do not permit a borrower to challenge an assignment because the borrower is not a party thereto or is not a third-party beneficiary thereof.
    The Court noted that the Trust was governed by NY trust law, and joined courts that have read the NY statute as to conveyances to a trust “literally”. The Court cited the recent NY decision of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erbobo, 39 Misc.3d 120A, 2013 WL 1831799, which held that acceptance of the note and mortgage by the (securitization) trustee after the date the trust closed would be void, as any transfer to the trust in contravention of the trust documents is void. The Court further noted that a Texas Bankruptcy Court, relying on Erbobo, held that assignment of the homeowner’s note after the “start up day” (of the trust) is void ab initio, and thus none of the homeowners’ claims were dismissed. (In Re Saldivar, Bankr.S.D.Tex. June 5, 2013, No. 11-10689).
    This reasoning was adopted by the United States Congress back in November of 2010 in its Congressional Oversight Report on Foreclosures, which cited NY trust law and similarly found that any purported transfer of a mortgage loan into the trust after the trust closing date in violation of the trust documents was void, resulting in no such transfer ever having occurred.
    The Court concluded that the homeowner’s “factual allegations regarding post-closing date attempts to transfer his deed of trust into the WaMu Securitized Trust are sufficient to state a basis for concluding the attempted transfers were void. As a result, Glaski has stated a cognizable claim for wrongful foreclosure under the theory that the entity invoking the power of sale (i.e. Bank of America in its capacity as trustee for the WaMu Securitized Trust) was not the holder of the Glaski deed of trust.”
    The Court also distinguished the Gomes decision, which the trial court relied upon in sustaining BOA’s demurrer, distinguishing Gomes through its citation to Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgage (S.D. Cal. Jul. 24,
    2012, No. 11-CV-2229-L(WVG) 2012 l 3030370). The Court further held that the “tender” requirement is not applicable where the foreclosure is void, which is what the homeowner alleged.
    The Court thus held, in reversing the trial court, that the homeowner stated claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, declaratory relief, cancellation of instruments, and unfair business practices.
    This is a monumental decision which clarifies many of the misconceptions that courts in other states are under, in addition to setting the record straight, as NY case law already has, that noncompliance with the PSA results in a void foreclosure.
    Let us help you today. Call Steve or Sara at 818.453.3585 for a free consultation. Things are changing for homeowners.
    Consumer Rights Defenders – America’s No. 1 Pro Se Litigation Support Team Proudly Serving America’s Homeowners.

  35. Here is a better link:

    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:


  36. Here is a better link:

    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








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


    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

  41. 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…)…

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

  43. 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?

  44. 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!

  45. 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.

  46. 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!


  47. 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.”


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


    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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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?

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

  50. 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).

  51. 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.

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

  53. Good point Charles:

    This is a new modification of 2007:


    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.

  54. 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.

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




  57. 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….


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




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

    Above 1990’s video was posted in this page:


  60. 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….




  62. 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.

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




  66. 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

  67. 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?




  69. 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.

  70. 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.






  73. Thanks Abbey. The PDF and word versions of the same decision are available @

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




  75. We start with this simple reference for Californians needing some help. Check out the new laws kicking in in 2013:
    California’s Newly Enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights pursuant to California Civil Code sections, 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17.

    Everyone now needs to request copies of the following:
    (i) A copy of the borrower’s promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness.
    (ii) A copy of the borrower’s deed of trust or mortgage.
    (iii) A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower’s mortgage or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer to foreclose.
    (iv) A copy of the borrower’s payment history since the borrower was last less than 60 days past due.
    Couch the letter like this to your lender/servicer before you sue them:
    “This letter is being sent pursuant to my statutory obligation to “meet and confer” with you concerning the defects before bringing an action to enjoin any future foreclosure pursuant to Civil Code § 2924.12.
    Defendant’s are in violation of both the notice and standing requirements of California law, and the California newly enacted Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBR”). In July 2012, Among other things, the HBR authorizes private civil suits to enjoin foreclosure by entities that record or file notices of default or other documents falsely claiming the right to foreclose. Civil Code § 2923.55 requires a servicer to provide borrowers with their note and certain other documents, if the borrowers request them.
    Civil Code § 2924.17 requires any notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of deed of trust, or substitution of trustee recorded on behalf of a servicer in connection with a foreclosure, or any declaration or affidavit filed in any court regarding a foreclosure, to be “accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” It further requires the servicer to ensure it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose. {They never have or will in our opinion}
    Civil Code § 2924.12 authorizes actions to enjoin foreclosures, or for damages after foreclosure, for breaches of §§ 2923.55 or 2924.17. This right of private action is “in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.” Civil Code § 2924.12(h). Any Notice of Default, or Substitution of Trustee recorded on Plaintiffs’ real property based upon a fraudulent and forged Deed of Trust shall be considered a “Material Violation”, thus triggering the injunctive relief provisions of Civil Code § 2924.12 & § 2924.17(a) (b).
    Finish your letter with this sentence:
    I therefore demand that X Bank, N.A. provide me with the UNALTERED original Deed of Trust along with the ORIGINAL Note, Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee’s sale, all assignments and proof of the owner of the Note who has a right to enforce it.
    Let us at Consumer Rights Defenders help you with your lawsuit. We have attorneys and paralegal experts standing by with help for you in all 50 states. We can also help with eviction defense. We have helped our clients obtain over 150 TROs stopping foreclosure sales and evictions and will help you if you simply call is at 818.453.3585 and ask for Sara or Steve or email us to “CR.DEFENDERS@yahoo.com ” Free consultations.
    Media requests must be by e-mail.

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


  77. From our team at Consumer Rights Defenders to our bloggers fighting foreclosures in California….CALL US to help you get your TRO and stop the foreclosure…..2013 ushers in powerful new laws to protect our consumer friends. Call us today for assistance at 818.453.3585:
    Now read this:

    California Homeowner Bill of Rights Signed into Law

    Wednesday, July 11, 2012
    LOS ANGELES — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced that the Homeowner Bill of Rights, which will protect homeowners and borrowers during the mortgage and foreclosure process, was signed into law today by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.

    The Homeowner Bill of Rights prohibits a series of inherently unfair bank practices that have needlessly forced thousands of Californians into foreclosure. The law restricts dual-track foreclosures, where a lender forecloses on a borrower despite being in discussions over a loan modification to save the home. It also guarantees struggling homeowners a single point of contact at their lender with knowledge of their loan and direct access to decision makers, and imposes civil penalties on fraudulently signed mortgage documents. In addition, homeowners may require loan servicers to document their right to foreclose.

    The laws will go into effect on January 1, 2013, and borrowers can access courts to enforce their rights under this legislation.

    The Homeowner Bill of Rights builds upon and extends reforms first negotiated in the recent national mortgage settlement between 49 states and leading lenders.

    “The California Homeowner Bill of Rights will give struggling homeowners a fighting shot to keep their home,” said Attorney General Harris. “This legislation will make the mortgage and foreclosure process more fair and transparent, which will benefit homeowners, their community, and the housing market as a whole.”


  78. 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.

  79. 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!

  80. 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…….

  81. 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

  82. 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


  83. Our new blog and updates is here:
    Call us at 818.453.3585 today for free consultation. Ask for Steve or Sara.

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




  87. Abby: We can help with adversary suits in BK court. Thanks for your good information. To all of our bloggers: Call us at Consumer Rights Defenders for litigation assistance with attorney or in pro se. Ask for Steve at 818.453.3585 today.





  90. 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

  91. [...] 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 [...]

  92. partial bribe list of legislators stealing your homes:



  94. [...] 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 [...]

  95. @ 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!

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

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

  98. 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.


  99. 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

  100. 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

  101. 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

  102. 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….

  103. From one of Consumer Rights Defenders customer’s briefs: Read below and then call them at 818-453-3585 for foreclosure help.
    Sue J. Sacramento, Calif. CRD really helped me with my case.

    As to the “standing” issue now raised, i.e., the defendants have not proved standing as a note holder with rights to enforce the promissory note [or its modified secondary contract]. Nor is there any evidentiary presumption a recording trustee has such authority or powers without an evidentiary hearing under Commercial Code § 3309(b) [within 3301-3312] cited. Moreover, the absence of a Note is a critical factor citing Witkin- Real Property; Secured Transactions:
    A. Transfer of Debt and Mortgage.
    1. [§105] Assignment of Debt.
    (1) In General. The lien is an incident of the debt (supra, §47) and an assignment of the debt “carries with it the security.” (C.C. 2936.) Hence, an attempted assignment of the mortgage (or trust deed), without the note, transfers nothing to the assignee; and a transfer of the note, without the mortgage, gives the assignee the right to the security. (See 4 Miller & Starr 3d, §10:38 et seq.) Thus, in Adler v. Sargent (1895) 109 C. 42, 41 P. 799, a mortgage and note were executed, and the mortgagee assigned both to a bank. The bank did not record the mortgage, but held the note. Subsequently, through various transactions, a bona fide purchaser received an assignment of the mortgage and a forged copy of the note. The bank still held the real note. Held, the bank prevailed. (109 C. 48.)
    [4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed., 2005) Security Transactions\

    As to enforceability of any right to foreclosure where substantial compliance of the new contract [modified promissory note] is evident [See Exhibit _____ checks and Declaration of plaintiff confirming substantial compliance with payment requirements], Equity will not allow a drastic remedy. Citing Witkin:
    Effect of Minor Defaults.
    In Baypoint Mortg. Corp. v. Crest Premium Real Estate Inv. Retirement Trust (1985) 168 C.A.3d 818, 214 C.R. 531, plaintiff, trustor under a number of all-inclusive deeds of trust, sought to enjoin a nonjudicial foreclosure commenced by defendant beneficiary. The underlying notes called for installment payments on the first of each month, and provided for a 10% late fee on any payment not received by the 10th day of the month. The deed of trust provided that failure to make the payments required by the notes was a default, and that acceptance of late payments was not a waiver of the beneficiary’s right to require prompt payment thereafter. Plaintiff made payments between the 5th and 13th of each month and periodically defendant would send notices that late charges had[*pg.1040] been accrued. In November 1983, defendant sent plaintiff a certified letter stating that if payments were not received on the 1st of each month foreclosure proceedings would be commenced. On December 1 no payments were received, and on December 5 defendant recorded notices of default. Plaintiff mailed the December payments on December 6; defendant alleged they were not received until December 12; however, notwithstanding the foreclosure, defendant accepted the checks. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from proceeding with the foreclosure. Held, affirmed.
    (a) The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it balanced the hardships and concluded that plaintiff faced greater harm from denial of the injunction than defendant would from its issuance. Should defendant prevail at trial the worst that it will have suffered will have been some delay in foreclosure; the bond that plaintiff was required to post will secure defendant against additional or further losses; and defendant will be in a position at that time to recoup any late fees the court determines were actually owed. Plaintiff, on the other hand, stands to lose all of its trust deeds as well as being chargeable with the foreclosure expenses which may amount to $15,000; his prayer for a permanent injunction against the foreclosure, if granted, would be useless because the trust deeds already would have been sold, and much of the other relief he seeks in the main action likewise would be rendered irrelevant. “Given the drastic implications of a foreclosure, it is not surprising to find courts quite frequently granting preliminary injunctions to forestall this remedy while the court considers a case testing whether it is justified under the facts and law.” (168 C.A.3d 825, citing Bisno v. Sax (1959) 175 C.A.2d 714, 346 P.2d 814, supra, §220.)
    (b) There is a reasonable probability that plaintiff’s failure to make the December payments before the 5th when foreclosure was commenced will be found not to have been a default justifying foreclosure. The provision for a late fee if payment was not received by the 10th, should be construed “to define what shall constitute timely performance” of the notes’ payment terms. (168 C.A.3d 827.) “We hold it negates a finding payment on the so-called `due date’ to be the essence of these loans. Consequently, equity will not allow the drastic sanction of foreclosure to be used to enforce compliance with payment on the `due date.’ ” (168 C.A.3d 827.)
    (c) Even assuming that payment on the 1st day of the month was the essence of the loans, “it is reasonably probable under the circumstances … that equity will not allow foreclosure to be used as a means of enforcing such precise compliance with this term of the loan.” (168[*pg.1041] C.A.3d 827.) Evidence at the trial will probably indicate that defendant persists in the foreclosure action to create a financial penalty to coerce future payments on the first day of the month. “[T]his constitutes a penalty analogous to an excessive late payment fee and therefore equity will not permit foreclosure for this purpose.” (168 C.A.3d 829.)
    (d) “One of the most important functions of the law is to maintain a proper balance between creditor and debtor. To this end, it attempts to match the creditor’s remedy to the debtor’s default. Major defaults justify drastic remedies; minor defaults only warrant lesser remedies. Thus, where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay at all the creditor is entitled to recapture the security the debtor gave for the loan. By threatening this ultimate loss, the creditor often succeeds in pressuring the recalcitrant debtor into coming up with the money to pay the debt after all. If not, the creditor is at least made whole or as nearly whole as he can be by return of the property the debtor put up to secure the loan.” (168 C.A.3d 831.) “To allow creditors to impose foreclosure—and its attendant expenses—whenever a debtor is a few days late in a monthly payment would open up thousands or perhaps millions of California homeowners and other debtors to an extraordinary additional financial burden. Moreover, the threat of such a severe penalty would place undue pressure on debtors thus destroying the important but delicate balance between creditors and debtors.” (168 C.A.3d 832.)

  104. 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

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

  106. @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.

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




  109. In California, Renters [homeowners after foreclosure have enforceable rights. We are here to help at CRD with legal solutions. Here is some legal information you can check out. Call us for help at 818.453.3585 ask for Sara Stephens. Not all of the below may apply to your situation.

    FROM:Consumer Rights Defenders

    Your ready reference to legal issues of interest

    1. The maximum amount a LANDLORD may charge for a residential Security Deposit (in addition to the first month’s rent) is a maximum of 2 months’ rent for an unfurnished unit, (or 3 months’ rent if furnished). Other move-in costs may not exceed these limits regardless of calling the money “last month’s rent” or a “pet deposit” etc.

    2. A Security Deposit may be used generally for cleaning, repairs, or to cover back rent after the TENANT has vacated the property. The LANDLORD may NOT charge for repairs or maintenance required due to ordinary wear and tear. The TENANT need only leave the premises in the “same level of cleanliness” (for tenancies beginning 1/1/2003).

    3. The LANDLORD must account for, estimate costs or refund the deposit within 21 days of the move out. The LANDLORD must provide proof of expenditures with the deposit accounting if the deductions exceed $125.00. The TENANT may still get copies of receipts when the deductions do not exceed $125.00 upon prompt written request.
    The LANDLORD (or their employee) may charge for their own labor if it is properly documented.

    4. If the rental property is sold, the new LANDLORD is responsible for the Security Deposit of each TENANT.

    5. Unless there is an eviction based on a 3 day notice, the TENANT is entitled to an initial move out inspection to identify defects or cleaning needs. The TENANT is entitled to a statement identifying potential deductions affording the TENANT an opportunity to correct those defects, subject to lease restrictions, to avoid deposit deductions.

    6. The LANDLORD may be subjected to a penalty of up to two times the deposit for bad faith handling of the deposit.

    1. The LANDLORD has a legal obligation to maintain the premises in a habitable condition even if the lease says the TENANT accepts the unit in a poor or “as is” condition (“Habitability” refers to health and safety conditions). The general standards are set out in Civil Code 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code 17920.3

    2. The duty to repair and maintain cosmetic or amenity items (i.e. non-habitability) is governed by contract law.

    3. Substantial defects affecting habitability may relieve a TENANT of the obligation to pay the full rent. Non-payment or partial payment of rent, however, may give the LANDLORD an excellent reason to commence eviction proceedings. Great care must be used when withholding rent. Legal advice prior to doing so is encouraged.


    1. The LANDLORD or his/her agent may enter the rented property: To make or supply necessary or agreed upon repairs, decorations, alterations, improvements or services, show the property to prospective tenants, buyers, mortgagees, workmen or contractors, with a court order or in an emergency. A LANDLORD/AGENT may not abuse the right to enter the property. Routine “inspections” are generally not allowed.
    2. The LANDLORD/AGENT shall give reasonable written notice to the TENANT before entering. A Notice may be personally delivered to the TENANT, left with someone at the premises or at the entry door. Twenty four hours is presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary. Six days mailed notice shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A 24 hour notice may be given orally IF the property is for sale AND the TENANT was given notice, in writing, within 120 days of the oral notice, that the property is for sale and that the LANDLORD/AGENT may contact the TENANT orally for an entry. The LANDLORD/AGENT may agree orally to an entry within one week of the agreement.
    3. No notice is required in case of emergency, if the TENANT is present and consents or after the TENANT has abandoned or surrendered the unit.
    (Continued on reverse)

    1. 30 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is required to terminate a month to month (periodic) tenancy (residential or commercial) or a tenancy at will. This notice generally need not state a cause (except in the City of San Diego after two years of tenancy), but it cannot be retaliatory, discriminatory, or otherwise illegal. Different rules apply for Govt. subsidized housing (i.e. Section 8 or other programs).
    2. 60 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is required in a periodic residential tenancy once all the TENANTS or residents have been living in the unit for at least a year or for limited residential tenants following a foreclosure. There are some exceptions for tenants which include when the home is for sale to a buyer who will live in the unit for at least a year and for certain tenancies at will.
    3. 90 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is required to terminate certain periodic subsidized residential tenancies when no cause is needed. Under Federal Law, if you are a renter on a month to month tenancy,
    you may be entitled to a 90 day notice to vacate after a foreclosure sale as long as you qualify.
    4. 3 DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT notifies the TENANT that rent is past due and to pay the rent in 3 days or vacate the premises. If the TENANT vacates within the 3 days, he/she is NOT relieved from the rent obligations under the lease or rental agreement.
    5. 3 DAY NOTICE TO CURE BREACH (or PERFORM COVENANT) OR QUIT. This notifies a TENANT that he/she has 3 days to do or stop doing something as per the rental agreement or the law. If the TENANT vacates within the 3 days, he/she is NOT relieved from the rent obligations under the lease or rental agreement.
    6. 3 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT is generally used in cases of nuisance, waste, illegal activity, unlawful assignment or sublease or foreclosure. In these cases, the LANDLORD is not giving the TENANT any opportunity to correct anything or pay any rent. The LANDLORD is simply demanding that the TENANT vacate the premises within 3 days.
    7. If the TENANT remains in possession after the expiration of the period stated in the NOTICE, (or after the expiration of a lease), and did not do what was required in the lease or demanded in a notice (e.g. to do or stop doing something or has failed to pay the rent), an UNLAWFUL DETAINER lawsuit may be immediately commenced.

    This is a SUPERIOR COURT LAWSUIT accusing the TENANT or OCCUPANT of unlawful conduct. This case moves very quickly with only 5 days to respond to the lawsuit if personally served (or 15 days if substitute served). The failure to properly respond with effective legal defenses or timely file proper papers will result in a judgment causing the loss of valuable rights. The TENANT or OCCUPANT will then be physically removed from the property. Moving prior to trial will not cancel the case. Counter-suits are generally NOT allowed while still in possession. Because these cases are so technical, and since one’s credit (including a future ability to rent) is at risk, specialized legal assistance is strongly recommended. Using “do it yourself” self help forms, computer programs or stations, self defense “kits” or handling one’s own case without representation (by an experienced attorney) has led to disaster in most all cases. If you are served with an Unlawful Detainer, seek qualified legal assistance right away.

    In these cases, the LANDLORD may ask the police to remove the person under trespassing law if the person fails to move out when required by law.
    1. 30 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY (on month to month tenancies) given to a sole lodger renting one room in a dwelling which is also occupied by the owner of the same dwelling.
    2. HOTEL/MOTEL LODGERS When renting a room for less than 30 days or more than 30 days if the facility has all of the following: property safe, central telephone, maid, mail and room service, occupancy available for less than 7 days and food service at or connected to the facility, then the lodger is not a tenant and may be evicted by the police.

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


    Don’t GO IT ALONE…!!!!

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

    Don’t GO IT ALONE…!!!!

  112. Bogus reports & stats by U.S. Treachery




  114. We are here to help you win your war. Here are some comments from our clients:

    Sharon and Frank from Dallas; “Consumer Rights gave us more than hope. They helped us with a strategy and file our action and develop a discovery plan that led to a settlement last week with our lender. They are amazing!”

    Pastor Richard B from Baltimore: “The staff at Consumer Rights got our suit prepared and walked us through the entire process. NO monthly charges, no retainers. Everything was ala carte. I have stopped the foreclosure and gotten the bank’s attention.and have an agreed settlement on our church property! Thank God for this organization.”

    Billie and Carl L from Orlando: “We did not know how to handle our loan problems. CRD started a suit that was simple and easy to understand. Now we are getting the documents we need for our settlement conference. They were there for us every step of the way.”

    Stop being discouraged. There is hope for the pro se now with powerful litigation strategies that are finally working. Call us today at 818.453.3585. Consumer Rights Defenders. Ask for Steve or Sara.
    M-F 9-4 PDT.

    Thank God for Neil and his faithful bloggers!






  117. 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….

  118. Abby, thanks for your great work. Our team has now decided to draft additional causes of action against various County Recorder’s Offices [in addition to the robosigners and notaries] where the property is located and force them into the action. They KNOW what is going on and should have some liability for this meltdown.
    Consumer Rights Defenders can help you pro se homeowners with the litigation work that you will need from A-Z, starting with your complaint and then work through discovery which is the most important part of your case. You should consider having counsel for depositions, court appearances and settlement conferences and in the unlikely event you need a trial. Most cases settle. Affordable help for everyone. State and Federal courts. Attorneys and paralegal teams here for you.
    818.453.3585 M-F 9-4 PST, ask for Steve or Sara. Drop an email to us if you like to CR.Defenders@yahoo.com.



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


















  129. 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.


    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:





  131. 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…



  133. Comment to the below from an attorney in Riverside, Calif: “Some Fed Judges in Calif are sua sponte [on their own motion] kicking cases out when removed from State Court if they are in UD courts after a foreclosure, even if the plaintiffs are raising the legitemacy of the sale and right to foreclose. They are not even waiting for motions by the new purported owners to lift the stay! Statistics show this is a trend and happening especially to minority homeowners. Happening in Central District and in Eastern-Riverside. Someone may want to call Congressional persons and Senators about this obvious bias against the rights of homeowners. Does anyone recall the book by Sen. Fulbright “The Arrogance of Power?” This behavior is on all fours with arrogance and bias.” Thanks Sam for this piece of news.
    Call Consumer Rights Defenders if you need litigation help, we have attorneys and paralegals and their staff standing by to assist.
    818.453.3585…Ask for Jackie or Steve. God Bless Neil for his brilliant work and efforts.

  134. 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.

  135. 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!!

  136. Well Fargo is sued for bad conduct in shareholder derivative suit. Here are the links. It shows the depth of greed and corruption in US Banks.
    If you have a Wells loan you may call us for strategies. Attorneys and staff standing by to assist.
    Consumer Rights Defenders 818.453.3585
    ask for Steve or Sara. We also help attorneys and smaller firms implement their actions. 9-4 PST M-F.

