URGENT REQUEST! California Court attempting to Bury Decision!!! Don’t allow Guliex v. PennyMac to go unpublished! Act Today!

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for courts to skirt the rules in order to protect the banks if they can get away with it.  It is up to California attorneys and homeowners nationwide to contact California’s Fifth District Appellate court and request that the Guliex case be published.  YOU almost didn’t have this opportunity because it appears the court attempted to end the submission window six-days early !

We need all HOMEOWNERS and FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE to HELP get this case published!

Homeowners, PLEASE write the Court at the address below TODAY (or use the template) and request that Guliex v. PennyMac be published.   Attorneys and registered pro se litigants can file electronically through the court’s TrueFiling.com system.

Letters should be mailed TODAY or possibly MONDAY if you live in California to be received by the Tuesday, August 1st deadline.

Electronic filings are accepted up until Tuesday.

Originally the court had issued an order stating that no more letters requesting publication of Guliex would be accepted.  Apparently after public outcry, the court clerk stated they would now accept requests to publish until Tuesday, August 1st, 2017.

On July 12th, 2017 the California Fifth Appellate Court issued an unpublished opinion in Guliex v. Pennymac Holdings, a case that may potentially benefit homeowners nationwide who are litigating illegal trustee sales and Chain of Title issues.

The Rules of the Fifth Appellate Court permit 20 days for attorneys and citizens to request publication of the case by submitting letters to the court.   The court originally incorrectly listed the deadline as July 27th when the deadline should have been August 1st, 2017.   Thus, the court clerk shut down requests for publication SIX days prematurely.

The Appellate court also issued the opinion that the Guliex decision, “does not establish a new rule of law, nor does it meet any of the criteria set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).”

WHAT?  REALLY?  The decision likely doesn’t meet the court’s publication criteria because it actually benefits the Homeowner, not the Bank for a change!!  Apparently Homeowners fighting foreclosure and hostile courts must also fight judicial CENSORSHIP if they prevail, in addition to the other abuses and injustices they confront at every judicial juncture.

Unfortunately, this is one more attempt to silence victims of fraudulent foreclosure and the attorneys who defend them.  The Guliex case is important because the court actually complies with the rule of law it established in its own jurisdiction.

Common sense decisions regarding wrongful foreclosure are infrequent and typically eroded or overturned.  Yvanova, one of the finest decisions on the importance of standing, was decimated by the Saterbak ruling.   A favorable precedent that adheres to the rule of law must be allowed to stand.  We must be vigilant and our voices united.

Please write a simple letter, or copy the template below and mail it TODAY requesting that the court publish the Guliex decision.  The request for publication should not exceed 2 pages.

(Hat tip to Charles Cox for composing the content of this letter).  Please edit as desired.

Fifth District Court of Appeal
Request for Publication, Case No. F073142
Attn: Honorable Brad Hill, Presiding Justice
2424 Ventura Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Subject: Request for Publication

Guliex v PennyMac Holdings LLC

Court of Appeal No F073142 filed July 12, 2017

Opinion cited as 2017 Cal App Unpub Lexis 4742

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION

Dear Justices of the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal,

Pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.1120(a) et seq., I am writing to respectfully and timely request certification for publication of the Court’s entire Opinion, or in the alternative, partial publication of Parts I. et seq. and II.B., for the case captioned above.

My interest in this request relates to the engineered attacks upon home ownership by unauthorized intermediaries engaged in self-help that is California’s non-judicial foreclosure process; and the application, interpretation, clarification and addressing of the facts in this instant case by the Appellate Court and its distinguishing other holdings involving legal issues of continuing public interest as well as clarification of certain specifics related to this field of litigation as the Opinion(s) may apply to other cases more readily once published.

The Opinion meets the standard for publication as authorized by CRC, Rule 8.1105(c) which provides that an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division-whether it affirms or reverses a trial court order or judgment-should be certified for publication in the Official Reports if the opinion:

(1) Establishes a new rule of law;

(2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions;

(3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law;

(4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule;

(5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest;

(7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law;

(8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or

(9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law.

I contend the Court’s well-reasoned Opinion contained therein accordingly satisfy sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as referenced above more specifically related to Sections I. sub-sections B, C, and D.

Section I.B. The Opinion clarifies that a homeowner “…has standing to challenge a foreclosure by an unauthorized entity.” Further, the Opinion clarifies that although a superior court may take judicial notice of documents that have been publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office, the “disputed or disputable” factual content of recorded documents is inadmissible hearsay. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(2, 3, 5, 6 and 8).

Section I.C. The Opinion establishes a new rule on the analysis of a chain-of-title as reflected documents publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office; as well as the analysis of each link in the chain-of-title as to whether a document can establish an unbroken or perfect link in the chain. The Opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 6 and 8).