  137. Call Sara or Steve at Consumer Rights Defenders. Help you can count on and afford, nationwide.
    818.453.3585, M-F 9-4 PST.
    INSIDER News: BoA is in hot water. They have too many suits and not enough staff and attorneys to save their assets according to one insider who quit working in their loan retention dept. She now works with us!
    If you want action, it’s time to sue and start your discovery. We can help you. Call us to discuss strategies today. Don’t let the banks take you home. Neil has given you the tools, now USE them!

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


  139. 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??

  140. WHAT NOW?

  141. America hijacked 250 years ago:

  142. Thanks to Abby for the great work and articles. When you are ready to discuss suing and stopping the lenders, let us know. Call Sara at Consumer Rights Defenders. Help you can count on and afford, nationwide.
    818.453.3585, M-F 9-4 PST.




  144. 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

  145. Yes, and here is something Neil posted on LL


    and Neil posted this and read down thru blog posts


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



    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


    see my next post—

  146. 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.



    –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

  148. 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?

  149. Abby
    BTW are you the Steve Nelson with Sara blogger below?
    If so, in what state are you licensed to do business in?

    Are you trying to procur customers for attorneys

    Don’t waste your time attempting to argue with someone incapable of understanding and as you identify, appear arrogantly immune to the unauthorized practice of law statutes in California. I’ve tried…it is hopeless…they’ll end up in the clutches of the district attorney or attorney general soon enough if they keep at it.

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


  151. @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.

  152. @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.

  153. 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.



  154. @Steve
    BTW are you the Steve Nelson with Sara blogger below?
    If so, in what state are you licensed to do business in?

    Are you trying to procur customers for attorneys?

  155. 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!

  156. @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.
    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.

    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!

  157. 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:


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



  159. AG Kamala Harris’ Youtube announcement of Foreclosure Settlement for California

  160. @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?

  161. Abby in CA wrote:


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



  163. 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.


    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





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


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






    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.


  170. 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.

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


  172. 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.






  174. 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.



    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.


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

  177. Good comments all. But you are helpless without a lawsuit to enforce your rights. Call us at Consumer Rights Defenders where attorneys and experts are here to help you save your home. 818.453.3585. Ask for Sara or Steve. We are now on Facebook and want to hear from you.
    God Bless Neil for his hard work. We have posted some new case you may be interested in.






    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.”









  181. Michelle Salcido v Aurora Loan Services

    Cal Western is foreclosure trustee. Federal District Court in California


    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)

  182. 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.
















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

  191. 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…




  193. 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.

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











  197. USDC Vogan v Wells Fargo, US Bank


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

  198. 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.


  199. 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.


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











  205. 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.


    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:


    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.

  207. If we can help you, please call Steve or Sara at Consumer Rights Defenders with attorneys and staff to help you today. 818.453.3585. We can do an opinion by email on your case if you qualify and offer full legal and support services. Newer case to consider:

    Filed 6/1/11
    SUSAN L. FERGUSON et al.,
    Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC049118)
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David S. Milton, Judge. Affirmed.
    Susan L. Ferguson, in pro. per, and for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
    McCarthy & Holthus, James M. Hester, Sasan Mirkarimi; and Melissa Coutts for Defendant and Respondent.
    Joseph Huynh obtained a loan to purchase a house. Appellants, Susan L. Ferguson and Brent V. Barry, were tenants at the time of the purchase.1 Huynh executed a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust on the house. Respondent, Avelo Mortgage, LLC, was assigned the beneficial interest under the deed of trust by the original beneficiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). Prior to the assignment, respondent executed a substitution of trustee replacing the original trustee with Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality). Quality then initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding against Huynh and respondent purchased the house at a trustee sale. Subsequently, Huynh executed a quitclaim deed in favor of appellants. Appellants sued respondent to quiet title. Respondent demurred, arguing that appellants must plead tender of the full amount due on the original purchase loan before seeking to vacate the foreclosure sale. The trial court sustained respondent‟s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed appellants‟ suit. On appeal, appellants argue they need not plead tender because they are challenging the legality of the foreclosure sale, not a procedural irregularity. We do not agree.

    In November 2006, Huynh purchased a house (the property) in Burbank, California. Appellants were tenants at the time of the purchase. Huynh executed a deed of trust to secure a $600,000 loan from New Century Mortgage Corporation (New Century) in order to purchase the property. The deed of trust named New Century as the lender, MERS as lender‟s nominee and beneficiary under the deed of trust, and First American Title as the trustee. The deed of trust empowered the trustee with the power of sale. In June 2007, Huynh executed a grant deed to the Huynh Fairview Trust, with Trust Holding Service Company (THS) as trustee.
    1 Susan Ferguson, an attorney, appears here in propria persona and as counsel for her co-appellant Brent Barry.
    On August 2, 2007, respondent executed a substitution of trustee, replacing First American Title with Quality. The next day, Quality, as an agent of the beneficiary under the deed of trust, recorded a notice of default against Huynh for failing to make payments due on the loan. On the same day, Quality recorded an election to sell under the deed of trust. The August 2, 2007 substitution of trustee was not recorded until November 9, 2007. On August 22, 2007, MERS assigned all beneficial interest under the deed of trust to respondent. The assignment was recorded on August 30, 2007.
    Meanwhile, Huynh made no loan payments and Quality executed and delivered a notice of trustee sale on November 4, 2007. The notice of sale was recorded on November 9, 2007. Huynh did not object to the foreclosure. Quality conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and respondent subsequently purchased the property in July 2008 for $400,000. The sale deed was recorded, indicating that the amount of unpaid debt plus costs was $663,128.65.
    On June 27, 2009, Huynh executed a quitclaim deed on the property, in favor of appellants. The quitclaim deed was recorded on July 1, 2009.
    On October 8, 2009, appellants brought an action against respondent to quiet title. They also sued Huynh for fraud and THS and 10 Doe defendants for rent skimming. Of these, only respondent is a party in this appeal. Respondent demurred, asserting that appellants failed to state a cause of action because neither they nor Huynh tendered the full amount due on the loan. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, holding that appellants‟ quiet title action is based on a claim that the foreclosure was wrongful, and therefore, appellants must plead tender before seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale.2 An order of dismissal was entered by the court on May 4, 2010. This timely appeal followed.
    2 Respondent also demurred on the ground that appellants could not sufficiently plead a quite title action because the July 2008 trustee sale terminated Huynh‟s interest in the property, and therefore, the July 2009 quitclaim deed did not transfer any interest in the property to appellants. The court rejected this argument, finding that appellants sufficiently pleaded a quiet title action by generally alleging they were the owner in possession of the property and that respondent claims an adverse interest without right
    Respondent argues this appeal is premature because the trial court entered an order of dismissal but did not enter a formal judgment. Generally, an appeal may be taken from a judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1), which is a “final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 577.) An order of dismissal is a judgment for all intents and purposes, and therefore, is generally appealable. (In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 197.) We treat the trial court‟s order of dismissal as an appealable order and refer to it as such throughout our opinion.

    When a demurrer is sustained by a trial court on the basis of a failure to state a cause of action, we review the allegations de novo to determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under any legal theory. (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.) In doing so, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and viewing its parts in context. (Balikov v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 816, 819.) Relevant matters that were properly the subject of judicial notice may be treated as having been pled. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.)3 If no liability exists as a matter of law, the order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed. (Ibid.)
    because it does not have any legal or equitable interest in the property. Respondent presents the same argument on appeal. We agree with the trial court‟s ruling. (See Gray v. Walker (1910) 157 Cal. 381, 384-385 [complaint alleging plaintiff is owner and in possession of certain land, that defendant claims an interest therein, adverse to plaintiff, and that such claim is without right, contains every element of complaint to quiet title]; see also Kroeker v. Hurlbert (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 261, 265 [defendant‟s claim is sufficiently alleged in general terms without specifying the nature of the claim].)
    3 Respondent asked the trial court to take judicial notice of several documents including the deed of trust, the substitution of trustee, the notice of default, the notice of sale, the assignment of the deed of trust to respondent, and the trustee‟s deed upon sale. Both parties included the documents in their respective appendixes and cite them in their
    Where, as here, a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we also review the decision to deny leave to amend under the abuse of discretion standard, even when no request to amend the pleading was made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472c, subd. (a); see also Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) In doing so, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that reasonable possibility. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
    Here, appellants sought to quiet title against respondents and set aside the trustee sale at which respondents purchased the property. In order to state a viable cause of action for quiet title, a complaint must include: “(a) A description of the property that is the subject of the action. . . . [¶] (b) The title of the plaintiff as to which a determination under this chapter is sought and the basis of the title. . . . [¶] (c) The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought. [¶] (d) The date as of which the determination is sought. . . . [¶] (e) A prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 761.020.) To bring an action to quiet title a plaintiff must allege he or she has paid any debt owed on the property. (Shimpones v. Stickney (1934) 219 Cal. 637, 649 [“[A] mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured.”].)
    The power of sale in a deed of trust allows a beneficiary recourse to the security without the necessity of a judicial action. (See Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249.) Absent any evidence to the contrary, a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is presumed to have been conducted regularly and fairly. (Civ. Code, § 2924.) However, irregularities in a nonjudicial trustee‟s sale may be grounds for setting it aside if they are prejudicial to the party challenging the sale. (See Lo v. Jensen (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1097-1098; see also Angell v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 691, 700 [“„In order to challenge the sale successfully there must be evidence of a failure to comply with the procedural requirements for the foreclosure sale
    argument. We assume that the documents were properly before the trial court and we consider them here.
    that caused prejudice to the person attacking the sale.‟”].) Setting aside a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is an equitable remedy. (Lo v. Jensen, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1098 [“A debtor may apply to a court of equity to set aside a trust deed foreclosure on allegations of unfairness or irregularity that, coupled with the inadequacy of price obtained at the sale, mean that it is appropriate to invalidate the sale.”].) A court will not grant equitable relief to a plaintiff unless the plaintiff does equity. (See Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578-579; see also 13 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Equity, § 6, pp. 286-287.) Thus, “[i]t is settled that an action to set aside a trustee‟s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security.” (Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 578; see also FPCI RE-HAB 01 v. E & G Investments, Ltd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1022 [rationale behind tender rule is that irregularities in foreclosure sale do not damage plaintiff where plaintiff could not redeem property had sale procedures been proper].)
    However, a tender may not be required where it would be inequitable to do so. (See Onofrio v. Rice (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424; see also Dimock v. Emerald Properties (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, 876-878 [when new trustee has been substituted, subsequent sale by former trustee is void, not merely voidable, and no tender needed to set aside sale].) Specifically, “„if the [plaintiff‟s] action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not required since it would constitute an affirmation of the debt.”‟ (Onofrio v. Rice, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 424.)
    Appellants contend they are not challenging irregularities in the foreclosure proceeding. Rather, they argue that respondent is not the holder of the underlying promissory note and therefore cannot invoke the tender rule against them. In their complaint, appellants alleged that New Century remains in possession of the promissory note and that appellants owe no obligation to respondent. On appeal, appellants contend that whether respondent holds the promissory note is a factual dispute, and sustaining respondent‟s demurrer presupposes that respondent has authority to enforce the loan
    obligation. They assert that while MERS had the authority to transfer its beneficial interest under the deed of trust, there is no evidence that MERS, which was acting as a nominee of New Century, held the promissory note and was authorized to assign the note itself to respondent.
    The role of MERS is central to the issues in this appeal. “„MERS is a private corporation that administers the MERS System, a national electronic registry that tracks the transfer of ownership interests and servicing rights in mortgage loans. Through the MERS System, MERS becomes the mortgagee of record for participating members through assignment of the members‟ interests to MERS. MERS is listed as the grantee in the official records maintained at county register of deeds offices. The lenders retain the promissory notes, as well as the servicing rights to the mortgages. The lenders can then sell these interests to investors without having to record the transaction in the public record. MERS is compensated for its services through fees charged to participating MERS members.‟” (Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1151 (Gomes v. Countrywide), quoting Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Nebraska Dept. of Banking & Finance (Neb. 2005) 704 N.W.2d 784, 785.)
    Appellants cite two federal cases for the proposition that MERS, as the nominee of the lender under a deed of trust, does not possess the underlying promissory note and cannot assign it, absent evidence of an explicit authorization from the original lender. (See Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hillery (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2008, No. C-08-4357) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100056; see also In re Agard (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011, No. 10-77338-reg) 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 488.) Not all courts agree on this issue and appellants do not distinguish nor address other cases that have upheld MERS‟s ability to assign a mortgage. (See US Bank, N.A. v. Flynn (N.Y.Sup. 2010) 897 N.Y.S.2d 855, 859 [assignee of MERS has standing to initiate foreclosure proceeding because where “an entity such as MERS is identified in the mortgage indenture as the nominee of the lender and as the mortgagee of record and the mortgage indenture confers upon such nominee all of the powers of such lender, its successors and assigns, a written assignment of the note and mortgage by MERS, in its capacity as nominee, confers good title to the
    assignee and is not defective for lack of an ownership interest in the note at the time of the assignment”]; see also Crum v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 18, 2009, No. 2080110) 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 491 at pp. *6-7.) We are not bound by federal district and bankruptcy court decisions, and the cases cited by appellants are in direct conflict with persuasive California case law.
    In Gomes v. Countrywide, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, plaintiff Gomes obtained a loan from KB Home Mortgage Company (KB Home) to finance a real estate purchase. He executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust naming KB Home as the lender and MERS as KB Home‟s nominee and beneficiary under the deed of trust. (Gomes v. Countrywide, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1151.) The deed of trust contained a provision granting MERS the power to foreclose and sell the property in the event of a default. (Ibid.) Gomes defaulted on his payments and was mailed a notice of default by ReconTrust, which identified itself as an agent for MERS. Attached was a declaration signed by Countrywide Home Loans, acting as the loan servicer. (Ibid.) Gomes filed suit against Countrywide Home Loans, ReconTrust and MERS for wrongful initiation of foreclosure, alleging MERS did not have authority to initiate the foreclosure because it did not possess the note and was not authorized by its current owner to proceed with foreclosure. (Id. at p. 1152.) Defendants demurred, arguing, among other things, that Gomes was required to plead tender to maintain a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure and that the terms of the deed of trust authorized MERS to initiate a foreclosure proceeding. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. (Ibid.)
    On appeal, the court affirmed the order, finding that Gomes could not seek judicial intervention in a nonjudicial foreclosure before the foreclosure has been completed. (Gomes v. Countrywide, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.) Nonetheless, the appellate court reached the merits of Gomes‟s claim as an independent ground for affirming the order sustaining the demurrer. The court rejected Gomes‟s argument that MERS lacked authority to initiate the foreclosure procedure because the deed of trust explicitly provided MERS with the authority to do so. The court found that the “deed of trust
    contains no suggestion that the lender or its successors and assigns must provide Gomes with assurances that MERS is authorized to proceed with a foreclosure at the time it is initiated.” (Id. at p. 1157.) Thus, Gomes acknowledged MERS‟s authority to foreclose by entering into the deed of trust. (Ibid.)
    Just as in Gomes v. Countrywide, the deed of trust in this case specifically states: “Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender‟s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.”
    Appellants concede that MERS had the authority to assign its beneficial interest to respondent.4 Accordingly, respondent had the same authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings. And while Gomes v. Countrywide did not address the tender issue, it does
    4 Appellants explicitly conceded this point in their reply brief on appeal. At oral argument, appellants offered In re Walker (Bankr. E.D. Cal. May 20, 2010, No. 10-21656-E-11) 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3781, to assert that MERS did not have authority to assign the mortgage without holding the promissory note. In that case, Walker obtained a loan from Bayrock Mortgage Corporation (Bayrock) to finance a real estate purchase. He executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust naming Bayrock as the lender and MERS as Bayrock‟s nominee. MERS then assigned its interest to Citibank. (Id. at p. *3.) During a bankruptcy proceeding, Citibank asserted a claim against Walker for the outstanding mortgage. Walker objected and the bankruptcy court sustained the objection, finding that Citibank had no interest in the mortgage because MERS, as a mere nominee without the underlying note, had no authority to assign the note to Citibank. (Id. at p. *6.) Citing decisions from other jurisdictions, the court also held MERS could not foreclose on the property because it did not own the underlying note, and therefore had no interest in the mortgage to assign. (Id. at pp. *5-6; see also Landmark National Bank v. Kesler (Kan. 2009) 216 P.3d 158, 167 [in a mortgage foreclosure action, trial court did not abuse discretion by denying MERS motion to set aside default judgment because MERS was not a necessary party since the deed of trust did not give MERS any cognizable interest in the property].) Even if we interpret In re Walker to mean that MERS had no beneficial interest to assign to respondent, this argument was explicitly rejected in Gomes v. Countrywide, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pages 1155-1157, with which we agree.
    not follow that a beneficiary may initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under a deed of trust without the original promissory note, but cannot seek tender from a defaulting borrower attempting to set aside the foreclosure. Although California courts have not resolved this issue (see Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2010) Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, § 10:39:10), several federal district courts in this state have upheld a beneficiary‟s authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings and invoke the tender rule against a defaulting borrower, even when the beneficiary is not the holder of the original promissory note. Those courts have noted that “California law „does not require possession of the note as a precondition to [nonjudicial] foreclosure under a Deed of Trust.‟” (Jensen v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2010) 702 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1189; see also Odinma v. Aurora Loan Services (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2010, No. C-09-4674 EDL) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28347 at p. *13; see also Morgera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010, No. 2:09-cv-01476-MCE-GGH) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2037 at p. *21 [MERS, as nominee of lender, has authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure without underlying promissory note].) Moreover, in cases involving an assignment of a deed of trust from MERS to a third party, courts have invoked the tender rule despite arguments that MERS did not have the authority to assign its interest under the deed of trust without the promissory note. (See Lai v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010, No. CV 10-2308 PSG) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97121.) Appellants offer no authority, state or federal, to support the legal loophole they claim for defaulting borrowers and their successors.
    Appellants also argue that respondent was not authorized to substitute Quality as the trustee prior to becoming the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Quality initiated the foreclosure proceedings when it was not the trustee and therefore had no legal right to do so. Under a deed of trust, the trustee may be substituted by a “substitution executed and acknowledged by: (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest . . . ; or (B) the holders of more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction, exclusive of any notes or
    interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the issuer or servicer of the notes or interests or of any affiliate of that licensed real estate broker.” (Civ. Code, § 2934a, subd. (a)(1).)
    We agree with appellants that respondent did not have the authority to execute a substitution of trustee until MERS assigned the deed of trust to it. Thus, Quality‟s August 3, 2007, notice of default was defective. Nonetheless, Huynh had more than three months to satisfy his obligation before Quality executed a notice of sale. The substitution of trustee was effective when respondent became the beneficiary under the deed of trust and when the substitution was recorded on November 9, 2007. (Civ. Code, § 2934a, subd. (a)(4) [“From the time the substitution is filed for record, the new trustee shall succeed to all the powers, duties, authority, and title granted and delegated to the trustee named in the deed of trust.”].) Thus, the notice of sale was valid.5 Quality then completed the foreclosure in July 2008, long after its substitution as trustee took effect. This situation is distinct from other cases that have voided a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when a party other than the trustee initiated the proceeding and completed the sale without having been substituted in as the trustee. (See Pro Value Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 579, 583; see also Dimock v.
    5 We note that the substitution of trustee was not recorded until November 9, 2007, after the notice of sale was executed and delivered, but on the same day the notice of sale was recorded.
    Civil Code section 2934a, subdivision (c), provides: “If the substitution is effected after a notice of default has been recorded but prior to the recording of the notice of sale, the beneficiary or beneficiaries or their authorized agents shall cause a copy of the substitution to be mailed, prior to, or concurrently with, the recording thereof, in the manner provided in Section 2924b, to the trustee then of record and to all persons to whom a copy of the notice of default would be required to be mailed by the provisions of Section 2924b. An affidavit shall be attached to the substitution that notice has been given to those persons and in the manner required by this subdivision.” Here, notice of the substitution of trustee was mailed to Huynh and the trustee of record on November 7, 2007. An affidavit was attached to the substitution on the same day. Thus, we conclude the substitution was recorded and notice was delivered in accordance with statutory requirements.
    Emerald Properties, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 876-878 [foreclosure sale void where original trustee completed foreclosure sale after being replaced by new trustee].) Appellants offer no authority for the proposition that the defective nature of the initial notice of default corrupted all subsequent steps in the nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding such that the sale was void, not merely voidable.
    Appellants also argue that they need not do equity in order to set aside the foreclosure sale because they were not the original borrowers of the loan, and thus, are not the party at fault for the outstanding loan. We disagree. Appellants stand in the shoes of Huynh by the quitclaim deed, the only basis for their having any standing at all. (See City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232, 239 [quitclaim deed passes whatever interest or right grantor possesses, legal or equitable].) Allowing them to circumvent the tender rule would render a windfall to them and leave a valid loan obligation unsatisfied.
    Finally, we turn to whether the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining respondent‟s demurrer without leave to amend. It is appellants‟ burden to establish a reasonable possibility that the defect in their complaint can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d. at p. 318.) They are required to “„“show in what manner [they] can amend [their] complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of [their] pleading. . . .” [Citation.]‟” (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.)
    The trial court found appellants‟ complaint defective because it did not plead a tender. Appellants have not and do not argue that they offered tender in either of their appeal briefs. Rather, they contend that they alleged a previous tender offer that was rejected by respondent. They allege in their complaint that they made an offer to purchase the property from respondent, but were rejected unless they agreed to vacate the property for 10 days, purchase it for approximately $800,000, and then move back onto the property. Appellants argue that their proposal to purchase the property was effectively an offer to tender the amount due on the loan, and because respondent rejected
    the proposal, it should be estopped from invoking the tender rule now. The trial court did not address this allegation in its adopted tentative opinion, and instead concluded that no allegation of tender was made.
    A tender is an offer of performance made with the intent to extinguish the obligation. (Civ. Code, § 1485.) It must be unconditional (Civ. Code, § 1494) and offer full performance to be valid (Civ. Code, § 1486). Civil Code section 1512 provides: “If the performance of an obligation be prevented by the creditor, the debtor is entitled to all the benefits which he would have obtained if it had been performed by both parties.”
    Appellants‟ offer to buy the property from respondent does not constitute tender because there is no allegation that it was done with the intent to extinguish the obligation. Moreover, the record shows that the amount remaining on the loan at the time of the trustee sale was over $600,000, well above the $400,000 respondent paid to purchase the property at the trustee sale. Appellants did not plead how much they offered to purchase the property, thus providing no indication that they offered full performance. Finally, while there is no evidence that respondent‟s $800,000 asking price represented the value of the loan at the time appellants offered to purchase the property, the burden is on appellants to plead facts showing the price was excessive. Appellants have not addressed any of these issues on appeal. Therefore, because appellants have “made no attempt to indicate how the complaint may have been amended to state a cause of action” they have “failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion.” (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 8.)
    The order of dismissal is affirmed. Respondents to have their costs on appeal.


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


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


    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

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

  211. FredFlintstone,

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



  213. 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

  214. Look into writ of mandamus if you have to…

  215. 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?

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


  217. Israeli style eviction of Americans into concentration camps:


  218. 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?

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

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

  221. 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.

  222. Because they don’t care about us 99%

  223. 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/

  224. 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

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

  226. 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.




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


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

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


  231. 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.

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

  233. 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.

  234. 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:

    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:
undermined.” As you find in this link:


    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:


    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.


  236. 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.


  237. N.Light- Grover is right, but corrupt courts make sure only banks win!

  238. you can file a suit at any time

  239. 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.

  240. 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;

    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

  241. U.S. BANKRIMES date back to 1760. TESTIMONY:

  242. 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

  243. 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.

  244. 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.

  245. 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.

  246. 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.


  248. Misleading foreclosure statistics:

    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.









  250. Ian: Then type his case # so the scam comes into spotlight in his favor…

  251. Ian
    he is still on track with his case

  252. Raja was probably paid off to keep quiet about that mass-counterfeit …

  253. petition for writ of certiorari filed by California woman fighting for her home–this is for the California Supreme Court


  254. 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?






  256. 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.

  257. I know of somebody who found his mortgage in over 40 different mortgage pools. seriously

  258. 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.

  259. 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!

  260. 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.

  261. 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.

  262. http://www.westregion.com/Title%20Insurance%20Pages/Cases/CaliforniaCases.htm
    California Cases – 2004 to Present
    Including Federal cases interpreting California law
    Go to cases 2000 – 2003

    SEPT. 2011


  264. 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.

  265. @ 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.

  266. 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.)

  267. 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.

  268. 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!

  269. SHOCKING EXPOSE: California & Federal Mafias interests in stealing your homes is to maximize value of public employees retirement funds (see page 7)

  270. 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.

  271. “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.

  272. Response: Any skeptic who offers nothing but criticism and nothing else is not worthy of the literary space they waste. People need help and do not have the money to afford high priced counsel. We bridge and fill the gap nicely.
    Mr. Nelson

  273. 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…

  274. Can you name a single property address that you helped save from bank crooks?

  275. As we have been stating all along…we “get it” in Calif. 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.
    We just filed new TRO actions based on new appellate rulings. If the lender FAILS to comply with your Modification plan, that is a material breach and can be used to enforce your TRO. We also have newly formulated standing issues that attack the bank’s right to foreclose based on not only the lack of possession of the note but the right to defend an action without the note and assignment. Sue the banks, robo-signers, the notaries, the loan officers and every securitized entity and serve them with discovery. We do the document preparation for much less, but have attorneys if you prefer representation. BK referrals confidentially done on request. Don’t let the lenders take your home.
    818.453.3585. ask for Sara or Steve 9-4 or leave voice mail.

  276. As we have been stating all along…we “get it” in Calif. 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.
    We just filed new TRO actions based on new appellate rulings. If the lender FAILS to comply with your Modification plan, that is a material breach and can be used to enforce your TRO. We also have newly formulated standing issues that attack the bank’s right to foreclose based on not only the lack of possession of the note but the right to defend an action without the note and assignment. Sue the banks, robo-signers, the notaries, the loan officers and every securitized entity and serve them with discovery. We do the document preparation for much less, but have attorneys if you prefer representation. BK referrals confidentially done on request. Don’t let the lenders take your home.
    818.453.3585. ask for Sara or Steve 9-4 or leave voice mail.

  277. 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.


  278. Foreclosure Criminals Newsletter Takes Joy at Klown Harris (AG) busting a few lawyers

    This documentary tells it all:

    American Holocaust Video

  279. 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.

  280. 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….

  281. 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…



  283. Press Release
    August 18, 2011
    For Immediate Release
    Contact: (415) 703-5837
    Print Version
    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.






  285. 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.

  286. How about a search in Google: amicus brief mers





    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

  289. 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.

  290. As we have been stating all along…we “get it” in Calif. 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.

    We just filed new TRO actions based on new appellate rulings. If the lender FAILS to comply with your Modification plan, that is a material breach and can be used to enforce your TRO. We also have newly formulated standing issues that attack the bank’s right to foreclose based on not only the lack of possession of the note but the right to defend an action without the note and assignment. We do the document preparation for much less, but have attorneys if you prefer representation. BK referrals confidentially done on request. Don’t let the lenders take your home.
    818.453.3585. ask for Sara or Steve 9-5 or leave voice mail.
    God Bless Neil for his website!!!

  291. 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

  292. 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?






  295. oops I meant 3604 not 3605

  296. 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’





  298. 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.

  299. An Online Petition to the State Attorney General of California

    Please sign.












  303. NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for President! He knows the truth!


  304. KM1…. this is typical. State court will not allow TRO’s without a bond per the CCP. Yet, the bank holds the best security, the Trust deed and promisory note! Legislation MUST change this glitch. Good Prelim Inj’s are useless sometime without a waiver of surety. BK courts in adversary proceedings are less prone to require bonds.
    Give us a call. We have paralegal help and attorneys depending on your budget and have strategies that are proven to hold off the banks and get your litigation started. Wearing the banks down in the face of obvious corruption is beginning to work nationwide.
    818.453.3585. Ask for Steve or Sara M-F 10 to 4 PDT. Leave message for call back.
    God bless Neil and America for this great website!

  305. 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)









  309. 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.






  311. 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.

  312. 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

  313. 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.”

    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).
    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,
    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



  315. The link offered is not working….Please post up dated link.


    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



  317. First part did not come through for some reason

  318. Additional cases and links about “TENDER RULE”:

    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”).
    428 B.R. 266 (in re Giza)
    192 Cal.App.4th 218
    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:
    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.””

  319. 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.

  320. OK–suddenly the UD Judge who we thought did the right thing—-caused her tentative ruling to disappear from the court website & docket.



  322. Take a look at this case helping the home owner/borrower:

    ROBERT HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

    No. C065630.
    Court of Appeals of California, Third District, El Dorado.Filed May 31, 2011.

  323. We get it in Calif. Just filed new TRO actions based on new appellate rulings. If the lender FAILS to comply with your Modification plan, that is a material breach and can be used to enforce your TRO. We also have newly formulated standing issues that attack the bank’s right to foreclose based on not only the lack of possession of the note but the right to defend an action without the note and assignment. We do the document preparation for much less, but have attorneys if you prefer representation. BK referrals confidentially done on request. Don’t let the lenders take your home.
    818.453.3585. ask for Sara or Steve 9-5 or leave voice mail.
    God Bless Neil for his website!!!

  324. 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



  326. 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.)

  327. 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?

  328. 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…

  329. 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.

  330. Is someone looking for cases or statutes negating the “TENDER RULE”? If so, briefly say under what circumstances,…say, under Rescission, TILA, etc?

  331. Thanks for the case Charles. If you find anymore please let me know and I’ll do the same if I find any.

  332. 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.

  333. 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.”

  334. 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.


    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.

  335. Actually Jeff, California courts are doing a cleansing of the poor. You must be employed and rich to live here.

  336. 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.

  337. 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.

  338. 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.

    Monday, May 23
    2:45 p.m. – Announcement
    3:45 p.m. – Roundtable

    Office of the Attorney General, 1st Floor
    300 South Spring Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90013

    Please RSVP at agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov or 415.703.5837 by close of business on Friday, May 20.


  339. 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


    The Book is Now Available at Amazon


  340. 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.


    OCC Purported Enforcement Action Against Foreclosure Crimes:
     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.

  342. New CA Bankruptcy Order- Salazar v US Bank–Statutory Foreclosure Scheme Trumps MERS’ Proposed Alternative System

  343. 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

  344. 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.



  346. 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”)

  347. 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.

  348. 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.

  349. Unfortunately, the AZ bill failed in the House and didn’t pass. Too much lobbying by bankster reps.

  350. 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??

















  354. 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


    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.

  355. 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.

  356. 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.

  357. 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.

  358. 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

  359. 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.

  360. 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.

  361. You are making an assumption. And it DOES matter. Tough to understand..I know.

  362. 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.

  363. 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.

  364. 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…

  365. 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.]

  366. 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

  367. 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

  368. 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.

  369. Come on guys, the American legal system is a totally organized crime:

    No offense to the honest 1% lawyer like Garfield…

  370. 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.

  371. 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!

  372. 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.

  373. 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.

  374. 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.

  375. 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.

  376. 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.

  377. 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)

  378. 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.

  379. 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?

  380. 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.

  381. To Mark, Move on…SOL is four years from signing note.

  382. 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?

  383. Get in touch with Charles Koppa down in San Diego. He can fill you in on this part of the scam. poppakoppa@hotmail.com

  384. 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?


  385. If you live in California and signed into a Special Forebearance Agreement with Wells Fargo, please contact me at KPPI2U@gmail.com.

  386. Shoutout…Does the originator still have legal rights under the deed of trust after selling loan in California? Caselaw?

  387. To Jeb, Can’t find the comment, please direct.

  388. Thanks for John’s LInk to Judge Rothschild’s ruling today. and see related comment at this link:


  389. 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”

  390. 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.

  391. 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.

  392. 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!

  393. 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??


  394. .StansberryResearch.-Video on COUNTERFEIT
    if above link does not work use:


  395. StansberryResearch.-Video on COUNTERFEIT

    explains what is soon coming

  396. 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.


  397. 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.

  398. 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!!

  399. 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.

  400. Hire a robo-signer like the banks do!

  401. 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?

  402. 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 _____________________________________________

  403. To Jen,

    Who will sign for the “in the record current beneficiary” and the notarize their signature?

  404. 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.

  405. 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.

  406. 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

  407. 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)

  408. 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.”

  409. Everyone should read pp. 1-3 of their trust deeds for the language showing the lender has given their rights to MERS. This makes other assignments void[able]. This means your lender’s trustee has no right to give notice or sell since the power vests with MERS and not the purported new holder of the title. [This does not apply in all case, but enough to point this out.] This forms the basis for TRO’s in state and federal lawsuits and BK adversary proceedings favoring the borrower. Call Steve or Sara at Consumer Rights in Calif for free consultation [as available] at 818.453.3585. Attorneys on staff and paralegals to help in pro se at greatly reduced cost.
    Good Luck, all.

  410. 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
    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.


    Camelia Martin
    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

  411. 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.

  412. 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!!!

  413. 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

  414. 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!!

  415. 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,’’.

  416. 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.

  417. Ca Notary Handbook info……who ever figures it out please report back Thanks…..http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/handbook.htm

  418. To Jeff…also the ruling says “irregularities in the sale” NOT irregularities in the foreclosure. There might be a diff

  419. To Jeff…regarding tender….somehow plead if the courts will go forward to adjudicate your claims it will not be an useless act.

  420. 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.”

  421. To Jeff…your false assignments will be heard at the unlawful detainer stage.

  422. 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.

  423. To Jeff…Contact this guy in Ca…..http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

  424. 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.

  425. 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).

  426. Walk away is cheapest option in Ca. My opinion. OR start lawsuit before foreclosure.

  427. 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.

  428. anyone know how does the tender rule apply when there is fraud? or a securitized note? unknown entity in which to offer tender?

  429. 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.]

  430. 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



  432. 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!

  433. The following is our response to a letter from GMAC As for the UD, the attorney that represented us Jonathan Stein, is now a part of a lawsuit filed by the AG for his part in a scam company US Loan Auditors that ripped off homeowners. It is very hard to cloud the title in a UD, when you can’t show the proof u need, they are very one sided (the banks). It only took gmac 6 weeks to sell that house because it was in mint condition for a foreclosure. Prior to the auction date 2/5/10 there was never any big yellow signs posted at the house.

    gmac is not listed anywhere on the property profile for 8704 Milo Ct. Elk Grove CA 95624, yet GMAC shows up on my credit report when they were not involved in the transaction.

    gmac failed to explain why we were denied a loan modification in Sept. of ’09. gmac already knows what type of loan this was, it qualified for a 30% principle reduction.

    There still is no mention of the illegal foreclosure, gmac did not assign the mortgage and used mers to foreclose. Mers has no legal rights in the State of CA. gmac still has not produced the original loan docs, because they were destroyed by the banks to cover up their crimes. I have seen house of cards and plunder the crime of our time. Where does the ceo live? We would like to park our trailer at his house since we don’t have one anymore.

    I am preparing to file a lawsuit against greenpoint, aurora, lehman brothers, gmac for aiding and abetting, illegal foreclosure, eviction and sale of our property. 9 out of 10 foreclosures are legal, ours was the 1 of many that were done illegally.

  434. The greedy banks

    The more American homeowners lose, the greater some bankers profit. Logic dictates that banks would want to mitigate their losses and resolve troubled loans with borrowers. But the reverse is true for those bankers who bet against the bonds backed by American families’ homes and who make even more as the bond values plummet. Unwittingly, millions of American families became racehorses on the subprime racetrack. By saddling the horses with as much debt as possible on terms that made the load increasingly overwhelming to burden, there was little chance of anyone crossing the finish line. Even so, bankers gussied up the horses and took wagers from unwitting MBS investors such as pension funds and smaller banks all under the noble pretense of providing homeownership opportunities for all. And in the backroom, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Paulson & Co. were betting billions that homeowners and MBS investors would fail spectacularly.
    Now millions of families are falling apart under the burden of failing in a game they could never have won. Admirably but foolishly, some of the families borrowed from friends and family, took on second and even third jobs, and ran themselves to exhaustion trying to find a stride to the finish line. But the incline on the track increased with each interest rate adjustment, and the track at points became as steep as that of a mountain pass in the Rockies. At this point, government officials feigned assistance by designing a program in which they promised to level off the track by temporarily reducing interest rates, but only if the nearly-exhausted families could prove their worthiness through a three month “trial”.
    However, when the incline remained intense even after the first three months, they were cheered on. “Just make it a few more months and then you will reach the Promised Land”. That was the message, yet the Promised Land remained an illusion for 9 out of 10. The survivors did not fare much better. They were only allowed to continue the impossible journey if they were saddled with even more debt and forced to remain in the race an additional ten years. Ultimately, there will be few if any survivors. Instead, the wreckage is immense, with families crushed, divorced, homeless, and/or staying in the basements and garages of friends and family. They are drained physically, mentally and financially.
    Equally bamboozled, the pension funds and smaller banks lost billions on their bets. Much like a nerd who thought he was making friends with the football team, M&T Bank ponied up $82 million to Deutsche Bank in February 2007 to invest in Gemstone VII, a bond issue backed by subprime loans. Internal emails from Deutsche traders at the time referred to subprime loans as “the plague” and stated “these bonds are going much, much lower.” Still, they pretended to befriend M&T, took their money and betrayed them. Ten months later M&T had lost 98% of their investment, whose value had dropped to just $1.9 million.
    Tragically, American International Group insured many of the wagers made by Deutsche, Goldman, Paulson and others. In late 2008, AIG had insufficient funds to cover the wagers and the federal government bailed out AIG, including $800 million earmarked to pay Deutsche Bank for their winning bets that American families had failed. Thus, in a true molestation of American capitalism, the families who had struggled and lost were made to pay those who made the twisted bets against them.
    To make sure they did not get caught, these Wall Street titans infiltrated the enforcement positions at the Treasury Department and Securities & Exchange Commission. Most notably, SEC enforcement Chief Robert Khuzami was lead attorney at Deutsche Bank and signed off on Gemstone VII and hundreds of millions of soured subprime bonds. As a result, they get to keep their ill-gotten loot by paying protection money disguised as campaign contributions, gifts through lobbyists and a paltry fine here and there.
    So, when your servicer tells you they lost your paperwork for the fifth time, denies you a modification even though you have made a year’s worth of “trial” payments perfectly on time, or even denies a short sale and proceeds to foreclose and then sell your home as REO for a lot less money, recognize that your banker may succeed the most when you lose the most.

  435. Title Issues for gmac mortgage, thanks to the dept. of corp I have been in contact with gmac and showing the proof they didn’t own the house when they foreclosed, they used MERS

    Recording date 11/02/10 page 0862 Notice of pendency of action was filed in Sacramento County with the recorders office. The civil case 2010-00072319 was a dismissal without prejudice, it now becomes an aiding and abbetting, illegal foreclosure, eviction and sale.

    GMAC relied on MERS, which is a software that EDS (at one time a General Motors company)created for the mortgage industry. In order to be valid the assignment must be recorded California Civil Code 2932.5

    I can file suit under the fair debt reporting act.

    Recording date 10/22/10 Buyer Name Lorenz William H. price 160, 000.
    Document # BK-PG 20101022-1257 document type: Grant Deed
    Seller Name GMAC Mortgage LLC
    The only one time a attorney actually signed for gmac was Jennifer Vizgirdas, from the LPS Default title and closing. A division of LSI Title Agency Inc.

    Legal Description Lot 95 Map Ref MAP5 MB 125
    City/Muni/Twp Elk Grove

    Prior transfer:

    Recording date 02/16/2010 Buyer Name GMAC Mortgage LLC price 184, 500.
    Document # BK-PG 20100216-1086 document type: Trustee’s Deed
    Seller Name Lawson Timothy L, Lawson Genevieve P

    Legal Description Lot 95 Map Ref MAP5 MB 125
    City/Muni/Twp Elk Grove

    Foreclosure Record:

    Recording date 01/11/2010 Notice of Sale, (aka Notice of Trustee’s Sale)
    Auction location 720 9th Street Sacramento CA
    Document # BK-PG 20100111-0257

    Foreclosure Record:

    No one has the right to claim ownership of something and foreclose in the same month, date and year.

    Recording date 10/09/2009 Document type: Notice of Default
    Beneficiary Name Proffer Financial
    Trustor Names Lawson, Timothy L; Lawson Genevieve P
    Trustee Names ETS Services LLC
    Was signed by a Trustee Sale Officer Geoffrey Allen with ETS Services.

    Recording date 10/09/2009 Document type: Substitution of Trustee
    MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. as nominee for Proffer Financial was the original beneficiary under the said deed of trust dated 5/15/2006 and recorded on 5/24/06 as instrument no in book 20060524 page # 0324 of official records in Sacramento County.
    Was signed by an Assistant secretary Cindy Sandoval from MERS.

    Recording requested by LSI Title Company Inc.
    Beneficiary Name ETS Services LLC
    2255 North Ontario Street, Suite 400
    Burbank, CA 91504

    Document type: Substitution of Trustee:
    Recording date 09/01/06
    Beneficiary Indymac Bank
    Recording requested by: T.D Service Company
    1820 E First Street, Suite 300
    Santa Ana, CA 92708
    From Commerce Title Insurance Co.
    Was signed by an Assistant Secretary Gina Arreola in Orange County, CA
    Recorded July 18, 2006 book no 20050729 at page # 0899 in the official records of Sacramento County.

  436. Consumer Rights Defenders, an association of attorneys, paralegals and experts can help. No cost consultation. Contact us at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve or Sara. [Consultations limited to Calif cases needing immediate foreclosure injunction relief and lawsuits in State and Federal Court.] We can refer you to BK experts as well. Good luck.





  438. To Juli, Try Jeff Barnes, I’ve heard good things. Let us know what you think…..http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

  439. I need a lawyer who gets it – my property is in Kern County California. Received the NOD on 11/9

  440. Jeff on 12/8: about HENRIETTA J. MONDAY, an Individual, Plaintiff,
    Please provide the court and complete case number. Thanks.
    Also: in the Rickie Walker case Chase has not produced the original note but has not be denied the opportunity to find it later. So they might fabricate a fake one soon and bring it to court.

  441. “Consumer Rights Defenders” doesn’t seem to be a legit company…unlisted or cell phone given, no web address and can’t find a company by that name.

  442. Eviction and foreclosure defense in pro se at a rate that works for you with attorney supervision. And attys available for court. Let’s ENFORCE Ortiz !!!! Call Steve or Sara at Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585. We Get It!!! All of Calif.

  443. HENRIETTA J. MONDAY, an Individual, Plaintiff,
    SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC, a Texas Corporation; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ABFC 2007-WMC1 TRUST ASSET BACKED FUNDING CORPORATION ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATED, SERIES 2007-WMC1, an Ohio Business Entity; T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants.

    No. CIV. 2:10-989 WBS KJM.

    November 29, 2010.


    WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.


    Plaintiff may therefore proceed under the First Amended Complaint on her claims for negligence against Saxon; cancellation of instrument against Ocwen, U.S. Bank, and TDS; setting aside the trustee’s sale against all defendants; and violations of the UCL against Saxon and U.S. Bank. If plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to cure the defects explained above, she may do so within twenty days from the date of this Order. Otherwise, the case will proceed under the First Amended Complaint.

    San Mateo County_Law & Motion_Tentative Ruling:
    · DENIED. The Motion of Plaintiff to Strike Portions of the Defendant Jamie Ortiz’ Answer is DENIED. See, Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161a and Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255.
    · Plaintiff is seeking to establish its right to possession under CCP Sec. 1161a, under which Plaintiff is obligated to show it has perfected title! An “eviction after foreclosure . . . sale under CCP Sec. 1161a requires the purchaser seeking eviction to have ‘duly perfected’ title. Thus, in Sec. 1161a UDs, a plaintiff’s lack of title is a defense.” Friedman, Garcia & Hagarty, Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group) Sec. 8:388, citing Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 and Evans v. Sup.Ct. (Robbins) (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 169.
    · The Vella court states: “A qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in unlawful detainer is contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, which extends the summary eviction remedy beyond the conventional landlord-tenant relationship to include certain purchasers of property . . . . Section 1161a provides for a narrow and sharply focused examination of title.” Vella, supra, 20 Cal.3d 251 at 255.
    · There is nothing contrary to law or improper about the allegations made in the Answer.
    · If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

  445. Charles, This should be old news for a guy like you!

  446. Guys,

    PLEASE provide complete citations when mentioning cases or statutes so those of us that want to look up cases have the ability to do so.


  447. In California, nonperfected title is a defense possibly in a UD action. See Chase Bank v. Ortiz et al….This is new stuff based on a appellant decision!

  448. Another win in California!!!! Monday v Saxon Mortgage

  449. Joe…you recalled wrong, like many did in California.

  450. as I recall this was always the law of Short-Sales. No lender has any original notes,since they have been sold hundreds of times over. If one really has it,it would be an exception. May be you mean selling deeds of trust, but trust-deeds are worthless without their underlying NOTES.
    If lenders had had original notes they wouldn’t commit all the crimes they have been committing routinely.

  451. Some help for California homeowners…Finally, some clarity now for sellers of underwater property in California. In the past, there had been some uncertainty whether lenders could pursue short sale sellers for a deficiency after approving a short sale.

    The reason was that the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580d discussed what happens after a Trustee’s sale (foreclosure sale), but it was not clear that a short sale was the same as the Trustee’s sale (although arguably under Section 726, the “One Action Rule”, approval of the short sale might be construed as an “action” on the lender’s part.)

    Now, Senate Bill 931 has been signed by the Governor and it is summed up as follows: “This bill requires the holder of a first mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property to accept, as full payment, the proceeds of a short sale to which it agrees in writing, and obligates that note holder to fully discharge the remaining amount of the borrower’s indebtedness on the deed of trust or mortgage following the sale.”

    What does that mean? It means that if you are a home owner in Santa Clara county (or anywhere in California), and you owe more than the house is worth, and the lender agrees to accept less as part of a short sale–you do not owe the lender anything further.

    Prior to this law, lenders had a practice of approving short sales, releasing their deeds of trust but selling their promissory notes to collection agencies.

  452. Northern California_San Francisco Bay Area

    Chris Gardas
    Attorney At Law
    530 43rd Street
    Richmond, CA 94805
    Phone: (415) 407-4918 fax: (510) 778-1273


    San Mateo County_Law & Motion_Tentative Ruling:


    · DENIED. The Motion of Plaintiff to Strike Portions of the Defendant Jamie Ortiz’ Answer is DENIED. See, Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161a and Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255.

    · Plaintiff is seeking to establish its right to possession under CCP Sec. 1161a, under which Plaintiff is obligated to show it has perfected title! An “eviction after foreclosure . . . sale under CCP Sec. 1161a requires the purchaser seeking eviction to have ‘duly perfected’ title. Thus, in Sec. 1161a UDs, a plaintiff’s lack of title is a defense.” Friedman, Garcia & Hagarty, Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group) Sec. 8:388, citing Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 and Evans v. Sup.Ct. (Robbins) (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 169.

    · The Vella court states: “A qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in unlawful detainer is contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, which extends the summary eviction remedy beyond the conventional landlord-tenant relationship to include certain purchasers of property . . . . Section 1161a provides for a narrow and sharply focused examination of title.” Vella, supra, 20 Cal.3d 251 at 255.

    · There is nothing contrary to law or improper about the allegations made in the Answer.

    · If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

  454. If you don’t preserve your case for appeal and don’t appeal…this is what can happen.

    Get “Statements of Decision” if there is no tentative ruling or get a writ of mandate/mandamus if they don’t.

    Published opinions are only that…persuasive, not common/case law. Prescedents are what appellate and supreme courts are there to make and review.

    Hold them to task.

    Perhaps they need to make sure their pensions are secured by the funds invested in mortgage bonds.

  455. Watch out!!! For two California District Court judges, O’ Neil, and Fogel, who apparently have written a dozen fraudulent opinions legitimizing foreclosures without original notes, without citing to any laws. Then they have had their own bogus opinions published and then they cite to each other’s bogus punished opinions. This is organized crime at its best, involving federal judges, not just state judges.

  456. My NEW attorney has filed a notice of lis pendens in civil court and with the county recorder. GMAC had us evicted on 9/7/10 sold the house on 10/22/10 GMAC had the fastest escrow done on this house. GMAC has not responsed to a 2nd letter from the Dept. of Corp. in regards to the illegal foreclosure proof that I addressed w/Dept of Corp. I am going to file a complaint w/the dept. of real estate and Keller Williams Realty for failure to disclose the pending lawsuit. The new owners were notified by the county.

  457. I checked the docket of Rickie Walker Case mentioned below. The judgment seems to be final as to disallowing CityBank, or MERS claims on $1.3 million because they couldn’t come up with the ORIGINAL NOTE. Their deadline to produce it was August 2010. The property seems to be free and clear.

  458. California←I am asking everyone who possibly can to send in contributions to help us pay for and staff the litigation of case number 09-cv-01072-DOC in Orange County (filed originally as Lincoln v. Silverstein, now styled Lincoln v. California) and related cases all around the state.

    If we are successful in our litigation, the ripple effect outwards will generate reverse earthquake: ruined homes will be resurrected and restored to their rightful owners, foreign investors and speculators (including the International Bankers) will be dispossessed of their American colonial acquisitions and holdings and required to pay damages to the families that were dispossessed.

    So, we are now engaged in a great struggle, at least five co-Plaintiffs, one attorney and I are, to test whether the vile corrupt and unHoly mixture of substances consisting of bad law, color of law, and downright evil law, created by California Non-Judicial Foreclosure and post-Foreclosure Eviction Statutes and the Judicial customs, practices, and procedures having the force of allow arising therefrom, can successfully be poured out (in U.S. District Court before Judge David O. Carter into a constitutional crucible where this mixture’s origins, integrity, and purity can be weighed and found wanting. We will then seek to pour this base metalic garbage from the same crucible by asking Judge Carter to declare and adjudge all of these statutes, and the California Courts of Limited Jurisdiction which arose from them, onto the putrid slag heap of history—right alongside slavery and Soviet Communism, where all such vile things belong.

    The road is going to be long and weary—and very expensive. I am writing today to ask everyone in the United States to contribute whatever they can to support our campaign. If we win in California on even half our issues, the reverberations will be felt and heard around the financial centers and smoky back rooms of banker’s and lawyers’ clubs everywhere in the world.

    Your contributions of time, money, or material (computers, printers or printer supplies, or even up to date law books or sharable subscriptions to Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis), or special contributions some might be able to make such expert witness testimony concerning accounting, banking and financial practices, or securitization) will be invaluable in changing the face of the American economy and business world.

    Please send in contributions (checks or money orders with memorandum or cover letter indicating “Lincoln v. California, 09-cv-01072″) to the following address:

    Charles Lincoln Trust for Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice Foundation, Peyton Yates Freiman, Trustee, 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6, Austin, Texas 78705. (Telephone 512-461-8192).

    The first priority will be to support our new Attorney, Diane Beall, who is herself in foreclosure in California, and to build her team of legal assistants (including but not limited to some of the Plaintiffs) to fight this war and win it!

    “Tierra Limpia” means the clean or pure land; Deo Vindice, a term rich in American historical connotation, is the motto “By God Vindicated” which has a strong implication (in Latin or Roman Law) that the rights to be vindicated are those relating to land and home: “Land is the only thing in the world that amounts to anything, for ‘Tis the only thing in this world that lasts, ‘Tis the only thing worth working for, worth fighting for — worth dying for“ as a crotchety old Irishman named Gerald Patrick O’Hara once told his daughter Katie Scarlett. For indeed, in Classical Roman Times, the “Vindicatio” was the ultimate form of warfare by litigation, meant to try title to land and other key measures of wealth and the means of production from ancient times until the present.

    It happens that today, October 29, is my mother’s birthday, and so in her honor, and she was a little girl during the London blitz, when so many homes were lost, and so many families uprooted, I am starting this campaign to raise funds to restore lost and destroyed homes for the benefit of lost and destroyed families—even though these are the victims not of the German Wehrmacht but of a corrupt global financial system with significantly less heart and less soul than even the Nazis. Mothers are symbolic of homes and I think my mother, when she reads this, will know why I dedicate to her the struggle to disempower the Banks and destroy their psychological grip on our minds which convinces so many that families should be destroyed in the name of individual security and dependence upon the government. I remember watching the 1968 and 1972 elections with my mother (and her parents) on Television. And I remember when she took me to meet Cardinal Mindzenty, the hero of Anti-Communist resistance in Hungary and I remember one of her friends named Lilly, who had been imprisoned by the Communists in a Gulag. I remember watching with my family the resignation of Richard Nixon and Ford’s pardon a month later. In short, we shared many of the formative events which led me to where I am right now, where we, as a country, are at this very moment.

  459. The homeowner in Cal are basically Democrates not Republicans we know how to protest. The courts are against us. Do not let your finances get so bad that you do everything ass backwards! I want to see some comments about Cal posted here. Get involved!

  460. Points to remember; In Cal you need to keep your mortgage payment up to offset your income to pass means test in BK 7. Wipe out all unsecured debt and then default if things do not get better in household. Do not use protected retirement funds to pay debt. Check with BK attorney in YOUR AREA for stradagy. Do not let your kid’s take out student loans parents should shoulder the burden somehow.

  461. Gov.Swarz screwed Cal. when he veto the refi bill so please don’t vote for Meg! Jerry Brown isn’t much better however after settling with Countrywide screwing the homeowner with a no right to sue clause. I think the judge’s and politicians are scared for their pensions.

  462. If the Banks try to change the locks on your door without the police present give them a shock of their life by using a 2.5 million volt stun gun. There legal in California! Or just warn them by pressing the button.

  463. Important Notice! Vote for Diane Templin for AG. She has taken up the Charles Lincoln complaint claiming Ca’s Non Judicial foreclosure is against the 5th amendment. Mr Garfield please post a comment

  464. Richard,

    Re: “Show me the Note” in California. See In Re Caporale Case No. 09-05050 which I believe is still an ongoing BK case…the only one I know of that has been “sucessful” so far in requiring production.

  465. Anybody in need of good precedent(aka case law), I’m putting a link to an Oversized Brief for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There’s a lot of state citations for Cali including rescission and improper paperwork/forgery for many different scenarios that make them and any subsequent actions void. There’s mostly a lot of TILA Rescission stuff for the 9th Circuit, but there’s also a lot US Supreme Court and other Federal stuff. When I say a lot I meen A LOT, 62 pages(it’s an oversized brief). Oh and on page 12 the issue was pushed about the judges pensions being invested in the mortgage market and the Conflict of Interest, and when I say pushed the issue I mean for EVERYONE.


  466. Richard:
    I hope this helps:

    You may have blown most of your chances by having modified your loan recently, as documented in this Niel Garfield website.
    But, regarding your original 2003 notes having been destroyed it is probably true according to many sources and a recent court of appeal brief of Kareem Salessi available at this link:

    Usually once a loan is modified, or refinanced, the original loan documents are destroyed anyway so that no one can try to cash them again. SO, borrowers’ objections against the former loans are usually also buried when getting the new loans.

    I hope this helped, or at least did not confuse you.


  467. what is the real truth on california law
    ***SHOW ME THE NOTE*** ?????????????
    Is there a real honest attorney who can fill me in????
    I would be almost willing to bet since I bought my house in August 2003.
    A. First purchased through Washington Mutual
    B. Did a refinance with them
    C. Country Wide becomes the new mortgage holder
    D. Refinanced again.
    E. June 2010 B of A (now owner of Country Wide)
    gives me a so called Home Loan Modification

    Would it behove me to challange where is THE NOTE
    the original note signed in black ink by me???? If so
    then I need to know where to go and who to talk to.
    I would be almost willing to bet that no one could
    produce my original note signed in black ink by me!!!!!!!




  468. Beware of the newly decided Mabry case.
    AS for TD v. Note….there is no legal rights conveyed by having title. The note is the security and the bank won’t deal with you if you are mere title holder.
    Contact Consumer Rights Defenders ask for Steve Nelson for all of your foreclosure defense issues.


  469. Don-CA,

    Indeed, no one seems to be getting much traction (yet) on the separation of the Note from the DOT in California (unfortunately). Deer in the headlight look means they’re not up to speed on what’s going on…seek competent legal counsel elsewhere.

  470. Anyone know if the bifurcation of the promissory note and deed of trust a non-issue in California courts?

    I asked an attorney this today and I got the deer in the headlights look.

  471. $1,280,641.000
    Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust
    Mortgage Pass Through Cert. Series 2006-AR4
    424B5 1 v051833_424b5.htm
    Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc
    Aurora Loan Services Master Servicer

    I plan on using the info in the bk.

  472. On 10/22/09 GMAC is claiming the master servicer is Aurora Loan Services, The loan is currently owned by US Bank as Trustee. However the loan is currently being subserviced by GMAC Mortgage.

    I found out is should have stated something like this:

    Listed as a Trustee for a particular securelation or something like that word securelation.

  473. CALIFORNIA PRECEDENT?? not quite ,
    BUT very possibly used as persuasive!!

    The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:
    Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.

  474. I have 2 hearings for the bk 13 the 1st one is 8/31/10 gmac is trying to have the automatic stay removed. They 2nd one is 9/2/10 the meeting with the trustee and creditors. I went to a title company that had the same name then the previous one, I guess the previous employee’s are in jail, for their part. I was able to get the “Property History” for the house and it shows gmac in fact never did assigned the loan to them from greenpoint or indymac bank. I have the paper trail for the money part of it now I need the security info on the NOTE.

  475. Abby, interesting…KPMG was also the auditor for for all the Wells Fargo Alt-A crap securities. The feds should be checking out their auditing practices carefully!

  476. Charles,

    Can u give me a call? 916.798.7774 I’ll give u the info.

  477. Jenny,

    If you have a good attorney, please let me know who, contact info and where. I need to keep compiling a list to give out to potential clients as there are so few that know what they’re doing.


  478. We were able to fight off the last evection notice, I didn’t have enough time or an attorney to file anything with civil or the UD. My husband filed chp 13, I made sure the sheriff’s dept received the info as well. This time my bk attorney can prove in federal court gmac did not own the loan, mers could not give the title to gmac. The only 2 others listed besides my husband and I are indymac and proffer financial. They are no longer in business aka ripping people off. So the best thing would be we get the house because we are the only ones left. It is happening in federal bk court. I hope this is the light at the end of the tunnel!!

    If anyone needs a bk attorney let me know, he’s one of the better attorneys out there. U won’t get ripped off!!

  479. David,

    “Tender Rule” as it relates to what kind of motion and under what statute, defense or cause of action?

    There are a number of applications but each has different requirements, characteristics and potential argument.

  480. Jenny try a motion under CCP 1179
    1179. The court may relieve a tenant against a forfeiture of a
    lease or rental agreement, whether written or oral, and whether or
    not the tenancy has terminated, and restore him or her to his or her
    former estate or tenancy, in case of hardship, as provided in Section
    1174. The court has the discretion to relieve any person against
    forfeiture on its own motion.
    An application for relief against forfeiture may be made at any
    time prior to restoration of the premises to the landlord. The
    application may be made by a tenant or subtenant, or a mortgagee of
    the term, or any person interested in the continuance of the term. It
    must be made upon petition, setting forth the facts upon which the
    relief is sought, and be verified by the applicant. Notice of the
    application, with a copy of the petition, must be served at least
    five days prior to the hearing on the plaintiff in the judgment, who
    may appear and contest the application. Alternatively, a person
    appearing without an attorney may make the application orally, if the
    plaintiff either is present and has an opportunity to contest the
    application, or has been given ex parte notice of the hearing and the
    purpose of the oral application. In no case shall the application or
    motion be granted except on condition that full payment of rent due,
    or full performance of conditions or covenants stipulated, so far as
    the same is practicable, be made.

  481. Guys I need help with a provicion or something to figth the “Tender Rule” This is the only clause that is killing the Quite Title Action Does anybody knows?

  482. I live in the Sacramento area and this is what I am going to do:

    Oh I can prove what a screw up job the personal injury attorney did for a mortgage fraud case. Today I spoke to a UD attorney and he said I should go after my previous attorney. He would not have enough time to file a motion. I spoke to my bk attorney since I was force to file to prevent the previous evection notice. Tomorrow my husband is going to file ch 13 this will force gmac to do something of course this will prevent the sheriff from paying us a visit.

    By doing this I will be able to get my case ready for legal malpractice case against my former attorney. I plan on going to the ud court and getting as much info against him and trying to reach his 4 other victims and counting for the so called civil cases he filed, as well as other attorneys from USLA.

    I need to find a class action attorney to take on both greenpoint toxic loans and gmac who bought them.

  483. $125 Million Dollars in Cash — Proposed settlement for investors in New Century stock!!

    So—here is a company in bankruptcy in Delaware and they have $125 million dollars in CASH to settle just one of their lawsuits—the one from investors.

    This was discussed at this mornings Omnibus hearing in the New Century bankruptcy case.

    The attorneys also stated that the largest claim filed by Morgan Stanley will also be settled.

    Also of note: this case provided plaintiff’s with 38 MILLION pages of discovery from New Century (includes HOME123 Corp) one of the most notorious predatory subprime lenders of all time.

    2.8 million pages of discovery from KPMG (the auditor to New Century) which was also named as a defendant.

    The Lead Plaintiff is the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) and Carl Larson and Charles Hooten.

    For full viewing of the proposed settlement go to:


  484. Chris Gardas is on my list as is Richard Hall who would be closer for her (appears to be in the Sacramento area due to the 916 telephone prefix).


  485. Jenny
    sounds like your UD was completed and Writ already issued.

    there is one more thing you can do to buy time—and I mean literally ‘buy’ time.

    talk to your civil court clerk immediately to inquire on how you can pay some ‘rent-like’ money to buy days to stay in your home past the eviction date, which you cited on your post.

    you have to have some cash to do this

    I had a friend who did it twice and was able to ‘buy’ 4 more weeks in her home.

    extra time prior to the sheriff showing up is what you need and LOOK immediately for an attorney–you will need money for attorney too.

    DO BOTH—-but start with ‘buying’ the time in your home.

    In the ideal world, you should have addressed in your UD answer the 2932.5 and other issues.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and not offering legal advice or services

    Charles is correct about the attorneys and they usually DO NOT like to take cases at the stage where your case is at.

    Christine Garda, an attorney in SF is one you may try to contact.

    You did not say whether you lived in NorCal or SoCal.

    I fought off a CA UD as a pro se.. carra2009@gmail.com

  486. Jenny,

    What it appears from your message is you need an attorney immediately and needed one some time ago.

    From the form of your requests, it appears you may not understand what types of pleadings you may need as as your requests seem to conflict with the jurisdiction/venue you appear to be litigating in and have perhaps obtained some misdirection in your approach. You need some competent legal advice and should do whatever you can to obtain it as soon as possible.

    I have a list of attorneys, some in your general areat that I’d be happy to send but given the short time frame you’re under, you may have a hard to imposible time finding the help you need.

    Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find attorneys that know what they’re doing and are available to help when you need it.

    If you want my list, send me an email, thanks.


  487. I need to file for the ud # 10UD01941 I am going to need the following things:

    Relief of Stay, Writ of Attachment (lockout) an Exparte Application

    The 2 issues are as follows: A commissioner heard the case instead of a Judge and

    No assigment CA Civil Code 2932.5 was ever recorded by gmac just one on file showing indymac. I have a order to vacate by 8/9/10 at 06:00.

    Please call if you have any information please at 916.798.7774 I have been scammed by US Legal Advisors and US Loan auditors.

  488. Leslie
    I don’t have a crystal ball. How do I contact you? You have left zero contact information.

  489. Abby in CA, would you please contact me regarding James pantera from forensic Mortgage Auditors and employing them for services.
    I read your comments to him on May 1, 2010.
    Thank you.

  490. California Pro Se wins on her appeal—
    stay on her foreclosure continues until lower court decides–2923.5

    Diane Johnson v Wells Fargo and Superior Court of Orange County

    read it here


    GO Diane!!

  491. jimmy, what is your email address..would like more info on the quiet title action too

  492. Charles, you are awesome… I hope you will help keep us Californians “in-the-know” with issues directly related to us. I wish there were more comments and action in the California section on Living Lies. I’ve spoken with you on the phone…wish you would become an attorney on behalf of us homeowners in CA that were ripped off by the banks. There’s a lot of hype about how the banks screwed the investors…our $70,000 down payment was a heck of an investment as middle class Americans. If the investors can get their money back, why can’t we? Keep up the great work that you do and THANK YOU!

  493. BTW, the Adversary Case No. is 09-05050 and related Ch. 7 Case No. 07-5.

    If you go to Pacer, be sure to use FireFox and Recapthelaw.org so you can dowload documents I already paid for…for free.


  494. Don,

    I’ve just downloaded all the latest documents off Pacer for Caporale. Let me know what you want (a bunch of stuff) and how large you can download.

    I hadn’t looked at the case for a while but is still ongoing…they have a CMC tomorrow afternoon supposedly to try and set a hearing for remaining (“ultimate”) issues briefed by the parties. There is a brief due on July 29 with response to same due August 13 related to deposition of John Hatzoglou supposed VP of Natixis North America, Inc. who previously provided declarions in support of the defendants’ briefs. He is also a 3rd party to the litigation.

    All I know for now…I haven’t read the documents yet but there is a transcript from one of the hearings and a bunch of other pleadings to review.


  495. Any updates on the Caporale vs. Saxon case?

  496. Barton:
    Quiet title IS a legal action. If you have interest in our assistance send us an email to the above.

  497. Bay Area man indicted for fraudulent purchase of condos
    May 19th, 2010 at 11:33am
    James Delbert McConville has been indicted by a federal grand jury on fraud and money-laundering charges. He is accused of using the identities and credit records of straw buyers to purchase 80 condominium units in Escondido and San Marcos. The straw buyers were paid $5,000 to $10,000 for renting their credit histories to McConville.

    Also named as co-conspirators in the indictment were real estate agent Laura Margery Caton, Jason Piette, Rasul Rasuli, Donna Demello (an escrow officer) and Araks Davoudi (a personal banker). All have been ordered to appear before the court in June.

    McConville has a prior conviction for grand theft in 1998, for which he was ordered to pay restitution for committing insurance fraud. His whereabouts are currently unknown, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

    Read the full article in the San Diego Union Tribune.

    This is the same escrow officer above( Donna Demello) as in the following:

    The notary, who also was the title co escrow officer, made a fraudulent acknowledgment in which a loan mortage was given on a home that was paid in full, foreclosure was inititated several times, through the course of 5 hard loans and sold in 2007, now the house is vacant bank owned. Can I take posession, of my home through a quite title, and then take legal action?

  498. The notary, who also was the title co escrow officer, made a fraudulent acknowledgment in which a loan mortage was given on a home that was paid in full, foreclosure was inititated several times, through the course of 5 hard loans and sold in 2007, now the house is vacant bank owned. Can I take posession, of my home through a quite title, and then take legal action?

  499. I have a question, why would B of A show on a credit report that a loan has been paid on time every month since 2008, when in fact there has not been a payment since 4/2007. there has been no assignments since the loan was recorded to the lender, only a NOD, NOS, then a cancel all in 2007. Oh..and a lot of QWR, complaints..ect.
    I just learned from a realtor that my property is not in default and payments on time…we are confused.

  500. THE OPINION IN MABRY V. ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT—http://www.scribd.com/doc/32477885/CALFORNIA-CODE-2923-5-Opinion-Mabry-v-Orange-County-Superior-Court-VOIDS-CC-2924-IF-NOT-DONE-THIS-GRANTS-HOMEOWNERS-A-PRIVATE-RIGHT-OF-ACTION-ill


  501. I apologize for posting in haste, that which I should not have done on 4/29/10 8:36a. Let me reply to those who have made comments concerning my post.

    1. 4/30/10 8:40a – Charles, thank you for your comments. I will relay the information.

    2. 4/30/10 8:41a – Abby (a) we performed the audit for the homeowner. (b) Yes, I agree, maybe we shoud not help attorneys fight banks, since there are so many attorneys out there right now winning in court. ;-) Thank you for your support, I will recommend Neil’s classes.

    3. 4/30/10 2:50p – KJP2U (a) No, I do not want to help servicers/lender at all.

    4. 4/30/10 4:33p Abby (a) Poorly written, I apologize. (b) Chris Difo, JD, is a recent graduate of Georgetown Law and was helping us to research and was working in the role of litigation support. He took the bar in NY and will soon be working for Mintz Levin, NY.

    5. 5/1/10 4:42p Abby (a) Correct, Chris does legal research. Not all attorneys have to represent in court, and thus require a bar number. (b) I agree with you 100%, all attorneys need to be checked out.

    I hope this clears up any concerns.


  502. my original Notice of Sale was filed more than a year ago and it is cancelled it is likely that a new one will be filed soon.

    anyone know how soon it will be?

  503. Unfortuantely Jack,

    A number, if not most, judges ignore or attempt to repudiate Judge Bufford’s work and writings. Gives you an idea of what we’re dealing with. This stuff has been around for a while…he (Samuel Bufford) is one of the few, if not the only judge that gets it in California although judge Weissbrodt in San Jose BK court has made some reasonable decisions (see: Caporale v. Saxon 09-05050 9th Circuit Northern California BK Court).

    Unfortunately, not that simple.

    Charles Cox

  504. The citations in the American Bankruptcy Institute at this link should comple any court to force lenders to produce the Original Note or to go to hell:


  505. Here is a link to a GREAT explaination of MERS and it’s history with graphics and all at Dr. Housing Bubble a great source for Californians:


  506. Excuse me–my typo

    on James’ website he lists Chris Difo, JD and Mr. Difo IS NOT admitted to the California State Bar

    This is a reminder to all, be sure to check at the California State Bar website to see if your attorney is in good standing to practice law in California and to see if any negative actions have been taken, such as license suspensions.

    For learning about the attorney’s practice area, where he/she went to school etc., go to Martindale Hubbel at http://www.martindale.com.

    There was an attorney who had been an immigration attorney for some 18 years and suddenly claimed to be a foreclosure specialist with not so good results.

  507. James-

    It seems like you might be representing Wells Fargo.

    Again the Plaintiff’s attorneys in the case are getting paid to do a job. David J. Ruyle (the father was admitted to the CA State Bar in 1973 and the son with same name in 2004). They have a combined attorney experience of 43 years.

    They know how to amend complaints and do the rest of their jobs.

    Please do not waste our time with commenting on the counts in the complaint which can be amended.

    If you are working in support of Wells best to leave this site.

    You are not coming across as a very saavy person by posting as you did.

    What is with the JD fellow listed as part of your forensic team on your website? Chris Dito, he is not a member of the Calif. State Bar.

    So which is it? Are you working with the Wells Fargo Attorneys ( Defendents)

    Erik S. Bliss
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP


    Let them do their jobs.

  508. Hi Jack,

    I pulled down the complaint to which the response James posted above is in regard to. As I figured, based on what I see, the complaint will likely not survive based on how it was plead. Let me know if you want a copy.

  509. Charles Cox:
    Whose “unbelievable”! complaint do you have available?

  510. If any of you want to see the complaint, I pulled it from Pacer…send me a private email.

    All I can say, is “unbelievable”!

  511. I can’t be reading this right. Is this guy wanting us to defend Wells Fargo?

    Here, bring this email I just received from one of many homeowners in California.

    This might be a good one for people to go down in front of the courts and MARCH AGAINST Wells Fargo!

    Here’s the email…another home stolen in a non-judicial state. I told her to go to the Sheriff and report her home as stolen and take the Sheriff with her to the address of the parties involved with the sale:

    “I was in the middle of a modification and they told me over the phone not to worry about foreclosure as they wouldn’t foreclose during a modification.  After giving me a notice of foreclosure date one time in december, they postponed it and never gave me notice of another one, which was in March. that’s when i got a call from the hoa that the new owner wants to see my house!  that’s how i found out about the new foreclosure date. and yes, wonderful california (no protection for us here.
    my address is: XXXXXXX, Culver City. CA”

  512. James -are you representing the bank or the homeowner?
    Which is it?

    Irrespective of that, if there are attorneys involved, then you, as a auditor need to not worry about the counts in your post and let the attorney’s do their job. They will know how to handle the counts in the lawsuit.

    There is no point posting this type of thing when you should be discussing it with the attorney(s) since you claim to be helping ‘new’ attorneys in federal court.

    If they do not know how to do their job, well…they should not have taken the case(s).

    AND–they should promptly be enrolling in one or more of Neil’s workshops for attorneys….like post haste!!

    You may have an MBA and be a forensic auditor, but that does not make you able to advise attorneys about the counts, nor should all of us out here be asked to do such a thing.

    Both you and the attorneys are probably getting paid. Again, if the attorneys do not know how to handle these counts, then they should not have taken the case(s) and they should enroll in Neil’s attorney courses as described on this site

    Just based on you posting such a thing, I am now wondering who would ever use your services.

  513. James,

    A few questions and comments arise based on what you’ve presented:

    1. What about equitable tolling for TILA?
    2. “Tender” is NOT required but is up to the discretion of the court. (e.g. [a] court may [emphasis needed] require proof of the ability to repay. This is where “good lawyering” comes into play.
    3. RESPA…therein lies the problem seeking both RESPA and TILA violations…the “meat” of these cases and litigation along these lines have not been reasonably sucessful in California to date.
    4. Same is true for 17200 and unfair competition et. seq.
    5. Re again, tender for wrongful foreclosure, preliminary injunctions etc., all carry the same tender problem and are not finding sucess in California Courts as you’re seeing. Courts HAVE DISCRETION with respect to tender but as you see, are virtually always requiring it.
    6. It is reasonably well settled that any “bank” or “lender” does NOT owe a fiduciary duty to a borrower.

    Sounds like the attorneys or the in pro per plaintiff, is/are not up to speed with current litigation in this field.

    My guess is the plaintiff(s) will have their tails handed to them like so many others.

    Such it is, litigating in California.

    This is merely my personal opinion, I am not an attorney and this is NOT legal advice.

    Charles Cox

  514. Ooops… Please strike — “I will be representing…”

  515. Hello All,

    Could you please comment on the following attempt by Sheppard Mullins (Representing Wells Fargo in a Federal case in San Diego) to submit a 12(b)6 motion…

    Regarding Shneour v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, USDC SDCA Case No. 10-CV-0739 DMS (JMA), I will be representing Wells Fargo (and possibly also other defendants).

    Rule 6(a) of Judge Sabraw’s “Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures” requires that “[a]ny party desiring to file a Rule 12(b) motion shall first attempt to resolve the matter informally.” Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss defendant Wells Fargo’s proposed motion to dismiss. To facilitate that discussion, I will set forth Wells Fargo’s presently-intended grounds for that motion . . .

    1) Plaintiffs’ TILA claim is barred by the state of limitations. “The statute of limitations for a TILA rescission claim is three years.” Tasaranta v. Homecomings Fin. LLC, 2009 WL 3055227 at *3 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2009); 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (“An obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction.”). Thus, Section 1635 “completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period.” Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412, (1998); see Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[S]ection 1635(f) represents an absolute limitation on rescission actions which bars any claims filed more than three years after the consummation of the transaction.”). “The statute of limitations for a TILA damages claim is one year.” Tasaranta, 2009 WL 3055227 at *3; see Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, 329 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting “TILA’s one-year statute of limitations” for a “damages claim”). Plaintiffs’ loan was made “[o]n November 22, 2005,” Comp. 13 at 4:14, and their complaint was not filed until four-plus years later.

    Also, to obtain rescission under TILA, “an obligor shall tender the property to the creditor.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). That is, “prior to ordering rescission based on a lender’s alleged TILA violations, a court may require borrowers to prove ability to repay loan proceeds.” Garza v. American Home Mortgage, 2009 WL 188604 at *4, (E.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2009). “[R]escission should be conditioned on repayment of the amounts advanced by the lender.” Yamamoto, 329 F.3d at 1171; see LaGrone v. Johnson, 534 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[T]he district court erred in not conditioning rescission on the tender of the net amounts advanced by the [lender].”). Plaintiffs do not allege that they have tendered the remaining loan proceeds, nor that they are willing and able to do so.

    2) Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for violation of RESPA, and alleges that “[t]here is no evidence to confirm that the borrower received all of the disclosures mandated by RESPA.” Comp. 14 at 5:5-6. “The structure of RESPA’s various statutory provisions indicates that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action for disclosure violations.” Bloom v. Martin, 865 F. Supp. 1377, 1384-85 (N.D. Cal. 1994); see Ortega v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2010 WL 696749 at *3 (S.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2010) (“While RESPA does indeed require . . . disclosures, it does not provide a private right of action to enforce them.”). Additionally, private RESPA claims carry a one-year statute of limitations, see Bloom, 865 F. Supp. at 1386, so Plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred.

    3) Plaintiffs’ HOEPA claim is also too late: “HOEPA claims must be brought within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” Hernandez v. First Am. Loanstar Trustee Servs., 2010 WL 1445192 at *3 (S.D. Cal., Apr. 12, 2010) (internal quotations omitted); see Abed-Stephens v. First Fed. Bank of Cal., 2010 WL 1266833 at *2 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 30, 2010) (“HOEPA, which is a part of TILA, shares its one-year statute of limitations.”).

    4) Plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim appears to be based primarily, if not exclusively, on the alleged violations of law in their other causes of action, and thus fails with them (as otherwise described in this e-mail). To the extent that claim is intended to be based upon something else, it is insufficiently pled. To state a Section 17200 claim, Del Campo must adequately plead that some business practice is either unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. See Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632, 647 (1996) (“Because section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition — acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”). Moreover, “[a] plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under the unfair competition statutes ‘must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.'” Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1303, 1316 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (quoting Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993)). Plaintiffs’ allegations are not enough.

    5) Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action alleges that Wells Fargo “wrongfully foreclosed” on Plaintiffs’ property because it did not send a proper notice pursuant to Section 2924(b). In support of such a claim, Plaintiffs again must allege their tender of the loan proceeds. “It is settled that an action to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security.” Arnolds Mgmt. Corp. v. Eischen, 158 Cal. App. 3d 575, 578 (1984); see Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 15 Cal. App. 3d 112, 117 (1971) (“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.”); Wong v. Home Loan Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1705667 at *2 (E.D. Cal., June 17, 2009) (“Because plaintiff has been unable to pay her mortgage payments, she has failed to tender amounts owed, and her attempts to set aside the foreclosure are barred.”). Further, while Plaintiffs allege that the relevant notice was not sent “via registered or certified mail,” Comp. 21 at 7:15-16, “plaintiffs have not alleged that they failed to receive any of the challenged notices, or even that receipt of these notices was delayed.” Falcocchia v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., 2010 WL 582059 at *8 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2010)

    6) Plaintiffs’ fraud claim against Wells Fargo is not adequately pled. A plaintiff “must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106-1107 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that a plaintiff “must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,” including “the who, what, where, when and how” of the fraud). Where the fraud claim is against a corporation, the plaintiff’s burden in asserting the claim is “even greater,” Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645 (1996), and the complaint must set forth “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written,” Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2 Cal. App. 4th 153, 157 (1991). Plaintiffs do not meet this standard.

    7) Wells Fargo, as Plaintiffs’ lender, does not owe them a fiduciary duty. “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089, 1096 (1991); see Wagner v. Benson, 101 Cal. App. 3d 27, 35 (1980) (“[T]he Bank owes no duty of care to [borrowers] in approving their loan.”).

    Representing Defendents —

    Erik S. Bliss
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
    501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
    San Diego, California 92101-3598
    Telephone: (619) 338-6500
    Facsimile: (619) 234-3815

    James Pantera, MBA

    ** FMA is an auditing firm, but is attempting to help new attorneys fight the banks in federal court in CA.

    Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.

  516. Hi All,
    I filed a lawsuit against NC, Wells Fargo, and DB in June 2008. I was given a TRO based on my making my regular mortgage payment. Which I did, but they only cashed 1/2 of the checks, then sent the money back to me, put a stop payment on that check, then went in and asked for the TRO to be dissolved because I wasn’t paying. And the judge did! So I file a BK and got a stay; good news is we just survived a MSJ — found out the assignment is not valid because it violates CCC 1095. (I found a website that had a lot of Countrywide attorneys talking about how all their assignments were being kicked back from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because they violated 1095). Any way…I have a trial date for 6/1 in front of a jury in Contra Costa County Superior Court. DON’T UNDERESTIMATE THE VALUE OF CHECKING TO SEE IF THE ASSIGNMENTS VIOLATE 1095.

    This is the tenative ruling that was CONFIRMED. They granted a summary adjuication on two of the causes but the court finds I have valid evidence to go to trial on three of the causes…now that they no longer have the asssignment (which has no valid POA either!) they will have to provide evidence of ownership another way.

    CASE#: MSC08-01603

    Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the 1st cause of action for breach of contract is granted, for the reason the alleged oral agreement violates the statute of frauds. See CC § 1624(a)(3); Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-2 (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 553. In addition, the oral agreement lacks consideration, as a commitment to perform a preexisting contractual obligation has no value. See Auerbach v. Great W. Bank (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1172, 1185; Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 665, 674 n.3. Plaintiff does not dispute that under the agreement, she would make payments of specified amounts. (See evidence supporting Fact 1.) Nor has Plaintiff controverted Defendants’ evidence that she was in arrears by eight months over $25,000 in accrued principal and interest, and owed ASC another $15,636.39 in tax advances; Cromwell declaration ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff’s argument that consideration exists in that she paid monies to entities that do not have a right to collect payment lacks merit.

    To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert an additional claim in her 1st cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, that claim also lacks merit. There is no obligation to deal fairly or in good faith absent an existing contract. See Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Department of Parks & Recreation (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1026, 1032.

    Summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action for fraud is denied. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely represented that they had the authority to sell her property and concealed from her that they had no such authority because they had never recorded an assignment of the Deed of Trust. Defendants show that there was a recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust dated March 26, 2008, wherein New Century purported to assign to Deutsche Bank all beneficial interest under the Deed of Trust. However, Plaintiff correctly asserts that this assignment is invalid for the reason it violates CC § 1095, in that it was executed solely by Wells Fargo as attorney-in-fact for New Century, without subscribing New Century’s name. See Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448.

    Regardless, Defendants contend in their reply that Plaintiff has admitted that Deutsche Bank entered into a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) dated March 1, 2006, and that pursuant to ¶ 2.01 of the PSA, Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., as Depositor, conveyed to Deutsche Bank, as trustee, “the right, title and interest to the subject Deed of Trust and subject Promissory Note.” Defendants assert that this concession by Plaintiff alone is sufficient to sustain summary adjudication in Defendants’ favor. The court disagrees. There is no evidence, submitted by either Plaintiff or Defendants, that the PSA or any of the other documents attached to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice actually involve Plaintiff’s mortgage. There is only Plaintiff’s assertion to that effect in her opposing argument. The documents provided in Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice include only a few select pages from each of the documents, and it is not shown that Plaintiff’s mortgage is necessarily included in them.

    Summary adjudication of the cause of action for declaratory relief is denied for the same reasons applied to the fraud cause of action.

    Summary adjudication of the cause of action for unjust enrichment is granted. Plaintiff does not dispute that her allegations that Defendants violated the TILA and RESPA lack merit. See evidence in support of Defendants Facts 8 & 9. Plaintiff contends that the unjust enrichment cause of action succeeds because her fraud claims justify her loan rescission, and also because Defendants hold no interest in the note. These arguments fail because they are not supported by the allegations in the cause of action for unjust enrichment. The pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion, and the motion may not be granted or denied on issues not raised by the pleadings. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 10:10:17.

    Summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for quiet title is denied for the reason Defendants fail to address the entire cause of action as alleged. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, rescission under the TILA is not the sole basis for Plaintiff’s claim, as she also seeks to quiet title at ¶ 162 on the ground Defendants’ claims “are without any right, and Defendants have no title, estate, lien, or interest in the Subject Property.” Because Defendants have not prevailed in regard to Plaintiff’s fraud cause of action, Defendants cannot assert that they have also shown Plaintiff is not entitled to quiet title on this basis. In addition, Defendants fail to address Plaintiff’s express allegations that she is excused from tendering the full amount of the loan. (¶¶ 164, 165.)
    Defendants’ objections are sustained. The parties’ requests for judicial notice are granted.

  517. KJP2U,

    With all due respect Kelley, I doubt the motivation is there for Feinstein to “help” anyone but herself or her husband’s (RIchard Blum of CB Richard Ellis) lucrative real estate business that profits handsomely from foreclosures. All being kept amazingly quiet and of course, just a coincidence as are the politically and readily expedient denials of any complicity. (but what’s a mere $25b in quid pro quo among friends…)

    See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/ among other articles on this and other issues.

    Somehow, I don’t think we’ll get the help you think we should given reelection isn’t coming up until toward the end of 2012. I doubt is is likely she’ll be helpful unless there’s a way through nepotism to cash in financially or power.

    But what do I know…


  518. EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA…. go to Senator Feinsteins’s website and send in your stories to her. For the subject, click on “Housing.”

    Tell her to put an immediate halt to foreclosure on any loan that was originated with MERS and tell her your story briefly. Tell her to make this a priority!

    We need someone on our side to fight this in California as they are doing in Florida!



  519. Norwalk, California.

    Auctioneer offering homes up for bids and no one caring to bid. People losing there homes in a matter of seconds.

  520. Brian:

    Did you go to sale? How did the court rule as far as the demurrer’s/motion to dismiss I’m sure they are throwing at you.

    email me at dnd1190@gmail.com

  521. Pushing for discovery. Many objections from NDEX, MERS, DNBTC, ONEWEST. MOTION TO COMPEL NDEX DONE AND SCHEDULED EVIDENCE HEARING FOR 2-26-10.’


  522. Hi all.
    I have scheduled an evidentiary hearing and finishing my SAC. It is schedule in mid April.
    I am writing the memorandum with point and authorities in support of my request of the evidentuary hearing.
    I have filed discovery and even a motion to compel.
    All responses have been weak.
    I wrote on the process of filing a motion to compel along with the court rules.
    I hope this may help anyone in the non judicial state of California.
    b.daviesmd6605 on scrib for any documents I have found useful. It is alot of hard work, but these people are bad, and need to be held accountable.

  523. Thanks Charles and Deontos. If you comes across any complaints in which a CA judge issues the injunction for a plaintiff homeowner, please direct me to the pleadings.

    Deontos, did Brian get the TRO/Injunction?

    Judge Bufford will be leaving the bench to teach in PA later on this year


  524. Don-CA,




    VIOLATION CC § 2923.5,
    § 2924, §2015.5 ,§ 2932.5

    2. FRAUD;

    P C § 17200 ET. SEQ.
    (CC § 2923.5, CC § 2924,
    CC § 2015.5, CC § 2943

    CIVIL CODE §1572


  525. Don-CA,

    I know of two cases, each at the U.D. stage, that are going into discovery. Contact me directly and I’ll put you in touch with the attorneys for each. As a paralegal, I’ve helped to propound an initial and limited set for one and hope to help with the other before too long.

    Also note, the Judge Weissbrodt case in N. Cal. BK Court Caporale v. Saxon et al, Adv. No. 09-05050 is still pending in essentially a “produce the note” action.

    It is challenging out there.

    Charles Cox

  526. Anyone have a CA case, state or federal that has survived through the motion/demurrer stage and into discovery?

    I can’t find a single one.

    A BK in judge Buford’s court seems like a better option.

  527. Charles- Thanks for the response! I planned on not signing anything just yet since I hadn’t come across any similar cases than just the lost note defense.

    Located in Corona, but am willing to go where I need to for the right representation…

    Thanks again for the referral offer and response!


  528. Tom,

    I wouldn’t sign anything until getting legal advice. When/how/where/why the note was “lost” is critical. You’ll want a thorough review of the entire process to see what options and courses of actions you might have. Should be a very “interesting” case to pursue.

    Where are you located?

    Let me konw and I’ll send long some suggestions for attorneys.

    Charles Cox

  529. In an awkward position and can’t seem to get a straight answer. We refinanced our property in 2006 and in 2009 received a letter from the title insurers requesting we re-sign all docs. The note is lost and was never recorded with the county. I can’t find precedent in such a case and am unsure if quiet itle action is the course to pursue.

    Any thoughts?

  530. Charles,

    Excellent discussion. I posted mostly for reference material. We do litigation support also, and an audit is useless if no one knows what to do with it.

    We also provide counseling up until our client must file, then we hand off to the litigator and away they go.

    I agree the AG’s PR was more fluff than anything else.


  531. Dear Pantera and angry & not taking it,

    You each have valid concerns but I’d suggest using a bit of caution in each of your contentions.

    In my opinion, the AG’s approach is typical politics by someone now (how convenient) running for elected office in appearing to help the public with short-sighted scare tactics (eg SB 94). There have been a number of press releases out of their office in similar fashion in taking credit for saying a lot and doing little when it comes to form over reality (or just call it typical politics). Although it can be reasonably surmised what and where the input came from that prompted the righteous indignation all of a sudden, it certainly calls in to question, said motivation as well as the limited qualification contained in the announcement that paints an entire process with a wide and broad brush that in fact can and does help those in litigation when approached in a proper and thorough way. This reminds me of the big announcement from the AG’s office obtaining the stipulated judgment on Countrywide…what was it, $8.4 billion settlement? What have you heard on that lately? What about SB 94 and going after anyone that takes deposits by those purposting to negotiate “loan modifications”. While there were and still are a number of unscrupulous characters doing this kind of thing, the result of contending everyone doing it is a crook serves no one having scared off countless numbers of attorneys who may have been able to help clients but have elected to steer clear of any part of this process. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater for political gain? You can answer the question on your own.

    While I do forensic reviews on occasion myself, I do more demand letters QWRs and other litigation support only for attorneys and in doing so, have reviewed many half-baked and limited “audits”, especially the computer generated ones that do little to nothing more than add cost to litigation in having to review everythign again to either find the information needed or missing. Most doing these so-called “audits” have little to no experience or qualifications to do what they’re doing. Yet those that do “proper” reviews can provide an invaluable service in saving clients considerable money over attorneys having to invest substantially more time at much higher rates and with some processes and procedures that they may not themselves be fully qualified to review.

    In and of themselves, loan reviews/audits have limited use and in my opinion, should not be provided directly to clients. In my practice, I only provide them to and for attorneys.

    Pantera, in my opinion there is not much to fight (yet)…the information was just an advisory and typical scare tactics which in large part was justifiable if you read everything in context as it relates to the number of bogus mortgage audit firms compared to the few “legitimate” ones.

    Angry & not taking it any more: in 32 pages there had to be some useful information in the report regardless of the preprinted legal cites, which is what you want to do have anyway, not invent the laws and statutes. But as I stated above, reviews should be provided to the attorney for use and thoroughly reviewed as it relates, and is applicable to, your own case the attorney is trying to lay out for you. Providing these “audits” to unqualified individuals can cause more problems than not. I do not know the person/attorney you’ve named in your posting, but I would also suggest being very careful about potential defamation issues, particularly when it comes to attorneys…they can become very protective and defensive of their turf and work.

    It is therefore in my opinion, important for anyone considering utilizing the forensic review process to let their attorney make the determination whether or not it will be useful (looking into statute of limitations for most issues related to loan document reviews among other things), to what extent your case would require such information and let them qualify whomever is providing the service who is hopefully qualified, trained and experienced. This is why Brad and Neil have taken up forensic training for these reviews as well as other areas of the foreclosure defense field.

    Just my opinion FWIW. (not legal advice, I am NOT an attonrey).

    Charles Cox

  532. Pantera
    “we know who motivated this” I am not so sure that your implied motivation is correct..
    i contacted lawyer – Jennifer Hendrickson in Santa Rosa, Ca .. her useless audit, for $750 consisted of 32 pages of preprinted law info & less than 1 full [ actually 3 pages had my name & address & loan amount ] page of ANY info re; my loan docs in particular = my est 15-min time total to generate the audit. The audit was a joke & useless.
    This Lawyer Jennifer Hendrickson should be ashamed of herself.!!!!!

    and yes i had seen the ca AG info right after i got scammed .
    seem its the next wave of homeowners in need being scammed because of no guidelines in what an audit is or should encompass .


    Has anybody seen this??


    Our attorneys are preparing a class action against State. Do you think this is wise or is there another way. Obviously, we know who motivated this, now how do we fight it??

    James Pantera, MBA

  534. “the recorded document posted on his web-page is deemed factual evidence (& proof) both under federal and California codes, especially because one year has elapsed since it was recorded.”

    So is that a good thing (the theives can’t amend it) or a bad thing? (it wasn’t challenged earlier so even if it’s fraud, it’s ok)

  535. Re: Kareem Salessi, mentioned earlier, recently made this evidentiary presentation, on a MORTGAGE FRAUD BLOG, about how his documents were forged in the purchase of a house at“28841 Aloma Ave. Laguna Niguel, Ca. 92677” in 2002: It is important to note that the recorded document posted on his web-page is deemed factual evidence (& proof) both under federal and California codes, especially because one year has elapsed since it was recorded. below is the link to the blog and his complete statement:


    • See the recorded document image on http://www.SALESSI.info, which is best proof of similar forgeries by identified individuals in the employ of: “Baldwin Mortgage, of San Mateo, Ca.”, “Southwood Pest Control”, “first team real estate, orange county Inc.”, “Coast Cities Escrow”, “Commonwealth Land Title Insurance”, “World Savings Bank, FSB.”, “Golden West Savings Association Services, Inc.”, “Wachovia…” and their lawyers, in collaboration with the corrupt Orange County Officials at the County Recorder and Assessor’s offices.
    The corrupted office of the convicted criminal O.C. Sheriff Michael Carona repeatedly refused to take any action against these deed and loan forgeries, so did the local FBI, both of which are accessories to such organized crimes by turning their backs to the crimes, and thus supporting such organized crimes.
    In Orange County, and San Bernardino Counties, California, county recorders, and assessors, have contracts with organized crimes like title companies, and banks, as in here, to record any documents emailed to the county recorders from such enterprises, without the county officials even looking at the documents, let alone checking them for faults, as it occurred here. County officials have further continued to avoid responsibility when I provided them total proof of the forgeries, as in here.
    All foreclosures, especially in these two counties, are fraudulent and in violation of countless laws, but because the “law-enforcement” is itself a part of the crime, victims are further victimized by the very people they pay for their protection from criminals like the American Credit Crime Industry (ACCI), as documented in my Orange County case # 04CC11080, where I obtained a large judgment against multiple defendants, and in my current federal case # SACV 08-01274 DOC(MLGx).
    Such Organized crimes could probably come to a halt by dismantling county recorders altogether, as I have proven them to be the crux, the core, and the main vehicle, of real estate and lending crimes in the United States. These crimes have, in the past decade, proliferated globally causing today’s national and global financial collapses, by having counterfeited over $700 trillion worth of counterfeit dollars, under many colorful disguises, only with the backing of less than $7 trillion worth of American real estate. This amounts to a U.S. based counterfeiting PONZI scheme with the PONZI Ratio ((PONZI Index (PI)) of one hundred to one, which is beyond anyone’s wildest imaginations.
    It is no wonder that “U.S. law-makers” have been corrupted, or threatened with national martial law, to pass the fraudulent bailout packages, which I saw coming, and documented, years in advance, in my 2004 lawsuit. (see pdf link attachment to http://www.salessi.info (temporary web-page). Posted by KAREEM SALESSI on 02/14 at 04:35 PM

  536. Re: Defects in NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE (NTS):

    I cite to this recent California Appellate opinion:

    Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2009.
    Pro Value Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan Service Corp.
    170 Cal.App.4th 579, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 381

    To fully utilize this staute plaintiffs should resort to

    Miller and Starr California Real Estate 3D
    § 10:198. Notice of sale—contents of the notice

    which corresponds to:
    West’s Key Number Digest, Mortgages Key Number 352 to 356
    I think due to copy laws I can’t copy their text here but I can cite the cases they cite to in that chapter:

    Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. Corbett, 138 Cal. App. 644, 651, 33 P.2d 41 (1st Dist. 1934).

    Tomczak v. Ortega, 240 Cal. App. 2d 902, 906, 50 Cal. Rptr. 20 (1st Dist. 1966) (notice of default recorded on March 27; reinstatement period expired June 27, 92 days later).

    Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co., 118 Cal. App. 379, 383, 5 P.2d 21 (3d Dist. 1931).

    Crist v. House & Osmonson, 7 Cal. 2d 556, 559, 61 P.2d 758 (1936) (notice included strip of property not included in deed of trust one-nineteenth size of total encumbered property).

    Other information such as extinguishment of loans can only be obtained by expensive lawsuits against lenders, through discovery process. However, even if they are discovered they manage to seal them. Alternatively they could be theroetically obtained by FOIA requests, but such reqeusts have failed. The Fed has even blocked the government to find out anything about these fraudulent mortgage pools and how they were paid for by TARP, and other concealed methods. Bloomberg’s and other big shots FOIA lawsuits have also hit the wall, since federal courts have blocked them!!!
    Who should I send the bill to for this research?

  537. Jack,

    Please provide citations of the cases you refer to where loans have been extinguished and nullified on this statute.

    I’d also suggest anyone interested, do a thorough Google or other search on Kareem Salessi and obtain results and decisions rather than relying on pleadings or other information alone.

    Charles Cox



    California Civil Code 2934(a)(b) mandates the name of BENEFICIARY to appear on the recorded, and published, notice of sale, otherwise it is void and foreclosure is void.
    Thousands of such Notices have been recorded and homes foreclosed despite this material defect. A typicalCa. lawyer is unaware of this. Judges know absolutely nothing about it,.
    WACHOVIA , and WORLD SAVINGS are two of the companies which has probably filed over 100000 of such defective NTS because of the sale of World Savings to Wachovia in 2007, and the dumping of their loans in the fraudulent mortgage pools which collapsed in 2008. As a result those loans, have actually been extinguished, and nullified, and have no legitimate beneficiaries now which is why their NTS is without beneficiary.
    This detail is well documented in the bankruptcy filings of an individual in Santa Ana, Ca. with a website at http://www.SALESSI.INFO ;
    If your NTS has this defect, check with competent class action attorneys, to reverse all the similar foreclosure filings. Jan. 25, 2010

  539. email me if your property is in california i can help you

  540. Don,

    Send me your email address and I’ll send you what I have on Standing. Standing and Beneficial interest can be different issues.

    Charles Cox

  541. Are there Case law and/or statutes in CA for lack of standing, lack of beneficial interest?

  542. Here is the citation of a case of a title 18 U.S.C. Criminal Prosecution for fraudulent foreclosure and here are some of the Penal Code Sections which prescribe the criminal offense of fraudulent foreclosure:

    U.S. v. Beyer, 106 F.3d 175 (7th Cir.(Ind.) Jan 30, 1997)

    O.C. loan officer arrested in $30 million fraud
    September 11th, 2009, 11:59 am • 36 Comments • posted by Mathew Padilla
    Attorney General Jerry Brown said today his office arrested a Huntington Beach loan officer and two other men for allegedly placing consumers into $30 million worth of fraudulent loans and pocketing $1 million in illicit profits.

    Alan Ruiz
    Alan Ruiz, 28, was arrested at his Huntington Beach home late Thursday and is being held in the Orange County Sheriff’s jail.
    However, Brown’s release focuses more on Michael McConville, 39, of Simi Valley, who worked as a sales manager for Los Angeles-based mortgage company ALG, Inc. Garrett Holdridge, 23, of Palmdale, California and Texas was also arrested.
    All three worked at ALG and are being held on $2 million bail.
    According to Brown’s release:
    “McConville and his co-conspirators lured dozens of borrowers into refinancing home loans by falsely promising low interest rates and brokers’ fees, and other attractive terms. They then negotiated different terms with lenders, forged the victims’ signatures on the final loan documents and collected hefty brokers fees – ranging from $20,000 to $57,000 – that were never disclosed. Only when the borrowers received true copies of the loan documents after the refinance did they discover that their names had been forged. In total, defendants stole over $950,000 from more than 70 borrowers, leaving victims holding $30 million in loans with terms they did not agree to.”

    Michael McConville
    “After victims signed their closing papers, McConville and his associates doctored the loan documents, forged borrowers’ signatures and slipped in hefty fees that were never disclosed,” Brown said. “This was not some clerical error but a criminal conspiracy to steal nearly a million dollars from borrowers.”
    Earlier this week, Brown filed 44 criminal charges against the men, including:
    • 28 counts of grand theft, by violating Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a);
    • 14 counts of forgery, by violating Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d);
    • One count of elder abuse, by violating Penal Code section 368, subdivision (d);
    • One count of conspiracy to commit grand theft, by violating Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(1);
    • Three special allegations of aggravated white-collar crime in excess of $500,000, by violating Penal Code section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2); and
    • Taking in excess of $3,200,000, by violating Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(4) and (b).

    Garrett Holdridge
    Here’s more from Brown:
    From April 2007 to October 2008, McConville and his associates provided homeowners closing documents bearing terms promised, but which the lender never approved. After homeowners signed those documents, key pages were removed and replaced with pages bearing the terms that the lender had actually agreed to. The homeowners’ signatures were forged on the replacement pages, and ALG forwarded the forged documents to the escrow company.
    Homeowners only discovered they had been defrauded when they received the final loan documents with the true terms and saw their signatures forged on disclosures of closing costs, Truth-in-Lending disclosures, loan applications and other documents. ALG often collected between $20,000 and $30,000 in undisclosed broker fees. In one transaction, they collected over $57,000 in such fees.
    As a result of this scheme, homeowners suffered devastating financial losses. Some were forced to sell their homes, come out of retirement, or tap into retirement savings. Others paid significant prepayment penalties — in one case, over $21,000. Borrowers often never received the significant amounts of cash-out they were promised.
    Michael McConville promised one couple a 5.5 percent fixed interest rate, cash-out of $58,000 and $4,500 in closing costs. Only after they signed the documents, they realized their copy did not include the pages detailing the key terms of the loan. The couple soon received loan documents from Indymac Bank and discovered their signatures had been forged and they had received a 7 percent interest rate, no cash-out, and over $50,000 in closing costs, including a $42,000 origination fee paid to ALG.
    ALG contacted a 65-year-old retired woman in July 2007 and promised her a 30-year fixed rate loan at 5.25 percent. A month later, a notary had arrived at the victim’s house with loan documents reflecting the 5.25 percent fixed interest rate. After closing, the victim discovered she had received an adjustable rate mortgage with an initial rate of 8.65percent, a $22,000 origination fee, and $2,230 in miscellaneous fees. The victim’s signature had been forged on most of the documents.
    Brown recently sued Michael McConville and his brother Sean for their part in the “Property Tax Reassessment” scam which targeted Californians looking to lower their property taxes. Tens of thousands of mailers were sent out that featured official-looking logos and demanded hundreds of dollars in payments for property tax reassessment and reassessment appeal services. The statements warned homeowners that if payments were not received by the “due date” they faced late fees or would have their file marked “non-responsive” or “ineligible for future tax reassessments.” A copy of the press release can be found at: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1734
    Brown has made it a top priority to combat mortgage fraud. In July, as part of a nationwide sweep, Brown filed suits against 21 individuals and 14 companies who ripped off thousands of homeowners seeking mortgage relief. In total, Brown has sought court orders to shut down 32 companies and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive mortgage consultants.

    Draft your pleadings; to detail the offenses under the Penal Code Sections and Title 18 U.S.C. Sections and bring the complaints to the County Grand Juries and Federal Grand Juries; to return criminal indictments;

  543. Christine,

    If you’ll send me your email address I’ll send you my list…I have over 30 on it and is too big to post here.


  544. Thanks Abby & Charles for replying to my post. It’s nice to know that there are people out there willing to help provide information to those in need.

    I’m in Southern California, Los Angeles County to be exact.

  545. Christine,

    Let me know what part of california you are in and I may have some other suggestions for you.


  546. HolliG
    same for you. go consult a competent attorney asap.

    contact your legal aide society in your county if you cannot afford an attorney. ask if there are any attorneys doing pro bono in this area

    there are things which can be done, but you are going to have to work at this all

    Tim McCandless, ESQ is very good at handling these types of cases. search on internet for his name with the ‘ESQ’ and it should take you to his blog and contact info. He is super busy but has staff on hand to work with you. He is in California.

  547. Christine-yes, by all means consult a competent attorney immediately!!

    I have heard of cases where somebody goes away for a weekend or small vacation and comes back to find all their belongings on front lawn.

    I would think a competent attorney would file some legal papers to stop it all for you.

  548. I need help !! We had an NOD filed January 2009 and were never formally notified of this. Then there was a notice of sale stating my property was going to go to auction. We were never notified of this either. When we questioned this they stated they sent us a letter certified mail (never got) and also had a notice posted on our door (also never got). My husband just happened to call the lender to ask about a loan mod the day before the auction right before 5:00 pm. Me and my husband then had to rush to borrow money to save our house and pay the debit current. We had to be down there at the Trustee’s Office first thing the following morning to stop the auction of our property. We were paid up as of September 2009. Since this date we have not received any mortgage statements from our bank GMAC, even though we call them and advise them of this – they state they send them out. We even went so far to go down to our post office to advise them of a possible problem with receiving mail. I looked up our property again this week and they filed another NOD in Nov 2009, again without any notification to us advising us this was taking place. I work in the mortgage business so I have access to see what documents are recording against my property. However, I do not feel that I should have to look at this weekly to see if something new has been recorded against the property. Shouldn’t the Trustee (ETS) notify us in writing that these items are of record or will be recorded? We have submitted a loan mod request to the lender back in Sept. 2009, but have not had any response with an answer. Should I seek an attorney about this matter, as I believed they HAD to notify you of these things (NOD or Auction/Sale) by law? Any tips or information on our problem would be greatly appreciated.

  549. can someone please HELP …I am not in foreclosure yet and dont want to get there..my loan servicer is ONEWEST/Indymac my origional creditor was Quicken loans in 2006 . I have been denied a modification by OneWest .I applied in March 09 had never been late ,I did not make my Nov or Dec pymnt .I was contacted by Onewest and told I was approved for a trial Mod also emailed apoproval after not recieveing docs I called they said it was a system error and NO MOD which after reading all these horror stories i think im glad BUT i want to rersolve this before foreclosure .,
    after reading all these posts and more info on the web about servicers not actually owning the note ,im confused what direction to go in ..I believe there is an answer but do I need to wait until its too late or can I file something now regarding FRAUD ??? HELP PLEASE I am i California


  550. This CA judge made a very good point.


    The county recorders shows that MERS assigned the note along with the deed to the servicer. MERS has no authority to assign notes though, WTF? How can a servicer proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure. Didn’t that recorded assignment just validate that the note is now separated from the security?

  551. lis pendens is not effective in preventing a fraudulent foreclosure, especially a non-judicial one. As I formerly wrote their game is to create the appearance of a legitimate act, only to record a “TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE” and they consider your house theirs.
    In federal prosecutions of RICO cases (Racketeering) only two similar fraudulent acts need to be proven to get convictions for racketeering, as they hit congressman James Trafficante with (see his interviews on YOUTUBE). however, a few major criminal banks in the past two years have each committed more that two million such similar criminal acts resulting in the theft of over ten million houses, but not a single one of them, or their executives has been hit with RICO. This means the entire crime has been prearranged to escape prosecution. In fact in 2008 the Supreme Court, in a published ruling in favor of the now fallen Wachovia, totally immunized bank employees from responsibility for banks’ criminal activities!!.
    The multimillion dollar bonuses some of these excs are receiving now is their fair share for creating this national coup de tat (as it was characterized by congressmen in the new Michael Moore film.)

  552. just to throw this out there re ca cases.
    1- lis pendens may not be effective if the bank reacquires it thru trustee sale.
    2-look for other areas of claims.. ie trustee buy a non-performing loan that is
    [in default]..hsbc got beat up in court thru doc examination or other reasons for the judge to demand doc title chain examination..assignments,sale.
    3-servicer abuse – if in bk court , cases of fraud in amounts claimed due,past due.payments not credited,forced placed ins,suspense acc,escrow acc.

    fwiw..the judges & law in ca is not so borrower friendly as most are aware.
    and good job with ground thats being covered recent posts.

  553. Abby,

    That’s very good question. California allows that an unacknowledged document that gets recorded anyway becomes constructive notice one year after recording, See Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1207. but I don’t know if that includes recording irregularities, fraudulent docs, etc.

  554. Ruby:

    James is right about the county recorders office. I found the signatures on my documents of the “vice presidents” to be fraudulent, at least 1 signature of a notary to be fraudulent and on top of that the documents were recorded even when they were in violation of (GC 27361.6) INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PARTY REQUESTING THE RECORDING and a name and address where the document can be returned. .

  555. Good Job Abby in CA. Keep it up.

    IN fact Ms. Ruby should try to consolidate her UD immediately with her TRO lawsuit. Hopefully she will be allowed to do that.

    I don’t know your specifics and can’t give you “LEGAL-ADVICE”. What I am providing here is general information which may, or may not, be applicable to your cases. For some guidance you can get a NOLOPRESS.com book about California Grant Deeds, or “California Deeds”. Plus, CEB’s loose leaf on California Real Estate Transactions. These are available in law libraries and have samples of deeds. Nolo’s has some actual blank deeds at the back which could be hand-filled and recorded. Either way, any thing that County Recorders look at and consider recordable they record, and can act as deterrence or complete halt to the property crimes by vultures as we currently see. I have documented court crimes in multiple lawsuit. Because of judicial immunity of judges it is impossible to take any legal actions against them. And if a lawyer does that he may just as quickly lose his license.

  556. James
    Would like your opnion on the schema of recordings which Don discusses for Calif. , but for post foreclosure.

    Can anything be done post-foreclosure when there were recording irregularities, retroactive backdating to the NOD of assignments, forgeries on recordings etc.?

    At the trustee’s sale the securities trustee bought the house form itself (so not a bona fied purchaser).

    Further, the loan was done in one name, say John Q. Public, but then placed back into the trust (revocable living trust) of John M. Public.

    When forelcosure process started—trustee John M. Public was ignored, as was that trust and all foreclosure docs came in name of John Q. Public.

    As far as I am concerned, the deed etc. should still be in the trust of John M. Public.

    Note: the loan docs all came with a name that was not
    the real name of borrower, and after this was pointed out to the notary, the notary called the lender and the lender made threat that potential borrower would have to pay $8000 to have docs changed.

    Anyways, would like your opnion on what could or might be done with recordings without court.

  557. To James and Ruby

    Not to diminish the valuable instructions from James, and I am NOT an attorney, so always seek competent counsel, but this is what I did in California after being served with UD. I filed a fraud, TILA, predatory lending, wrongful foreclosure case in the California courts, then filed a Motion to Consolidate the UD with that big fraud case (since big fraud case is in unlimited civil division and UD is in limited civil). The UD judge did just that and it has been over a year now since I found the 3 Day Notice to Quit taped to my door.

    The big fraud case is moving ahead. The UD is dependent on the outcome of the big fraud case.

    I have NOT found corruptness in the California courts yet.

    That is just what I did and this is my opinion.

    James, are you an attorney here in California?

  558. Response to Ms. RUBY, of 10/24/09:

    They probably recorded one of those fraudulent documents I discussed earlier this week.
    You have 5 days to respond to the Unlawful Detainer Action (UDA), from the date you are properly served. However, instead of filing an answer, and/or a demurrer, you can instead file a NOTICE OF REMOVAL to the Federal Court of your area. TO properly do this you must pay a couple of hundred dollars to a bankruptcy, or Federal Practice, lawyer to draft it. Once you do that you file a copy of it with the UDA court (by the fifth day of service). This will block their UDA from evicting you. They will have to file a motion for remand, to which you must then reply. Meantime if you succeed in your TRO action to obtain preliminary injunction you can stop their phony foreclosure.
    With your TRO you must have also filed and recorded a Lispendens. Also, buy a certified copy of the TRO, and the injunction (if issued) from the court and immediately record them. This will give legal notice to everyone the any foreclosure would be automatically void. Record anything else that you can to protect your ownership. County Recorders’ offices are the central core of the national criminal foreclosure operations.
    Do not misss the 5 days deadline. They bought this unconstitutional and criminal California Code by paying off Ca. legislators.
    If your case is not remanded to the UDA court, you may be able to file your countersuit for quiet-title, wire-fraud, mail-fraud, bank-fraud, TILA, and a host of other things, in the Fed-Court which is a better venue than the extremely corrupted state courts.

  559. I need you Help……..
    Under a Temporary Restraing Order served on the Trustee ETS Services, GMAC Mortgage and the Auctioneer somehow I’ve received an Eviction notice from TTR Investments, inc who claims they bought my house eight days after the TRO had been issued and properly served. I called servicing and my loan has been pulled, I have to respond to their summon but, can I join their lawsuit in my lawsuit? How can I stop them from trespassing on my original case and stop the eviction or ( shut them up) Due Process means nothing to these pimps after I received their notice to vacate I faxed them a copy of the TRO now two days later they file a lawsuit in the same court. Any suggestions please respond on this board or emai me @ homeownersrrealpeople2@gmail.com

    Continue to be a blessing

  560. Response to Don, of 10/22/09

    Yes Don. Good Job.

    The most well kept secret of this criminal spiderweb is the RECORDING Mafia. The entire charade that banks are playing is a musical chair to get a phony document recorded, in any name, and then to claim that they have acquired title, while they have acquired nothing; only managed to record a phony piece of paper. There is no foreclosure at all, it is only a pretense of it. This simple fraud is also backed by corrupt judges, corrupt law-enforcement, corrupt state and federal judiciary. A few good judges are forced to shut up by any means possible. They are too scared to fight the systemic corruption. They fear for their lives. The plunder is in the trillions and it costs nothing for the criminals to have anyone vanished. If you doubt this THEN read the book by Alexander Martin about government corruption at ALMARTINRAW.COM.

    If you have children, or a sibling, or wife, you can simply GRANT DEED the property to them, with a revocable deed, while reserving LIFE-ESTATE for yourself.
    In addition to the fact that none of these criminals have the Original Notes, all of the purported mortgage are completely bogus because none of the lenders ever gave any money (consideration) in return, they just counterfeited money by printing some pages of paper called PROMISSORY NOTES which are not money. The federal lending law is that they must have tendered legal currency, not counterfeit. Thus all the loans are likewise bogus.
    This counterfeiting caused people to borrow much more than the value of the property. This value is called the Cash Value per CACI 3501 (California Jury Instructions). These counterfeit moneys created the PONZI real-estate bubble which eventually burst in 2007. Now, property prices are heading back to their cash values of 1995, at a time that prices had stabilized, and before the criminals launched their new international plundering scheme.
    Also, if you manage to sell the house to a BONAFIDE purchaser and record the transfer, Then it is all over, and you are probably home free. Just don’t keep the money in a bank!

  561. James:

    You pose a very interesting scenario, as I have done what yuo are talking about. My parents predatory loan was back in 2006 and they defaulted 2008:

    Assignment from MERS to servicer
    Assignment from servicer to securities trustee
    Substitution of trustee

    Through divorce, father grant deeded to mother, mother quit claim deeded to me 100% since I’m handling this for her.

    I’ve postponed T.S. which originally was scheduled for April 15th. Since I’m on title, I can now fight these bastards :-)

  562. Response to NICK on 1/15/09:

    Even the best of California’s purported real-estate attorneys do not know a jack about real-estate laws and practice. They just rip people off. Here is a house-worth of guidance free of charge:

    You can always file complaints with state bar’s “Office of Chief Trial Counsel”. This title is as bogus as it sounds great. All state bars, and the ABA are organized crimes, under the color of law. The licenses they issue, and the oath necessary to get them, are also as bogus, treasonous, and criminal as they sound officially honest and legal, but their members bring misery to the public, no matter on which side they are. (a few good apples like Niel Garfield can play no role as you can see below:)
    If an attorney steps out of the oath to these Mafia Bars and truly seeks justice to benefit the public he/she gets scammed, or simply disbarred. For proof, listen to some interviews of attorney Stanley Hilton, who had been Senator Bob Dole’s chief counsel. Hilton had filed a federal case in San Francisco years ago, his complaint is available on the web. The feds killed his complaint and told him that if pursues it any further he would be disbarred. What had he done? He had filed proof of the fact that 9/11 was totally engineered and performed by the insiders of the U.S. Government. He even produced copy of the executive order (signed by the president) for the destruction of the WTC buildings, Pentagon, and the PA missile.

    At this point he is lucky to have stayed alive, sine many insiders have been killed.
    Alternatively check out Ca. attorney Stephen Jagman, whose specialty was suing corrupt law-enforcement officials in landmark civil rights lawsuit. He got scammed by evidently a bogus IRS audit and then disbarred, so he couldn’t even seek his own “CIVIL RIGHTS”.

    I wouldn’t trust another lawyer who would charge you anything. The one you already paid may be honest but just a goof, but just as deadly as a crooked one.
    The best thing is, if you can, scan everything in one pdf file and provide the link to potential attorneys, and on this website, if you are sure you won’t get into trouble for defamation.


    All the foreclosures taken place in the past few years have been illegal because the purported beneficiaries of “NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE” have not had original claimed notes. The organized crime which leads everyone to believe that their foreclosures are real and valid is that they are allowed to record anything by email. So, they can record a “TRUSTEES’ DEED UPON SALE”, which is also called a “Reconveyance Deed” and claim they now have title to the house. One way to prevent this, if they have not yet done it, or even if they have already done the above fraudulent step, is to record A.S.A.P. a grant deed, to for instance your children, in a form like: I hereby grant life tenancy in fee-simple title to (child #1 and to Child #2,…) the real property at ….(description…) in joint tenancy with right of survivorship…..
    With the above example you reserve the right to live in the house as long as you live (Life-tenancy).
    Once you record this the crooks can no longer sell it because the title is no longer in your name. If they persist to steal the house from you they would have to sue you. If they do and you produce their proofs of forgeries they would lose and get lost. But it is unlikely that they would sue.
    Another thing you can record is a “QUIT-CLAIM-DEED” whereby you can grant your “whatever interest” in the property to anyone you want. If you have no legal interest you supposedly have no liability. This also makes the fraudulent foreclosures/recordings unlikely, and they would probably also need to sue you to expunge the deed. But if they do they have to prove that they have a better title interest than you did before you quit-claimed it. If they can’t they lose.
    In fact, I think that if people get together and force the shutting down of county recorder operations, all of these property theft would automatically come to a halt.

    Keep up the fight.

  563. Joseph,

    Have you already looked into Civil Code 1632?

  564. I have been embroiled in a predatory loan case for a while now. Borrowers only spoke spanish, broker forged all of the loan application docs, they had good credit but got an “adjustable” rate loan at 11.3%, with a minimum rate of 7.75% – which means the rate will never go below that, and paid out $17k plus for broker fees. Dragged to federal court by the banks and then then bludgeoned us to death with motions to dismiss and an MSJ before discovery ever started! Judge held that equitable tolling shouldn’t apply because borrowers were “on notice” when they sought a loan mod in Jan 2008. Now we’re headed back to state court to argue rescission by fraud. I’ve been arguing that broker is original lender’s agent and therefore liable for the forgeries/fraud. Anyone out there with similar litigation let me know or feel free to contact me for research collaboration. huprichlaw@gmail.com

  565. I would like some advise on what I should do. I filed a complaint against my lender and broker Pro-Per back in October 2007. The basis of my complaint is that my loan documents were forged and was the victim of predatory lending. I filed Pro-Per because I was unable to afford a lawyer. I have been able to survive two different Demurs and Motions to Strike and Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and have a trial date in March 2010. Over the past two years I was always careful to follow the court’s procedures and comply with all deadlines. In May 2009, I hired a lawyer that read my story that I posted on this website. When I met with her, she was confident that she could help me and was very convincing. I felt she had the same passion that I did to fight against predatory lenders and win my case. I informed her up-front that I did not have much money. I paid her a retainer and she said I could work on her home and also file court papers as she needed me. At the time that I hired her, I was about to attend a deposition by defendant. She attended the depo with me, but she stated that she was unaware of the details of my case, so she was not objecting to anything, so I left the deposition feeling that it did not go well. When I first met with her, I informed her that I needed her to send out discovery and set up depos, She stated that she wanted to Amend the Complaint to add additional defendants and Causes of Actions. None of this has been done as of today. Seven days after I paid her the money, she was threatening to withdraw from my case because she said that I was not complying with her requests for my documents, which was not true. I gave her all the documents that I had. She also said that she was unable to get in touch with me, which was also not true because I had been to her house numerous times to do work. Defendants served a Request for Production of 22 different documents, and the day before they were due, she called and informed us that she was not able to prepare the documents and that we needed to do retrieve the files from her home, which is at least 25 minutes from where we live, put the documents in order and make copies and bring them back to her. She was very verbally abusive toward us and after a confrontation occurred between my girlfriend and her she informed me that I was not to discuss my case with her or she would resign. This made it very hard for me because my girlfriend has helped me from the beginning. She never should have had us doing her job to begin with. We are not attorneys’ and that is why I hired her. She became very negative and said that I was going to lose my case and the judge was going to dismiss it.
    After her first CMC (which she filed the statement late), the judge required a status letter to be filed by a certain date with she did not do. Over the next several months, I was at her home at least every other weekend and during the week, filing documents, all over the bay area, never missing any of her deadlines for her other clients, always available when she needed me. I had requested more than once that we discuss the details of my case and our strategy’s and she refused stating that there was no time for that and she was not going to waste time listening to me. As the next court date approached, she did not file a timely CMC statement or a status letter. I sent her a lenghly e-mail with my concerns that she was not properly representing me and did not treat me with respect. After several attempts to contact her, she finally telephoned me and informed me that she wanted to withdraw from my case, and that I needed to sign a Substitution of Attorney and that the judge would most likely be dismissing my case and trying to intimidate me by saying that I was going to lose my home. I refused to sign anything and told her that I would see her in court. This was the third time she had threatened to withdraw and it had only been three months since I hired her. By the day we appeared in court, she had not filed a substitution of attorney or had she filed the CMC statement. She arrived late to court and immediately informed the judge that she would be resigning. The judge wanted us to try to work it out. As soon as I requested to speak, my attorney said that she would be willing to step outside and talk to me. We worked out our differences and informed the court that she no longer was resigning and the judge assigned my case to mediation. Again my attorney stated that she wanted to amend the complaint to add additional defendants. The judge said that she should do this immediately. The judge ordered that we choose a mediator and inform the court within 30 days and set a Compliance hearing. My attorney again did not comply with this request even though I worked for her again and sent her a reminder email to notify the court. She not only didn’t send a status letter, she also failed to appear at the compliance hearing and now is subject to sanctions. The judge has ordered both attorneys to appear to show cause why she should not sanction them further or dismissal of the actions/striking of the pleadings pursuant to CCP 177.5 and 575.2.
    This is where I stand now. I sent her an e-mail asking her why she had not complied with the court and that I was very concerned because she had not done anything she said she was going to do. I also asked her what the judge meant by that. She said that she had chosen a mediator and did not know why the court did not receive any documents from the mediator. It is not the mediator’s responsibility to notify the court. It was hers. She then informed me verbally of the mediation date. The OSC hearing is set for 11/05/09 and she is to file a declaration by 10/29/09. She has not filed anything in my case since June 8, 2009 which was one week after she was retained. She has not provided me with the legal representation that I am entitled to, nor has she conducted any discovery or responded to any of my requests. I don’t know what my legal rights are. What happens to my case, if she continues to be noncompliant. Would the judge actually dismiss, and if so, what is my recourse?
    I have worked so hard fighting lenders, brokers, and their attorneys. I have gone to the Department of Real Estate, Department of Corporations, District Attorney’s office, Department of Justice, and even appeared on Channel 7 on your side with my story. I have stopped the illegal sale of my home five times, with the last time on the court steps at 12:05 p.m. on the day of the sale. I have never given up and am still in my home and intend to remain here for a long time.
    I believe in what I am fighting for and intend to try to help innocent homeowners who are victims of Predatory Lending Practices and against crooked lawyers who are misleading and taking their monies.
    This is why I am asking you for your advise as to what I should do. I am posting this on your site because this is where she found me and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.
    I want you especially to become aware that this is happening on your website. I was told that I should not make a complaint with the State Bar while she was still representing me. I do not have money to hire a different lawyer, but can I proceed with a lawyer that I do not trust.

    Neil, thank you for taking the time to read my story. I anxiously await your reply and the comments and advise of your readers.

  566. LOOKING FOR HELP – I have the ideal case (the right judge, non-english speaking borrowers with a spanish speaking broker, forged loan application and early disclosures, etc.) Need an attorney (or group) in LA area willing to assist pro bono (or take atty fees at end) on taking this case forward. We’ve all been looking for the right one – I guarantee this one is it. I will put in the leg work, I need a group to support on the back end with strategy, etc. I’m fighting the paper mill right now. Feel free to call 626-797-0275. Joseph Huprich, Esq.

  567. Current case being heard here in N. Dist. BK Court, Case 09-05050…Caporale v. Saxon Mortgage Services et al…from MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER:

    “In the absence of bankruptcy law, the legal obligations of the parties are determined by the applicable non-bankruptcy law, which is usually state law. See, e.g., United States v. Butner, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979).

    In the United States, the law of promissory notes is not unified at the federal level. Instead, each state has its own law on promissory notes. However, every state has adopted a version of the UCC to govern negotiable promissory notes.

    The substantive California law that governs negotiable instruments is Cal Commercial Code Division 3 (the California version of UCC Article 3). See CComC § 3102(a). A negotiable instrument (or more briefly, for Division 3 purposes, an “instrument”) typically takes one of two forms: a promissory note (designated as a “note”), or a draft (such as a check). This case involves a note secured by a deed of trust.

    In Matter of Staff Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1977), the Ninth Circuit outlined the procedure to perfect a security interest in promissory notes secured by trust deeds under §§ 9304 and 9305 of the California Commercial Code.

    Section 9304(1) of the California Commercial Code states:

    “A security interest in chattel paper or negotiable documents may be perfected by filing. A security interest in instruments . . . can be perfected only by the secured party’s taking possession, . . . .” (emphasis added).

    Promissory notes and deeds of trust are instruments, and a security interest in them can be perfected only by possession. See Matter of Staff Mortgage and Investment Corp., 550 F.2d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir. 1977). Merely recording the transaction does not perfect defendant’s security interest. In re Bruce Farley Corp., 612 F.2d 1197, 1199 (9th.Cir. 1980).

    If the owner of the promissory does not have actual possession of the original promissory they are deemed unsecured. In re Major Funding Corp., 82 B.R. 443, 449 (S.D. Tex. 1987).”

    Note: CCC has changed and 9304(1) no longer states what is contained in the cited cases. See CCC9312 et seq.
    See 12,04 of the following:

    Mortgage Backed Security
    Pooling and Servicing Agreement
    Matt LaMaster
    February 12, 2009

    §1 Introduction
    This article is meant to help interpret the contractual relationships that generally exist in a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) of a Mortgage Backed Security (MBS). The majority of PSAs look very similar, so the example used in this article will likely correlate with your PSA.

    §2 Mortgage Backed Security
    To help begin to understand a PSA it is first important to be familiar with Mortgage Backed Securities. Essentially a Mortgage Backed Security is a collection of single mortgage loans gathered into one securitized pool. The pool is then divided into tranches based on the degree of risk and transferred as a whole to a trust. The trust then issues a series of bonds and these bonds are then sold to investors. It seems like an excessive amount of handling, but the theory is that pooling the loans gives investors opportunities to gain rewards that would not be available in a single loan. Of course, with the opportunity for financial returns, there is always risk involved. However, the theory is, or was, that by creating a diverse pool of loans it will decreases the investors’ risk.

    §3 Pooling and Servicing Agreement
    Once a loan has been securitized, the need for a PSA becomes apparent. The PSA is essentially a contract that exists between the parties involved in the securitization of the loans. This contract will dictate how the investment proceeds and losses will be distributed to the parties and investors. Most important though it will also describe how the Mortgage Backed Security pool of loans will be serviced and transferred from the parties.

    §4 Parties Involved in a PSA
    In general there are four parties involved in a MBS PSA and each has important responsibilities. The following is a list of the parties most often involved in the securitization of a loan along with their individual responsibilities:
    Depositor: The entity that accumulates the mortgages and transfers them to the Trust along with the issuance of the securities to the certificate holders. The Depositor can be the seller of a portfolio of mortgages or an entity established just for the purpose of holding the mortgages until the pool accumulation is completed.
    Master Servicer: The Master Servicer services the loans in the pool through maturity and is regularly expected to process all requests made by the borrower. However, if the borrower defaults then they may subcontract duties to a Special or Sub-Servicer but the Master Servicer is still generally responsible for their performance.
    Securities Administrator/ Custodian: Responsible for safeguarding the financial assets. The role of a custodian is to hold the assets in safekeeping, arrange settlement of any purchases and sales of securities, and collect information on the income from the assets.
    Special Servicer: In the event of a default or other specified incident, the loan’s administration is transferred to the Special Servicer. They also have the authority to oversee actions such as loan assumptions. Furthermore, the Special Servicer may have the right to “put” the defaulted loan back to the loan originator in the event of a document defect or breach of a representation or warranty by the borrower which materially and adversely affects the value of the loan.
    Credit Risk Manager: Evaluates the credit risk and communicates with the Trustee.
    Trustee: Holds loan documents and distributes payments received from the Master Servicer to the bondholders and is often granted a broad authority regarding aspects of the loan under the pooling and servicing agreement. However, it is usual for them to delegate authority to the Special Servicer or the Master Servicer. Because the Trustee holds the loan documents, the Trustee is the one who will be named in lawsuits or non-judicial foreclosures.

    EXAMPLE: THIS POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, dated as of April 1, 2007, among HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION, as depositor (the “Depositor”), WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national banking association, as master servicer (in such capacity, the “Master Servicer”), as securities administrator (in such capacity, the “Securities Administrator”) and as custodian (in such capacity, “the Custodian”), OFFICETIGER GLOBAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC., as credit risk manager (the “Credit Risk Manager”), and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a national banking association, as trustee (the “Trustee”).

    §5 Contents of a PSA
    This section is an overview of what one would expect to find in a MBS PSA along with an interpretation of the intended objective of each Article.
    Again, the PSA can most often be found in file 8-K of the Current Report in the Prospectus. As with most large legal documents there is a Table of Contents. The following is an example Table of Contents that are generally found in a PSA:
    Article I: Definitions
    Article II: Conveyance of Mortgage Loans; Representations and Warranties
    Article III: Administration and Servicing of Mortgage Loans
    Article IV: Distributions
    Article V: Certificates
    Article VI: Depositor
    Article VII: Default
    Article VIII: Concerning the Trustee
    Article IX: Administration of the Mortgage Loans by the Master Servicer
    Article X: Concerning the Securities Administrator
    Article XI: Termination
    Article XII: Miscellaneous Provisions

    Article I

    The following is a list of important terms pulled from this article that are specifically relevant to the relationship and contractual obligations of the PSA.
    Assignment of Mortgage: An assignment of the Mortgage, notice of transfer or equivalent instrument in recordable form reflecting the sale of the Mortgage to the Trustee.

    Certificateholder or Holder: The person in whose name a Certificate is registered in the Certificate Register, and is the owner of the bond that is sold.

    Closing Date: This is the day the agreement starts.

    Cut-off Date: This is the day the last loan is allowed into the pool.

    Debt Service Reduction: With respect to any Mortgage Loan, a reduction by a court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Scheduled Payment for such Mortgage Loan which became final and non-appealable, except such a reduction resulting from a Deficient Valuation or any reduction that results in a permanent forgiveness of principal.

    EDGAR: The Security and Exchange Commission Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System. This data base can be found at http://www.sec.gov under the Filing and Forms section.

    Final Recovery Determination: With respect to any defaulted Mortgage Loan or any REO Property the Servicer, in its reasonable good faith judgment, expects to be finally recoverable in respect thereof have been so recovered.

    Form 8-K Disclosure Information: This form.

    Liquidated Mortgage Loan: A defaulted Mortgage Loan (including any REO Property) which was liquidated in the preceding calendar month. As to which a Servicer has certified to the Securities Administrator that it has received all amounts it expects to receive in connection with the liquidation of such Mortgage Loan.

    Loan-to-Value Ratio or LTV: As of any date and as to any Mortgage Loan, the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the outstanding principal balance of the Mortgage Loan in relation to its appraised value at the time of sale or at the time of the refinancing or modification.

    MERS: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., is an electronic mortgage filing service that allows for little to no paper work.

    Mortgage: The mortgage, deed of trust or other instrument identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule as securing a Mortgage Note.

    Mortgage File: The items pertaining to a particular Mortgage Loan contained in either the Servicing File or Custodial File.

    Mortgage Loan: An individual Mortgage Loan that is the subject of this Agreement, each Mortgage Loan originally sold and subject to this Agreement being identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule.
    Mortgage Loan includes: the Mortgage File, the Scheduled Payments, Principal Prepayments, Liquidation Proceeds, Subsequent Recoveries, Condemnation Proceeds, Insurance Proceeds, REO Disposition proceeds, Prepayment Charges, and all other rights, benefits, proceeds and obligations arising from or in connection with such Mortgage Loan, excluding replaced or repurchased Mortgage Loans.

    Mortgage Loan Seller: Any entity which sold Mortgage Loans to the Sponsor pursuant to a Transfer Agreement.

    Mortgage Loan Schedule: A schedule of Mortgage Loans prepared by the Depositor, delivered to the Trustee on the Closing Date and referred to on Schedule I, such schedule setting forth the Data Tape Information with respect to each Mortgage Loan.

    Mortgage Note: The note or other evidence of the indebtedness of a Mortgagor under a Mortgage Loan.

    Mortgaged Property: With respect to each Mortgage Loan, the real property (or leasehold estate, if applicable) identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule as securing repayment of the debt evidenced by the related Mortgage Note.

    Mortgagor: The obligor(s) on a Mortgage Note.

    REO Property or Real Estate Owned: A Mortgaged Property acquired by the Trust Fund through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in connection with a defaulted Mortgage Loan.

    Responsible Officer: When used with respect to the Trustee, the Securities Administrator, the Master Servicer, any vice president, any assistant vice president, any assistant secretary, any assistant treasurer, any associate, or any other officer of the Trustee, the Securities Administrator or the Master Servicer customarily performing functions similar to those performed by any of the above designated officers who at such time shall be officers to whom, with respect to a particular matter, such matter is referred because of such officer’s knowledge of and familiarity with the particular subject and who, in each case, shall have direct responsibility for the administration of this Agreement.

    Sub-Servicer: Any Person that services Mortgage Loans on behalf of a Servicer, and is responsible for the performance (whether directly or through sub-servicers or Subcontractors) of servicing functions required to be performed under this Agreement.

    Trust Fund: The trust fund consists of (i) the Mortgage Loans and all interest and principal with respect thereto received on or after the related Cut-off Date; (ii) the Collection Account, the Distribution Account, the Cap Termination Receipts Account, the Cap Replacement Receipts Account the Swap Termination Receipts Account, the Swap Replacement Receipts Account; (iii) property that secured a Mortgage Loan and has been acquired by foreclosure, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or otherwise; (iv) the Insurance Policies.

    Article II
    Conveyance of Mortgage Loans; Representations and Warranties

    §2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans
    This section sets out how the Loans are to be transferred from the Depositor to the Trustee.
    a) The Depositor will sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee all rights, title and interest with respect to the Mortgage Loans on or after the Cut-Off date.
    b) In connection with the transfer and assignment of each Mortgage Loan, the Depositor delivers the Custodian the original Mortgage Note. If the original Mortgage Note cannot be located then the Mortgage Loan Seller must send an affidavit and record of the Mortgage being recorded in a public recording office. If the Mortgage had been previously assigned there must be evidence of the complete chain of ownership from the originator to the last assignee.
    c) The parties agree that is the policy and intention to acquire Mortgage Loans meeting the requirements set forth in the Transfer Agreements and in the Purchase Agreements.
    d) The Trustee has the power and authority to accept the sale, transfer, and assignment for the Trustee of the right, title and interest that is held by the Depositor.

    §2.02 Acceptance by the Custodian of the Mortgage Loans
    The Custodian will hold the documents named in §2.01 for the benefit of the present and future investors. The Custodian is required to inform the Depositor, Securities Administrator, the Trustee and the Servicer by facsimile certifying that they received the Mortgage Note and Assignment of Mortgage for each Mortgage Loan (exhibit E). Furthermore, within 90 days of the Closing Date the Custodian shall have all of the required documents for each Mortgage Loan listed in the Mortgage Loan Schedule. This basically means that they must have every document for every Mortgage Loan within 90 days of the Closing Date.

    §2.03 Remedies for Breaches of Representation and Warranties with Respect to the Mortgage Loans
    a) Upon the removal of a Deleted Mortgage Loan the Custodian shall release the Mortgage File to the applicable Mortgage Loan Seller and the Trustee. Upon receipt of a Request for Release, all amounts required to be deposited have been deposited in the related Collection Account. The Trustee shall execute and deliver at the applicable Mortgage Loan Seller’s direction such instruments of transfer or assignment prepared by the applicable Mortgage Loan Seller that are necessary to vest title in the applicable Mortgage Loan Seller of the Trustee’s interest in any Deleted Mortgage Loan substituted for pursuant to this Section 2.03.
    b) The Sponsor shall indemnify the Depositor, any of its Affiliates, the Master Servicer, each Servicer, the Securities Administrator, the Trustee and the Trust and hold such parties harmless against any losses, damages, penalties, judgments and other costs and expenses resulting from any third party claim resulting from, a breach by the Sponsor of any of its representations and warranties or obligations contained in this Agreement.
    c) Upon receipt of a Request for Release, at the direction of the Servicer, the Custodian shall release the Custodial File to the related Mortgage Loan Seller or the Sponsor. The Trustee shall execute and deliver instruments of transfer or assignment as shall be necessary to transfer title from the Trustee. The Securities Administrator shall notify each Rating Agency of a purchase of a Mortgage Loan pursuant to this Section 2.03 or pursuant to a Transfer Agreement.
    d) The Trustee acknowledges that the Sponsor shall not have any obligation or liability with respect to any breach of a representation or warranty made by it with respect to a Mortgage Loan sold by it provided that such representation or warranty was also made by a Mortgage Loan Seller with respect to the related Mortgage Loan.
    The representations and warranties of the Sponsor and assigned to the Trustee by the Depositor shall survive the transfer of the Mortgage Loans by the Depositor to the Trustee on the Closing Date. It will insure the benefit of the Trustee and the Certificateholders any restrictive or qualified endorsement on any Mortgage Note or Assignment of Mortgage and shall continue throughout the term of this Agreement.
    Upon the discovery by any of the Sponsor, the Depositor, the Securities Administrator, the Trustee, the Master Servicer or any Servicer of a breach of any of the Sponsor’s representations and warranties the party discovering the breach shall give prompt written notice to the others.

    §2.04 Execution and Delivery of Certificates
    The Trustee acknowledges that the execution and delivery of the Certificates are in authorized denominations evidencing the entire ownership of the Trust Fund.

    §2.05 REMIC Matters
    This states that the Preliminary Statement (which can be found prior to the Table of Contents) sets forth that the Trust meets federal income tax code for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMIC).

    §2.06 Representation and Warranties of the Depositor
    The Depositor warrants and covenants that as of the date of the agreement that:
    a) They exist in good standing under Delaware law;
    b) They have the power to convey the Mortgage Loans and enter into these types of agreements;
    c) They understand they are entering into a legally binding agreement;
    d) That it is not required to inform any governmental authority of the transactions prior to the Closing Date;
    e) That this agreement does not break any of their by-laws or breach other agreement that they are a part of or violate any law, rule, or regulation;
    f) There are no actions or investigations against them;
    g) They are not in default with any government;
    h) That they had good title and was the sole owner of each Mortgage Loan and that they transferred all interest in each Mortgage Loan to the Trustee.

    Article III
    Administration and Servicing of Mortgage Loans

    §3.01 Establishment of Certain Accounts
    This section sets forth how the Securities Administrator will set up the Excess Fund Account and Distribution Account. The sub-sections of §3.01 go into further detail as to how the Securities Administrator maintain the Distribution Account and how the Servicers pay into the Distribution Account.

    §3.02 Investment of Funds in Distribution Account
    The Securities Administrator may invest funds from the Distribution Account and any income gained by the investment is for the benefit of the Securities Administrator. However, if there is a loss then the Securities Administrator is liable to the Trust for that amount.

    §3.03 Report on Assessment of Compliance with Relevant Servicing Criteria
    This section sets forth a policy that once a calendar year the Master Servicer, the Securities Administrator and the Custodian will furnish a report on an assessment of compliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria set forth in Exhibit S to the Securities Administrator and the Depositor. The report will contain a statement regarding each party’s assessment of compliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria, including, any material instance of noncompliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria.
    Furthermore, after receipt of the report the Depositor will review each such report and consult with the Master Servicer, the Securities Administrator, the Custodian, as to the nature of any material instance of noncompliance. Furthermore, the Securities Administrator shall confirm that the assessment addresses all of the Servicing Criteria for each party as set forth on Exhibit S or in the applicable Servicing Agreement.
    The Master Servicer will enforce any obligation of each Servicer and submit an annual report on assessment of compliance to the Securities Administrator within the time frame set forth in the Servicing Agreement.

    §3.04 Report on Attestation of Compliance with Relevant Servicing Criteria
    This section sets forth a policy that once a calendar year the Master Servicer, the Securities Administrator and the Custodian will furnish a Certified Public Accountants to furnish an attestation report to the Securities Administrator and the Depositor. The attestation report includes information regarding the Relevant Servicing Criteria.

    §3.05 Annual Officer’s Certificates
    The Master Servicer and the Securities Administrator will deliver an Officer’s Certificate to the Depositor which states that the Officer reviewed the business activities of their party. Furthermore, the Certificates must adhere to the standards of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

    §3.06 Indemnification
    The Depositor, Master Servicer, Securities Administrator, Custodian, Trustee, and any Servicing Participant are considered an “Indemnifying Party.” In the case that any one of those parties fail to submit any required information, data or materials that party is indemnified and held harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, forfeitures, reasonable legal fees and related costs, judgments and other costs and expenses. So long as that dispute arose out of or based upon (a) any breach by such party of any if its obligations hereunder; (b) any material misstatement or omission in any information, data or materials provided by such party including any material misstatement or material omission, or (c) the negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct in connection with its performance hereunder.
    If the indemnification provided is unavailable or insufficient to hold the party harmless then each Indemnifying Party agrees that it shall contribute to the amount paid or payable as a result of any claims, losses, damages or liabilities incurred by the at fault party. Furthermore, the indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement or the termination of any party to this Agreement.
    The Depositor, the Securities Administrator, the Custodian and the Trustee shall immediately notify the Master Servicer if a claim is made by a third party with respect to this Agreement or the Mortgage Loans. Whereupon, the Master Servicer shall assume the defense of any such claim and pay all expenses to discharge and satisfy any judgment. If any indemnified parties have a conflict of interest with respect to any such claim, the indemnified party shall have the right to retain separate counsel.

    §3.07 Advances
    This section states a number of ways that the advances can be made to the pursuant to the Servicing Agreement.

    Article IV

    §4.01 The Distribution Account
    The Master Servicer will deposit the funds collected into Distribution Account pursuant to the Servicing Agreements.

    §4.02 Priorities of Distribution
    On each Distribution Date the Securities Administrator will distribute payments pursuant to REMIC standards. Furthermore, this section states how the funds will be distributed to different sets of investors. The investors will often times set up accounts to invest in different classes or tranches. The classes with the less risk will be paid first with the higher risk classes to be paid last.

    §4.03 Monthly Statements to Certificateholders
    The Securities Administrator is required to have a report available on each Distribution Date for the Master Servicer, the Servicers, the Credit Risk Manager, the Depositor, the Trustee, and each Certificateholder. The report will have information about the balances and interest in each of the accounts. More importantly, the report will have the following (1) the number and aggregate outstanding principal balances of Mortgage Loans that are delinquent 31 to 60 days, 61 to 90 days and 91 or more days, (2) that have become REO Property, (3) that are in foreclosure and (4) that are in bankruptcy, as of the close of business on the last Business Day of the immediately preceding month.

    §4.04 Certain Matters Relating to the Determination of LIBOR
    This section basically states that the Securities Administrator will use the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) to determine interest. However, they have option of choosing which Reference Bank that will determine the LIBOR.

    §4.05 Allocation of the Applied Realized Loss Amount
    The Securities Administrator will apply a loss to the Class M Certificates.

    §4.06 Supplemental Interest Trust
    The section requires the Securities Administrator to set up a Supplemental Interest Trust for the purpose of managing Permitted Investments and Swap accounts. A Swap is a side agreement between two parties to exchange or insure future cash flows.

    §4.07 Rights of the Swap Counterparty
    The Swap Counterparty shall be deemed a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement to the same extent as if it were an original party and shall have the right to enforce its rights under this Agreement.

    §4.08 Termination Receipts
    This section details what would happen if a Swap is terminated and where the money invested will be deposited.

    Article V The Certificates
    This article gives information in regard to how the certificates are originated and how they can be transferred. A certificate in this context is basically legal proof of ownership in a specific Class. The section also gives information on who can be deemed an owner and how a list of the owners.

    Article VI
    The Depositor

    §6.01 Liabilities of the Depositor
    The Depositor is liable for the obligations set forth in this section.

    §6.02 Merger or Consolidation of the Depositor
    The Depositor will remain a franchise or corporation under the laws of the United States for the purposes of protecting the validity and enforceability of the Agreement and any of the Mortgage Loans.

    §6.03 Limitation on Liability of the Depositor and Others
    The section begins by stating that neither the Depositor nor its agents are liable to the Certificateholders for any act or omission to act that is made in good faith or error of judgment. The Depositor may rely in good faith on any document of any kind properly executed and submitted by any Person respecting any matters arising hereunder.
    The Depositor shall be indemnified by the Trust Fund and held harmless against any loss, liability or expense incurred in connection with any audit, controversy or judicial proceeding relating to government taxing, or any legal action relating to this Agreement. However, that excludes any loss, liability or expense related to any specific Mortgage Loan or Mortgage Loans. Furthermore, the Depositor would be liable for any breach of representations or warranties, willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence, or reckless disregard of obligations and duties.
    The Depositor is not under any obligation to appear in any legal action that is not in relation to its duties. However, the Depositor may in its discretion undertake any such action that it may deem necessary or desirable.

    Article VII

    §7.01 Master Servicer to Act; Appointment of Successor
    The Master Servicer or Trustee can decide to terminate any Sub-Servicer and appoint a new Servicer without limitation. If they decide to terminate a Sub-Servicer then they will have a period (not to exceed 90 days) to complete the transfer of all servicing data and correct or manipulate servicing data as may be required to correct any errors or insufficiencies to service the Mortgage Loans properly and effectively.
    Any successor to a Servicer shall be an institution which is willing to service the Mortgage Loans and which executes and delivers to the Depositor, the Master Servicer and the Trustee an agreement accepting all of the rights, powers, duties, responsibilities, obligations, and liabilities of Servicer, as if originally named as a party to such Servicing Agreement.

    §7.02 Notification of Certificateholders
    The Securities Administrator is required to notify the Certificateholders if there is a termination of a servicer.

    Article VIII
    Concerning the Trustee

    §8.01 Duties of the Trustee
    In the event that the Master Servicer is unable to perform its duties pursuant to this Agreement the Trustee has the power to act as the Servicer. In that case the Trustee is to be furnished with all of the documents the Master Servicer held. Upon receipt the Trustee shall examine the documents but is not responsible for the accuracy or content. However, the Trustee is not to be relieved of any liability for negligence or willful misconduct.
    a) No implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Agreement. The Trustee can rely that the documents are true and correct.
    b) The Trustee shall not be liable for error in judgment made in good faith unless the Trustee was negligent in ascertaining pertinent facts.
    c) The Trustee shall not be liable for any action taken in good faith for the Certificate Holders.

    §8.02 Certain Matters Affecting the Trustee
    a) The Trustee can rely upon any document believed to be true and shall not have any responsibility to confirm the genuineness.
    b) The Trustee can receive advice from counsel or advisors that is done in good faith.
    c) The Trustee is not liable for any action or omission taken in good faith.
    d) The Trustee does not need to investigate any matters dealing with the genuineness of the documents unless requested by 25% of the Certificateholders.
    e) The Trustee may perform duties through its agents and is not responsible for the negligence of any agent appointed with due care.
    f) The Trustee is not required to expend its own funds in performance of its duties.
    g) The Trustee is not liable for any loss on investment pursuant to this Agreement.
    h) The Trustee is not responsible for knowledge of a Master Servicer being unable to perform until receiving written notice from the Master Servicer.
    i) The Trustee is not obligated to conduct or defend any litigation

    §8.03 Trustee Not Liable for Certificates or Mortgage Loans
    This section states that the Trustee assumes not responsibility for the correctness of and document related to this agreement or the Mortgage Loans. Furthermore, they state that the Trustee is not responsible to maintain the perfection of any security interest or lien granted to it.

    §8.04 Trustee May Own Certificates
    The Trustee may own or pledge Certificates.

    §8.05 Trustee Fees Indemnification and Expense-
    a) The Trustee is compensated by the Master Servicer own funds pursuant to a separate agreement. The Trustee cannot put a lien on the Trust for the payment of fees.
    b) The Trustee can be reimbursed for any liability or expense associated with any claim or legal action. There are a number of exceptions which include willful misconduct or bad faith by the Trustee.

    §8.06 Eligibility Requirements for the Trustee
    The Trustee must be a corporation operating under United States law. This section also requires that the corporation have fifty million dollars in capital pursuant to federal authority and if it fails to do so the Trustee shall resign.

    §8.07 Registration and Removal of the Trustee
    The Trustee can resign or be removed at any time. If the Trustee does resign they must give written notice 60 days in advance.

    §8.08 Successor Trustee
    When a successor Trustee is appointed they must be eligible under 8.06 and must inform the Depositor, Servicers, and Certificateholders.

    §8.09 Merger or Consolidation of Trustee
    Any corporation that merges or consolidates must be eligible under 8.06.

    §8.10 Appointment of Co-Trustee or Separate Trustee
    The Trustee can appoint co-trustees or separate trustees and are said to have the same right and powers as the Trustee. No Trustee shall be held personally liable and the Trust Fund will be liable for payments.

    §8.11 Tax Matters
    This section states that the assets are intended to be qualify as Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMIC) as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. Furthermore, it states that it is the Securities Administrator’s responsibility to act as the agent to prepare, file, and maintain the REMIC assets.

    §8.12 Commission Reporting
    The Securities Administrator is responsible for preparing and filing reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission via EDGAR.

    Article IX
    Administration of the Mortgage Loans by the Master Servicer

    §9.01 Duties of the Master Servicer; Enforcement of Servicer’s Obligations
    This section delineates the contractual obligations of the Master Servicer.
    a) The Master Servicer will, in good faith, monitor the obligations and performance of the Sub-Serivicers as it relates to the Servicing Agreement.
    b) The Maaster Servicer or the Trustee pay the cost of monitoring the Sub-Sericers.
    c) If the Master Servicer or Trustee replace a Sub-Servicer as successor, the successor does not assume liability for the representations and warranties of the replaced Sub-Servicer.
    d) Only the Master Servicer or Trustee can legally consent to the assignment of Sub-Servicer’s obligations.

    §9.02 [Reserved]

    §9.03 [Reserved]

    §9.04 Maintenance of Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions
    This section sets forth that the Master Servicer is required to have a blanket fidelity bond and an insurance policy that covers any errors or omissions in the performance of the its obligations. Furthermore, the insurance policy and fidelity bond should be in an amount generally acceptable for master servicers or trustees.

    §9.05 Representation and Warranties of the Master Servicer
    a) The Master Servicer represents and warrants that as of the Closing Date:
    i. They are a national banking association in good standing and have the power to transact in any and all business contemplated in this agreement;
    ii. That this agreement does not break any of their by-laws or breach other agreement that they are a part of or violate any law, rule, or regulation;
    iii. They understand they are entering into a legally binding agreement;
    iv. They are not in default with any government;
    v. They are not a party to or bound by any agreement or charter provision that would adversely affect its ability to perform its obligations.
    vi. There are no actions or investigations against them;
    vii. That it is not required to inform any governmental authority of the transactions prior to the Closing Date;
    b) If the Master Servicer materially breaches their representation and warranties set forth in §9.05 they will indemnify the Depositor, Securities Administrator, and Trustee.

    §9.06 Master Servicer Event of Default
    The following constitute an Event of Default:
    a) Failure to deposit a payment made by a Sub-Servicer into the Distribution Account for longer than two days;
    b) Failure to observe or perform any covenants that continue unresolved for thirty days;
    c) An order of the court entered against the Master Servicer for liquidation or bankruptcy that is unresolved for sixty days or more;
    d) If the Master Servicer attempts to assign its duties and obligations to another party without the consent of the Depositor or Securities Administrator;
    e) If the Master Servicer is indicted for fraud or criminal activity in performance of its duties under this Agreement;
    f) Failure of the Master Servicer to provide annual statements of compliance.

    §9.07 Waiver of Default
    An Event of Default can be waived by the Trustee along with 51% of the Certificateholders votes.

    §9.08 Successor Master Servicer
    Upon termination of a Master Servicer the Depositor will appoint a successor. The successor must be an approved Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac servicer in good standing. In the event the Master Servicer is terminated they still must perform their duties until a successor is appointed.
    If no successor can be appointed within ninety days the Trustee will become the successor and be subject to the liabilities of the former Master Service but will not be obligated to monitor Sub-Servicers.

    §9.09 Compensation of the Master Servicer
    The Master Servicer is paid the Master Servicing Fee. The Master Servicing Fee can generally be found in the Definitions.

    §9.10 Merger or Consolidation
    Any Person that is merged or consolidates with the Master Servicer must agree to service the Mortgage Loans in accordance with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines and have a net worth no less than twenty-five million dollars.

    §9.11 Resignation of the Master Servicer
    This section states that the Master Servicer cannot resign unless it is no longer allowed, by law, to be the Master Servicer. If the Master Servicer does resign then it is not effective until another Master Servicer assumes the duties. In this PSA the Master Servicer and the Security Administrator are the same company therefore if the company resigns as the Master Servicer it must also resign as the Securities Administrator.

    §9.12 Assignment or Delegation of Duties by the Master Servicer
    The Master Servicer is not allowed to assign its duties or obligations to anyone unless the upon written consent of the Depositor.

    §9.13 Limitation on Liability of the Master Servicer
    The Master Servicer is has no liability to the Trustee or Certificateholders for any act, omission, or error in judgment made in good faith. However, the Master Servicer will be liable for willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence, or reckless disregard for its obligations. The Master Servicer is not liable for any acts or omissions of any Sub-Servicer. However, the Master Servicer can be liable if the Sub- Servicer acts with willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence, or reckless disregard for its obligations.
    The Master Servicer may rely in good faith on any document that is properly executed and submitted.
    The Master Servicer is under no obligation to appear in any legal action that is not in relation to its duties. However, the Master Servicer may in its discretion undertake any such action that it may deem necessary or desirable.

    §9.14 Indemnification; Third Party Claims
    The Master Servicer indemnifies the Trustee as successor master servicer from any claims that the Trustee may sustain as a result of liability or obligations of the Master Servicer and in connection with the Trustee’s assumption of the Master Servicer’s obligations, duties or responsibilities under such agreement.
    The Trust will indemnify the Master Servicer against any and all claims that the Master Servicer may incur in connection with this Agreement. The Master Servicer would be entitled to reimbursement for any indemnified amount. However, if the liability or expense is related to
    i) a material breach of the Master Servicer’s representations and warranties,
    ii) the Master Servicer’s willful malfeasance, bad faith or negligence or by reason of its reckless disregard of its duties and obligations or
    iii) failure to provide the assessment, attestation and annual statement of compliance in accordance with Sections 3.03, 3.04 and 3.05
    The Master Servicer is not liable for any action taken by a Servicer with respect to loss mitigation of defaulted Mortgage Loans at the direction of the Credit Risk Manager pursuant to a Credit Risk Management Agreement. Furthermore, the Master Servicer is not liable for the performance of a Servicer under any Credit Risk Management Agreement.

    §9.15 Duties of the Credit Risk Manager
    This section begins by stating the name of the Credit Risk Manager. The Credit Risk Manager provides reports and recommendations in relation to delinquent and defaulted Mortgage Loans, and the collection of Prepayment Charges. The reports are based on information given in a Monthly Statement by the Master Servicer and Sub-Servicers.

    §9.16 Limitation Upon Liability of the Credit Risk Manager
    The Credit Risk Manager has no liability to the Trustee, Securities Administrator, Depositor, or Certificateholders for any act, omission, or error in judgment made in good faith. However, the Credit Risk Manager will be liable for willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence, or reckless disregard for its obligations. The Master Servicer is not liable for any acts or omissions of any Sub-Servicer. However, the Master Servicer can be liable if the Sub- Servicer acts with willful misfeasance, bad faith, negligence, or reckless disregard for its obligations. The Credit Risk Manager may rely in good faith upon the accuracy of any document furnished by the Servicers.

    §9.17 Removal or Resignation of Credit Risk Manager- This section allows for the Credit Risk Manager to be removed by the Certificateholders by a two-thirds vote. The section also states that five years from the date of the Agreement and annually thereafter the Credit Risk Manager can resign or be terminated by the Depositor.

    Article X
    Concerning the Securities Administrator

    §10.01 Duties of Securities Administrator
    The Securities Administrator is responsible for obtaining all of the documents in the Agreement and examine them to make sure they are in the required form specified in the Agrrement. However, the Securities Administrator is not responsible for the accuracy or content of the document. If the Securities Administrator finds that a document does not conform to the requirements then they are to request a corrected document. If at that time they do not receive a corrected document then they must notify the Certificatholders.
    The Securities Administrator is not to be relieved of any liability for negligence or willful misconduct.
    a) The Securities Administrator is only liable for the duties set forth in the Agreement. No implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Agreement. The Securities Administrator can rely on the documents furnished to them as true and correct.
    b) The Securities Administrator shall not be liable for error in judgment made in good faith unless the Trustee was negligent in ascertaining pertinent facts.
    c) The Securities Administrator shall not be liable for any action taken in good faith for the Certificate Holders.
    d) The Securities Administrator shall have no liability for the acts or omission of the Master Servicer or the Trustee.

    §10.02 Certain Matters Affecting the Securities Administrator
    a) The Securities Adminstrator can rely upon any document believed to be true and shall not have any responsibility to confirm the genuineness.
    b) The Securities Administrator can receive advice from counsel or advisors that is done in good faith.
    c) The Securities Administrator is not liable for any action or omission taken in good faith.
    d) The Securities Administrator does not need to investigate any matters dealing with the genuineness of the documents unless requested by 25% of the Certificateholders.
    e) The Securities Administrator may perform duties through its agents and is not responsible for the negligence of any agent appointed with due care.
    f) The Securities Administrator is not required to expend its own funds in performance of its duties.
    g) The Securities Administrator is not responsible for the performance or obligations of the Master Servicer or the Trustee.
    h) The Securities Administrator is generally not obligated to conduct or defend any litigation that is not incidental to its duties.

    §10.03 Securities Administrator Not Liable for Certificates or Mortgage Loans
    The Securities Administrator assumes no responsibility for the correctness of the Certificates because the Certificates are statements of the Depositor. The Securities Administrator makes no representation or warranty of any Mortgage Loan or related document. The Securities Administrator executes the Certificates on behalf of the Trust Fund and not in its individual capacity or personal undertaking.

    §10.04 Securities Administrator May Own Certificates
    The Securities Administrator may own or pledge Certificates.

    §10.05 Securities Administrator Fees and Expense
    a) The Securities Administrator is compensated from the investment funds earned from the Distribution Account during the Float Period. The Trustee cannot put a lien on the Trust for the payment of fees.
    b) The Securities Administrator can be indemnified by the Trust for any liability or expense associated with a claim or legal action. However, there are a number of exceptions which include willful misconduct or bad faith by the Trustee.

    §10.06 Eligibility Requirements for the Securities Administrator
    The Securities Administrator must be a corporation operating in good standing under United States law. This section also requires that the corporation have fifty million dollars in capital pursuant to federal authority and if it fails to do so the Securities Administrator shall resign.

    §10.07 Registration and Removal of the Securities Administrator
    The Securities Administrator can resign or be removed at any time. If the Trustee does resign they must give written notice 60 days in advance.

    §10.08 Successor Securities Administrator
    When a successor Securities Administrator is appointed they must be eligible under 10.06 and must inform the Depositor, Servicers, and Certificateholders.

    §10.09 Merger or Consolidation of Securities Administrator
    Any corporation that merges or consolidates must be eligible under 10.06.

    §10.10 Assignment or Delegation of Duties by the Securities Administrator
    The Securities Administrator is not allowed to assign its duties or obligations to anyone unless the upon written consent of the Depositor.

    Article XI

    §11.01 Termination upon Liquidation or Purchase of the Mortgage Loans
    This section gives information on how the purchase price will be calculated in the event of liquidation or an Option to Purchase the Mortgage Loans.

    §11.02 Final Distribution on the Certificates
    This section states how the Final Distribution will be announced and paid in the event of maturity or purchase.

    §11.03 Additional Termination Requirements
    In the event of an Option to Purchase the Trust Fund will terminate and the Securities Administrator must give REMIC information to the buying party.

    Article XII
    Miscellaneous Provisions

    §12.01 Amendment
    This section list the reasons why the Agreement may be amended at anytime. There is a clear policy that an amendment cannot be made to adversely affect the Certificateholders. Furthermore, the Agreement can be amended to maintain qualification with REMIC standards and avoid any tax with regards to any REMIC.
    If there are any amendments made the Certificateholders and Rating Agency must be notified.

    §12.02 Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts
    The Agreement is to be recorded in all appropriate public offices for real property records in all jurisdicitions in which the Mortgaged Properties are situated. The recordation of the Agreement can take place simultaneously with the use of counterparts. Furthermore, those counterparts constitute as the original instrument.

    §12.03 Governing Law
    This section states the applicable governing law