Section I. D. The Opinion establishes a new rule by distinguishing the two illegal types of wrongful foreclosures: procedural irregularities v. unauthorized foreclosure. This is an important opinion for these cases not previously popularized by other opinions clarifying the question of whether and/or when a homeowner must allege tender and/or prejudice. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Court publish the above referenced Opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

 

We encourage readers to post copies of the letters mailed to the court in the comments section of this post.  Just to keep the courts honest!

Thank you to  California Attorney Charles Marshall, Eva Sutton and Celia Salazar for their efforts to publish this important opinion.

 

15 Responses

  1. Anyone from Rhode Island here?

  2. I sure hope the publish it! I’m from Maryland. We don’t get no justice. Also, in my research I found PennyMAC documents signed with typewriter cursive print or from printer.

  3. My Letter will be sent certified Monday Morning.
    Also looking for a California RICO Attorney Asap
    BT

  4. I have written the court and asked a request for Publication on the court’s opinion on this case .
    Mike Healey

  5. Homeowners on social media ready to send. As public do we need to serve everyone? If too late for 8/1 will recommend we send anyway so we are heard.

  6. By the way, court clerks (and judges) are masters of the “rule of the minute club.” The rules change at the whim of their mood and which clerk happens to deal with your filings or what the judge’s agenda might be. Court rules are often made up as they go along whether or not written in either the Local Rules or in the Cal Rules of Court. E.g. denying publication prematurely and without cause.

  7. The Rules say the request must be served on all parties. Judges are not parties. There is no rule requiring a proof of service be filed I’m aware of. Parties are served through their counsel.

  8. @Kalifornia – thanks – done!

  9. @ EVERYONE

    DO NOT FORGET TO INCLUDE THIS:

    PROOF OF SERVICE
    Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings, LLC
    Case No. F073142

    I, _____________, am over the age of eighteen and not a party to this action. My business address is ______________________, San Francisco, California 94122. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION for the above referenced case, by placing a copy of the document in a sealed envelope with first-class postage fully prepaid placing the envelope for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service following our ordinary business practices, addressed to:

    Fred Guliex
    25495 Judith Street
    Arvin, CA 93203

    Stephanie N. West
    Law Office of Stefanie N. West
    18377 Beach Blvd., Ste 333
    Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5694

    Justices
    Hon. Herbert I. Levy
    Hon. Brad R. Hill
    Hon. Gene M. Gomes
    California Court of Appeal
    Fifth Appellate District
    2424 Ventura Street
    Fresno, CA 93721

    PENNYMAC HOLDINGS LLC
    C/O
    Christopher L. Peterson
    Duncan Peterson, LLP
    9665 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 305
    San Diego, CA 92123-1352

    I declare under penalty under the laws of the State of California that the information stated above is true and correct.

    Dated: July 28, 2017

    By:

  10. @ Charles Cox

    FYI: The 20-day deadline is this following Tuesday, August 1, 2017.

  11. Fifth District Court of Appeal
    2424 Ventura Street
    Fresno, CA 93721
    Attn: Honorable Brad Hill, Presiding Justice

    Re: Request for Publication, Case No. F073142
    Guliex v. Pennymac Holdings LLC, Cal: 5th COA CA 2017

    Dear Hon. Hill:

    As a 30-year litigation veteran, notary and former working member of the JNE Commission, I am requesting from an academic legal perspective, and years of legal experience, that your Honor kindly consider publishing the Guliex v Pennymac case.

    I graduated in California with a paralegal degree with honors where I am certified and worked in civil litigation then later criminal justice cases under CJA. I know the legal culture in California, and now all over the country.

    I personally request publication as one who has worked not even pro bono, even less, strictly gratis, with no benefits, pay or anything of value, tirelessly since 2009 throughout the entire United States with legions of attorneys and legal professionals, all struggling to help millions of homeowners, with all of us receiving little, to no income, paying for things out of our own pockets, lost personal lives, families suffering from overwhelming demands of 12 hour days, 7 day weeks, no vacations, sick leave; no weddings, holidays, funerals, deprivations taken on by myself, as well as countless others, because despite the fact we are the most advanced and wealthiest nation on the planet, that there have been rules of law and good law on the books, we urgently need published works to support the demands upon our legal system, now.

    The reason for this heavy burden is that few, if any, cases are decided that take into consideration the real ‘human’ casualties and aspects of these actions that have devastated our entire nation with little to no accountability by those who sparked and profited from wrongdoings to millions of American homeowners.

    We are just scratching the surface of this dilemma; unfortunately we did not realize what transpired because this hybrid legal emergency never occurred in our legal history before; the impetus being complex financial matters, electronic databases controlling and dictating forces against humans not unlike other atrocities in our history, where the real casualties were not discovered till long after the smoke cleared and we could see where we erred but not until after the real collateral damage from the 2008 crisis, humans, millions of them, and we are by no means in the clear.

    We as a legal community cannot save those who have suffered, were subjected to untold losses, pains, devastation, but we can do something about those still waiting – year after year – for our country to stand up for them; to defend them and apply laws as they are meant to be applied. They are each and every one of them American consumers – waiting for help; like those treading the water after Titanic sank; they don’t have long to hang in there; most have already gone.

    I know all too well the devastation these cases bring about; I have been seeing the casualties of this war for 8 years; deal with many who have needlessly died foregoing medical attention as not a priority over homelessness; or sadly so many committed suicide because they could find no way out. The government is just learning or at least being receptive to what has transpired; so have the courts, which courts all over our land have been egregiously taken advantage of at the cost of millions of lives and hundreds of years of jurisprudence.

    I have averaged more than 30,000 hours since 2009 doing whatever I can – like a legal Red Cross and have not made one cent. These hours have been spent conducting due diligent inquiry, research, study, hours of academic legal discussions all in attempts to assist so many who desperately need help – we have needed a ‘legal triage’ for a decade as thousands are still waiting help who cannot afford or do not have legal assistance because it is not available. We provide those who knowingly break the laws with legal representation, place to sleep, meals, medical attention, entertainment – but for those who have been victims of in most cases, criminal acts cannot get legal counsel or remuneration as victims who had their homes stolen.

    This mentality has to stop and unfortunately, the judicial system has been held to blame for failing to recognize these travesties of justice. This as you know, is a paper war – and good paper is what is direly needed to help those still in the trenches fighting.

    If concerns linger regarding publishing a ‘pro se’ status with this case, then please consider removing or redacting references to pro se in the ruling – but do not deprive those who need your work for biases that a person standing up for themselves could prevail that it would cause a rush by pro pers, that is not a priority. People have been fighting pro se because they have no choice; they are forced to defend the integrity of their home, family, shelter and honor. They should not be lessened or hidden in the corners of legal opinions because they stood up for themselves; but it should be embraced and corrected that we as a legal community forced these individuals to go at it alone; we should commend, not deny them. We as a legal community know all too well the stigma with ‘pro se litigants’ – but this is not the time in our history for stigmatic bias – but action to protect those who have been fervently begging for help, but not getting any.

    We as a nation and legal profession need excellent favorable decisions like Guliex. I am aware of the 20-day rule from the opinion date of July 12, 2017 and hope your Honor will decide to allow this excellent ruling to be known – like giving blood to so many who have lost so much; it is but a pint, but a powerful pint!

    The Justices on the 5th DCA (CA) are to be, and have been, commended all over the country for the Guliex decision because it is very simply premised upon basic law. The decision rides in high esteem in the legal community because it is good law, decent, the right thing to do, it is judicial work we so desperately need in this fight, please help us. I know I am but a paralegal and notary, but I am in this fight because I (we) am needed these people, millions of them, have been ignored enough.

    Thank you for your kind attention to this request.

  12. Sent letter regarding publication today!

  13. Thank you for the excellent letter you created Mr. Cox. Fantastic work!
    Livinglies Moderator

  14. ADMGROUP has forwarded this template to all clients and associates in the Southern California area and is paying for the cost of mailing. We’ve formatted the suggested writing and provided said format to all clients and associates for mailing. We’ve sent our letter via certified mail.

  15. Why adjectives seem to roll of the tongue nicely in front of the word “lawyer.” (no offence Neil)

    One of the most “prominent” consumer attorney forums (and celebrated Calif. appellate lawyer) posted the following in response to my request for attorneys to write letters to the 5th DCA requesting certification for publication of Guliex:

    “Unfortunately, the court denied the request to publish the opinion in an order July 27.” That was it.

    This exhibits why these corrupt, coopted so-called “courts” continue to get away with not just skirting, but violating their own rules and those of higher courts.

    First, there has only on one request so far…and the 5th denied it prematurely and with a no assessment, analysis or description of Rule 8.1105(c) whatsoever. The denial was before the case was final so it went to the Cal. Sup. Court [see Rule 8.1120(b)(1)] (decision isn’t final until 30 days after the decision). The Cal. Sup. Court will therefore have to make the decision on that one. Requests still need to be put in before the 20-day deadline on the 1st of October so if they’re denied, they go to the Sup. Court for the decision instead. Unless there is sufficient reasoning and interest provided (as if it matters to these guys, but I digress…); one more case will not be citable to aid borrowers against the fraud and corruption perpetrated by these criminals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: