Tag Archives: deed of trust

It’s actually all quite simple, but so corrupt

Once you see behind the proverbial curtain you will find that “it’s actually all quite simple, but so corrupt.”  Why do we call it a justice system, when the justice is gone?  Why do we call it a Trustee when it is in fact a strawman?  Why do we call it a Deed of Trust, when there is no trust involved?  Why do we call it a Non-judicial foreclosure procedure, when the courts are partisan to the fraud?  Perhaps it is called Non-judicial because you will never find true justice.

 

It all comes down to this: “The banks are incapable of proving that the Trustee is in fact independent in the Deed of Trust contract which the bank used as the instrument as means to attach the home as collateral against the mortgage.  The bank is incapable of proving that the Trustee has the power to protect the homeowner from any wrongdoing by the bank during the life of the Deed of Trust contract as described by the need for the Trustee to be recognized as an independent party to the Deed of Trust transaction.  If the banks are unable to prove of the independence of the Trustee in a Deed of Trust agreement then they are in fact committing fraud when using a Deed of Trust agreement when they do not inform the borrower of the fact that the Trustee is not independent and is incapable of looking out in the best interests of the borrower in the Deed of Trust.  If the bank uses a Deed of Trust agreement, knowing that the Trustee is not independent as described by the CA Supreme Court in 1978; Garfinkle v Superior Court of Contra Costa County, they are in fact committing fraud against the borrower at the inception of the contract which makes the contract in fact VOID.”

 

Because the bank knows that they are in control of the Trustee in a non-judicial foreclosure action they are able to in fact foreclose on anyone, anytime, anywhere whether they have a mortgage or even paid cash for their property.   Because the banks know that they own the power to replace the Trustee at any time for any reason they see fit they know that if they wish to file fraudulent paperwork to the County Recorder’s Office in a non-judicial foreclosure.  Because there is no party looking out for the interest of the property owner and the courts have handed over the justice system to the Trustee in a Non-Judicial foreclosure action.  Because the courts have entrusted the Trustee, and the CA  Supreme Court has ruled that the Trustee is to be independent in a Deed of Trust agreement they have given the judicial power of correctness to all of the documents that are filed into the court in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure.
The reason the bank or other party is able to file whatever paperwork they choose in order to foreclose on someone is due to a 1998 rule that changed the rules to the Power of Sale clause.  This rule comes from the 1996 Senate bill 1638:

SB 1638, Johnson. Deeds of trust: trustee substitution. Existing law sets forth the procedures for the substitution of trustees under a deed of trust upon real property or an estate for years therein. This bill would, as an alternative procedure, set forth the procedures for the substitution of trustees under a deed of trust upon real property or an estate for years, given to secure an obligation to pay money, by the beneficiary or beneficiaries under the trust deed who hold more than 50% 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. The bill would also establish a process through which all of the beneficiaries under a trust deed can agree to be governed by beneficiaries holding more than 50% of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes in real property or interests in a note equivalent to a series transaction, as specified. In order to substitute trustees or agree to be governed by the majority interest holders, all parties to the transaction would be required to sign and record a document containing specified information.

This rule gave the bank to power to substitute a new trustee at the will of the bank thereby destroying any semblance of law to the Power Of Sale clause or CA Civ Code 2924 therein making any Deed of Trust agreement fraudulent on its face and therefore void.  Which makes EVERY Deed of Trust agreement since Jan 1, 1998 in fact VOID.

 

We will go over the true repercussions of this next.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Why the judge silenced my court documents

I want to be clear as to why the judge acting in my legal case silenced my court documents.  I want people to learn why the judge lied to me when he told me at the end of the case that he had copyrighted my court file.  The reasons are simple yet may not be very clear.   It is the same reasons that to this day there is still only a minute amount of my legal case documentation available for public record.  It is the same reasons that the court had conveniently “lost” the files from the court reporter that I had hired to transcribe the case.

To make this point we will go back a little bit to when I filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank for fraud, in early 2011.  In order to accomplish this task, since I didn’t have money for an attorney I had initially hired a paralegal to assist me in developing the paperwork so that I could file a cause of action and move forward in CA Superior Court.  After only a few moving papers filed the defendants filed a motion to move the case to Federal Court.  This is called Remanding the Case.  It was a strategy on their part.  Since I was acting as my own attorney and was thus far proving to be successful at filing paperwork to the court, counsel for the defense decided to send it up the chain to the federal level.  In the federal court system there are a different set of rules of court and rules of procedure to follow that the defense might be able to get me to stumble upon.

It was after they successfully remanded the case to the Federal Court of Northern California that my paralegal informed me that the case was now out of their league.  They were not familiar with the Federal rules and procedures and therefore felt it would be best for them to not assist me.  The paralegal was sorry for never dealing at the federal level and not knowing the information, but didn’t want to make a mistake on their end that would end my case or cause harm to me from their actions.

I can understand this and we parted amicably, but now I needed to learn everything I could about the rules of court and rules of procedure at the federal level.  This strategy on the defenses part was good because it made me not only have to learn the rules of the game, but at the same time, respond to the moving papers that they began filing.  I found myself in the law library and online nearly every waking hour of the day just trying to keep up.  So, I spent the next year and a half arguing about the fact that they never served or never appropriately by law served me documents when they would file a motion or moving paper.  they tried to get it to where I would not respond timely or show to a hearing because I would not have known the date or time.  We never even got to argue or litigate any substantive issues.

You see, over 90 percent of any and all court cases are won and loss due to simple procedural errors done by one of the parties.  These procedural errors are part of the rules of court or the procedures of the court as outlined by each state.  If a law firm doesn’t follow the rules as to how one is supposed to file a document, or how to fill out specific documents, or to show up to court on time, or to file specific documents on time, or to serve opposing parties, and a myriad of other rules that must be followed, the firm can lose the lawsuit by dismissal or demurrer based on not following the rules or law or procedure.   The law firm would then probably not tell their client the real reason that they lost and will probably inform the client of some other convoluted reason as to their loss, but it certainly wouldn’t be because of a procedural issue that the firm failed to do.  So, this means that if you simply learn and do the paperwork correctly, if you learn and do all of the filing correctly and make sure of all of the timing issues and get them done correctly, you will have an over 90% chance of winning.

So, I concentrated on this point alone and played that card as I learned the rules of the game.  So, if there were procedural issues from the opposing counsel that I could argue against (and there always was) I would.  This way I would not have to go down the road of arguing any legal points that they would bring up.  The law office for Wells Fargo Bank- Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten, LLP; and the law firm for the NDEX West, LLC acting as the Trustee- Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, LLP wanted to get me into arguing the legal issues.  This was their arena.  This is what they know.  This is how they win by staying with what they know.

So, I am not a lawyer.  I do not have a subscription to Lexus-Nexus that I could easily shepardize legal precedents, appeals decisions and more at the flick of a keystroke.  My legal research was done in the UC Berkeley Law library, Hastings Law Library, or the San Francisco Law Library pouring over hundreds of volumes of legal tomes and familiarizing myself with legal cases for hours and days on end in order to try to wrap my mind around each case that the opposing counsel would throw out in their documents.  The referenced cases numbered in the hundreds and there was no way I would be able to stay with them and follow and argue appropriately if I stayed in their arena.

So, I would argue that the procedures to the paperwork were done incorrectly by them.  They did not file documents correctly, they did not serve the documents correctly, or they did not serve the documents at all.  This was where I could make a case, however, the court did not want to rule against or dismiss the case for the bank under procedural issues which would land someone with a home that is free and clear or can no longer be foreclosed upon.  The court wanted to stay away from this, so the court would never end the litigation.  It was frustrating to see how the courts would not follow the rules of their own court siding with the banks continually allowing them multiple “bits of the apple”.  However, during this time I was able to learn more and more about law, rules and how to litigate.  I was simply buying time.

I researched, memorized and learned more and more.  I reviewed my case notes from every angle and idea that would arise.  This time spent staying in the legal arena was tiring and frustrating to do and not really get into any substantive legal issues pertaining to my case, but it allowed me to find ways to learn.

So, over time I submitted Amended Claims and whittled away at honing my arguments.  I learned and found ways to file amended causes of action against Wells Fargo Bank for fraud.  This alone was difficult, as fraud is one of the most difficult causes of action to argue.  The nights were sleepless and the days were filled with research.  It was wearing me down.

I began to get much more focused in my argument against Wells Fargo when I was tasked by my study friend to find a Deed of Trust that actually abides by all facets of the existing rule of law.  Because I was unable to find a true Deed of Trust in how it was worded or signed, in order to substantiate my case to the court for what a true Deed of Trust document looks like as it based on the rule of law, I found myself in front of the computer system at the Alamed County Recorder’s Office for days on end, reviewing thousands and thousands of documents.  Eventually I found one that fit the parameters of what I was looking for that took me back to a contract dated 1997.

That was when I sat down an wondered why I had to go all of the way back to 1997 to find a Deed of Trust Agreement that fits the parameters as set out by the rule of law.  What took place that created this timeline of contracts where none of them actually comply with real estate contract law?  How can this be?

None of these contracts complied with contract law because they weren’t signed by the lending party, or if there was a Substituted Trustee the documents used to make this substitution we never signed by the borrower.  However, in 1997, I found a handful of contracts which both parties signed and any changes or substitutions were signed by all parties, and I found Re-Conveyance documents that were also filled out appropriately to the rule of law.

This action is simple and dates back to the Statute of Frauds (1677).  This is still valid law and on the books throughout the United States.  What this law states is that in any real estate contract it must be done in writing.  It also must be signed by all parties to the agreement.  This law also goes into the fact that if there are any changes to the contract agreement, any and all of the changes must be signed by all parties of the agreement.  This is the only way to make sure that the contract has a meeting of the minds throughout the duration of the agreement.

So, why was there such a lengthy timeframe where these contracts were not signed by both parties, or if there was a substitution of a trustee that this document was never signed by the borrower?  What was it in 1998 that happened that changed how these contracts seemed to be being used?

I looked deeper into changes in the laws regarding borrowing, lending and the power of sale in the state of CA.  I scoured through scores and scores of pages of legalese that made my head spin trying to find any change that I might put to reference that would explain why this might be the case.  I read and re read civil code 2924, et al, that dealt with foreclosure in California.  This is the code which dictates the power of sale clause in a deed of trust agreement in the state of CA.

I wanted more information, but I still needed to focus on the lawsuit.  I now knew that I had a true Deed of Trust Agreement as it is outlined in the rule of law.  I also knew that I had a true Substitute Trustee document as it is to be written according to the rule of law.  I also knew that I had found a true Re-Conveyance document as it is to be written according to the rule of law.  I could now used these documents in the courtroom as evidence to compare my documents with these others that exemplify by the rule of law as to what these documents are supposed to look like.

I noticed at that time that the CA Civil Code 2934a stated that a bank was able to name a new trustee.  It stated that the new substituted trustee would take on and possess all of the rights and actions deemed the previous trustee in a deed of trust agreement.  This got me thinking that if a bank could name a new trustee how did that relate to the independence of the trustee in a deed of trust?  So, a bank can “name” a new trustee, I find no issue with this.  However, substituting a trustee without the consent or signature by the borrower defies the Statute of Frauds.  It also means that if a bank has the right to substitute a trustee, and the previous trustee has no means of refusal of this substitution, then this simply means that the trustee holds no power against the will of the lending institution.  A new trustee could be substituted if the original or presiding trustee was no abiding by the actions of the bank.

So, if a trustee was calling to task some of the actions that a bank needed to address in a foreclosure action, and the bank was not addressing legitimate tasks regulated for them to do in a foreclosure action, the bank could substitute the trustee holding the bank to task and replace them with a substitute trustee that will allow the bank to act in whatever way it suits the bank and to file whatever document necessary to file stating that the bank has complied with all of the rules when in fact they did not.  Due to the fact that the bank might not have complied with the rules according to the power of sale, but the substituted trustee files the documents and asserts to the court that they did in fact comply and are acting in accordance to the rules the bank could foreclose on anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all because there would no longer be a party entrusted by the state, namely the trustee, that will be tasked with oversight against the bank.  The oversight cannot be enforced by the trustee.  Because if they did try to enforce true oversight against the bank acting under the power of sale, if the trustee was not acting in the interests of the bank, the bank could substitute them with another party who would act in the way the bank wanted.  The bank would then be able to file any document, against any borrower, or against any property at any time.

This seemed out of line with the rule of law.  First, as per the Statute of Frauds any and all parties involved in the real estate contract must sign on all documents to the contract and all changes to any document to the contract throughout the life of the contract agreement.  Second, the CA Supreme Court rule in 1978 that the trustee is to be a third and independent party in a deed of trust agreement.  The trustee is to be at arms length from all parties involved in order to hold no bias to either party in the agreement.  It was the trustee who was to make sure that both parties acted in compliance with the rule of the contract.  It was the trustee who was tasked to protect the borrower’s title from any wrongdoing from the bank, and to protect the rights of the bank to be able to foreclose if the borrower failed to pay.  If either party did not act in accordance to the rules of the contract, including the power of sale clause, the trustee had the power to stop the foreclosure and make the bank act in compliance to the rules of the power of sale.  Third, if the trustee holds no power of oversight against the lender in a deed of trust agreement and they can be replaced at will by the lender in the agreement with another trustee who will act on behalf of the bank this means that there is absolutely no protections held for the borrower or the borrower’s title in a deed of trust.

This means that there is no true trustee and the trustee is a strawman acting on behalf of the banks.  This means that the banks know that they can manipulate the trustee to act on their behalf and know that the borrower has no protections to their title.  This means that everything that the deed of trust agreement stands for is moot.  This means that unless the banks inform the borrowers of this information which would make every borrower change their mind to whether or not they would sign a deed of trust agreement, prior to signing of the deed of trust agreement, this constitutes and act of fraud.  The fact that the banks are privy to knowledge about the trustee and the deed of trust that the borrowers are not privy to when the borrower signs the deed of trust agreement then there is not a meeting of the minds, that there is a misrepresentation of facts regarding the contract and therefore the contract is VOID.  if the contract is void the borrower is under no obligation to pay the lender for the money borrowed.  If the contract is void, there is no legal way a bank can foreclose against a borrower using the power of sale clause in the contract because there is no contract.  This means that a bank is unable to foreclose against a borrower if the bank used a deed of trust agreement to secure the money lent to the borrower.  This means that a bank holds no right to foreclose and the borrower holds the right of title free and clear.  If is as if the contract were 13 sheets of blank paper there would be just as much legal reference to the contract as it stands.  The banks participate in this misrepresentation of facts in every deed of trust document throughout the state of CA since 1998.  Let this sink in.

After I submitted this information in my fourth amended complaint and the defense attempted to argue various points of law in order to demurrer the complaint that I chose not to argue or respond to any of their legal points or case law that they were spewing out.  Because none of it was relevant.  I responded by stating that they must first prove that they have a true and legitimate contract to begin with.  They must first prove that they have and are in possession of a true and legitimate deed of trust contract as outline by the rule of law.  I was now holding them to task to prove that the deed of trust was legitimate as to the rules of law in the state of CA.  They must show the court that the trustee holds an independent position in the deed of trust agreement.  They must show the court that the trustee would be able to hold the banks accountable for wrongdoing against a borrower’s title without recourse against them by the banks if the banks were to chose to do so.  They must show that all parties have signed off on all documents and changes to the deed of trust agreement throughout the duration of the contract.

The defense was unable to do so.  The court was now in the unenviable position to side with a homeowner who has proven to the court how all of the deeds of trust in the state of CA since 1998 are based on VOID paperwork.

After this information was presented in the courtroom and there was no response available from the defense the judge looked at me and smiled and said, “Mr. Boggs, I know exactly what you are trying to state now.  I understand your argument and see where you are going with this.  Since we have nothing else from the defense,” he stated, “that I will have to take this under consideration in my chambers.”  Note that when he said this the courtroom was filled with other people from other cases and other witnesses that were listening quite intently.  So, by his “taking into consideration” meant that he would not rule in the courtroom so that all of the people would hear his response or decision.

So, he dismissed the case and took the documents out from public view and access.  This was how he silence my court documents.  The reason why he silenced the court documents should be clear at this point.  His decision that Wells Fargo Bank issued a fraudulent contract based on the fact that there is no legitimate trustee participating in the contract and that the bank failed to represent this fact to me prior to the signing of the contract makes the contract void means that all other deed of trust agreements in the state of CA could now file an actionable defense against the lender in the other contracts therefore negating every deed of trust in the state of CA dating back to 1998.  This also means that all of the money spent on all of the contracts by law should be returned to the borrowers who were lent money under the bank’s deceptive practices and misrepresentation of facts.  This means that the entire non-judicial foreclosure system is a fraud and broken.  This means that all foreclosures in CA must immediately be stopped and reviewed.  He also knew that there are 36 deed of trust states in the United States to which all of them have similar rules allowing similar practices across the nation.  This would have set a precedent that would have had a domino effect that would have collapsed Wall Street much more than what took place in 2008.  This not only would have set up a precedent that would have negated all deed of trust contracts in 36 states, but this would have also negated every mortgage backed security that used any of these mortgage agreements that these deeds of trust were held with that had been traded since 1998.

I think you can now understand why the judge silenced my court documents.

This is our judicial system.  There won’t be a ruling on truth, but only a ruling that works in the best interest of keeping the flow of capitalism as we have come to know it.  Despite the fraud, despite the corruption, despite any truth.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

The Trustee is given the presumption of correctnes

The Trustee in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure is given the presumption of correctnes[s] in the performance of their position.  This is what the banks or beneficiaries are well aware of and use to their advantage in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure.  Because, by law as ordered by the CA Supreme Court, the Trustee is ruled to be independent and act on behalf of the court in the transaction and is to be at arms length from either the borrower or the lender, the documents filed by the Trustee are considered to be true and correct.  What exactly is true and correct anymore?  As we move forward through this post I may repeat myself a few times in order to make sure of the reader’s clarity.

You see, the Trustee is given the power of the court and subsequently is given the presumption of correctness.  Meaning that, if there were to be a legal action taken by a borrower against a beneficiary for wrongful foreclosure in a non-judicial foreclosure action, the court will first abide by what the Trustee says to be true and correct because they are acting as the court.  It is now the job of the party being foreclosed on to show the court of the illegalities being made by the beneficiary, rather than the Trustee doing their job to begin with, because the Trustee works for the banks and is a strawman in the transaction acting in the best interest of the bank.

It is the job of the Trustee to be independent and to make sure that the paperwork being filed is done according to the rules and is true and correct as it relates to the necessary actions to be taken in the power of sale.  What this truly means is that the paperwork that is submitted by the beneficiary is to be filled out correctly, however, this does not mean that the contents and actions which are stipulated within the documents have been done correctly and in accordance to the rule of law.  So, therefore, the Trustee oversees that the paperwork might be FILED correctly, however, that does NOT mean that the actions to which the beneficiary is claiming to have done, that have been stipulated within the documents in order to comply with the rules of the power of sale, or the contents of the documents, have been done correctly or if at all.  But, because the Trustee is given the presumption of correctness by the court it is assumed by the Superior court that things have been done according to the rules of the power of sale.

So, what happens when the beneficiary does NOT follow the rules of the power of sale?  According to the court, because the Trustee allowed the paperwork to be filed in the County Recorder’s Office, the Superior and Federal Courts assume that the contents of the documents are true and correct.  Why is this?  Because the Trustee is to be independent of both parties in the contract and is to be without bias to the information one way or the other.  It is because of this assumed independence that the Trustee is given the presumption of correctness in their actions.

The beneficiaries know that they have owned the Trustee and have since 1998.  They know that the Trustee is not independent and that the Trustee works in the best interest of the beneficiary and with no interest to the borrower.  For this reason, the Trustee will file any document that is filled out by the beneficiaries, or any party acting as a beneficiary, even if all of the information in those documents are a lie, false, and fraudulent.

When Wells Fargo came at me with guns blazing and filing their Notice of Default, I noticed that the documents were filled with incorrect information.  See my post Notice of Default.  The contents of the information were incorrect.  The papers that were being filed were being filed in order to deceive the court so that the beneficiary could quickly foreclose without allowing us the opportunity to rectify the situation from our end.

The beneficiary is able to use the accepted public perception, and the rule of law set down by the CA Supreme Court in 1978, which dictates that the Trustee is independent.  In this independence it is the intent that the Trustee act on behalf of the court.  Therefore the paperwork is considered true and correct because of the presumption of correctness that is given to the Trustee no matter what the information in the paperwork seems to state.  This is how someone who is current on their payments can be foreclosed on.  This is how someone who paid cash can be foreclosed on.

The Trustee has worked for the banks and has been since the Senate Bill 1638 was passed as law and became active law on January 1, 1998.  The courts have turned a blind eye on fact that the beneficiary and the Trustee are to be independent.  The courts have incorrectly allowed or acted in a complicit nature to the fact that the banks and the Trustee are able to work together in a fraudulent manner.  The courts have turned a blind eye to the fact that when there are any changes to a real estate contract they must be signed by all parties.  The State has incorrectly allowed or acted in a complicit nature in order to allow the banks to fraudulently use a deed of trust mortgage since the year 1998.

(NOTE: If you have not read my previous posts on this issue you can do so and catch up by clicking How is your deed of trust VOID?)

The judicial system itself sold out to a law that had been in the books since 1677.  In 1998 when CA Civil Code 2934a was amended through Senate Bill 1638, and instilled into law on January 1, 1998, it was reiterated in the new law that all parties must sign to any changes to the contract agreement.  Because the courts have turned a blind eye to the fact that the Trustee is to be independent is the exact reason that the deed of trust agreement is fraudulent and VOID.  Because the courts and the state have turned a blind eye to the fact that all parties must sign any and all changes or substitutions that are done to the deed of trust agreement also show how corrupt things have become.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

The film “Money Monster” and the fictional truth from behind the cameras

The film “Money Monster” and the fictional truth from behind the cameras exposes how Wall Street continues to lie, cheat, steal allthewhile everyone knows and yet still gives them their money…

Last night I went to see the movie “Money Monster” with George Clooney, Julia Roberts, and Jack O’Connell. This film, directed by Jodie Foster, is an adrenaline filled story with a sub plot about the life of a TV personality, of the likes of CNBC’s Jim Cramer, the loud mouthed soothsayer of all things Wall Street with his show called “Mad Money”. I used to watch his show, to learn and strategize my holdings in the market. I would cross reference what I read in the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, The Economist, or heard on Public Radio’s “Market Place”, or the PBS News Hour. I thought that I was well informed by doing this. Then I read the book “Mobs, Markets, and Messiahs” by Lila Rajiva and Bill Bonner.

We live in what is referred to as the information age. With the advent of the Internet, smartphones and SmartTV’s, information is the worlds most important commodity. Information is valuable because it can affect not only one person’s behavior, decision, or outcome with the truth of what is within the information, but it can be skewed and laiden with falsities in order to make groups of people, or the masses think and act against themselves. To make a populace do things it would not normally do or act on if it did not have certain information.

Information is not truth. According to Merriam-Webster, Information is:
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2): intelligence, news (3): facts, data
b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
c (1): a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2): something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct
d: a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically: a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3: the act of informing against a person
4: a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury

I read this article a while back on the Daily Kos and thought I would repost as this guy is still on the air spreading his shite.

***********************

Jim Cramer Uses CNBC to Manipulate Stocks
by TocqueDeville
Thu Mar 05, 2009

I’ve been waiting for a good time to bring this story to Daily Kos and, since it’s CNBC day (or week hopefully), I figured now would be a good time.

By now, everyone should have heard about the ongoing war that CNBC is waging against the Obama administration and its plans revamp the economy. From it’s constant anti-Obama propaganda and commentary to its shady PR stunt to manufacture a bogus uprising against Obama’s mortgage plan, CNBC has been working overtime as a propaganda front against the Obama agenda.

And now, Jon Stewart has joined in for some good fun. But you haven’t seen real fun until you’ve immersed yourself into the story of Deep Capture.

* TocqueDeville’s diary :: ::
*

This rabbit hole involves the thugs surrounding Jim Cramer and some of the top financial “journalists” from the New York Times, WSJ, Fortune magazine and BusinessWeek, top hedge funds, the Mafia, and the DTCC. It also includes “blackmail, smear campaigns, espionage, fraud, harassment, extortion, bribery, rumor-mongering, sabotage, off-shore money laundering, political cronyism, frivolous lawsuits, witness tampering, biased financial research, false identities, bogus credit ratings, bribery, libelous blogs, bad science, forgery, wiretapping, counterfeiting, collusion, lying, cheating, threats and theft.”

And if that wasn’t fun enough, it may be the underlying story of what collapsed the entire, global banking system or at least served as the catalyst for the collapse.

Unfortunately, this story is so rich and multi-dimensional that I cannot possibly hope to do it justice here. So I will primarily focus on the financial media angle and, specifically, Jim Cramer and his thug cronies.

The story begins when a very highly respected journalist and business editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, Mark Mitchell, decides to look into allegations made by the CEO of Overstock.com, that some top hedge fund managers, in cahoots with a circle of financial analyst and reporters, had conspired to make a lot of money by betting short on companies and then systematically destroying those companies by spreading false negative information about them and employing other tactics such as flooding the market with “phantom shares” to drive down a stocks value.

To understand this you have to understand how short selling works. A short seller will borrow stock (say at $10) and then sell it immediately and pocket the money ($10). Then, when the company’s stock value plummets ($1), they buy it at its deflated value and pocket the difference ($9). This is perfectly legal. But there’s another variety that takes place because of a flaw in the system.

This is where a short seller sells stock that they haven’t actually borrowed yet. There are loopholes that allow shorters to do this legally, but those loopholes have allowed the practice to be abused – which is illegal. Therefore, it is quite easy to fraudulently put on the open market shares of stock that do not, nor ever will, exist. These phantom shares do nothing but crash the value of a stock and therefore make legitimate short transactions highly profitable.

This is what Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne had discovered had been done to his company. Naked short selling combined with bogus financial analysis, lies and rumors propagated by CNBC reporters all served to trash his company’s stock. So he decided to fight back. He gave a big conference call presentation to a bunch of corporate CEOs and broke the story. That’s when Mark Mitchell comes in. (For the record, Byrne is a Republican. I don’t much care for him. But this is completely irrelevant to this story.)

To the 500 Wall Street honchos who listened in to this conference call, Patrick said that a network of miscreants was using a variety of tactics – including naked short selling (phantom stock) – to destroy public companies for profit. He said this scheme had the potential to crash the financial markets, but that the SEC did nothing because the SEC had been compromised – or “captured” – by unsavory operators on Wall Street.

In January 2006, I [Mark Mitchell] was working as an editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, a well-respected ( if somewhat dowdy) magazine devoted to media criticism. Patrick had claimed that some prominent journalists were “corrupt” and were working with prominent hedge funds to cover up the naked short selling scandal, so I called to discuss.

Patrick picked up the phone and said: “Chasing this story will take you down a rabbit hole with no end.” He said that the story had it all – diabolical billionaires, phantom stock, dishonest journalists, crooked lawyers, black box organizations on Wall Street, and a crime that could very well cause a meltdown of our financial system [This was in 2006].

Not only that, Patrick said, but “the Mafia is involved, too.”

Well, Patrick seemed basically sane. I decided to write a story about the basically sane CEO who was fighting the media on an important financial issue while harboring some eccentric notions about the Mafia.

I figured it would take a week.
* * * * * * * *

Months later, my desk was buried under evidence of short seller miscreancy, I had done nothing but investigate this story since the day I first called Patrick, and I had just gone to a topless club to meet a self-professed mobster who told me all about a stockbroker who had peddled phantom shares for the Russian Mafia and the Genovese organized crime family.

Heh, it gets better. But, again, way too long to address here. So back to the media angle:. Here’s Mitchell later on:

I have analyzed well over a thousand stories written by this clique of journalists. The vast majority of them were sourced from a small group of short-sellers who are also friends of Cramer. Other popular sources for this group of journalists include convicted felons, mobsters, dubious private investigators, crooked lawyers, hired stock bashers, and gun-toting goons – most of whom are tied to the Cramer constellation of short-sellers.

Some of the stories written by these reporters are accurate enough. But many are not. The journalists misconstrue data with seemingly purposeful intent. They exaggerate and obfuscate. They publish innuendo or merely repeat, Deus Optimus Maximus, the words of their hedge fund and criminal friends. A single negative story by one of these reporter-thugs can send a company’s stock tumbling by more than 50% — pure profit for their hedge fund sources, who of course sell the company short (often right before the articles are published). Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of the companies targeted by these journalists will also be the victims of phantom stock selling and other shenanigans. The journalists do not mention this in their stories, and in fact go out of their way to deny that phantom stock exists.

Anyone who says otherwise is subjected to a vicious media smear.

To fully appreciate the Jim Cramer angle a little journey to his past is in order. This is from Cramer himself:

“We had it down to a science in 1992: my wife would pick stocks that technically looked ready to go up, or she would keep track of merchandise to see what was down to tag ends. She would then generate a list of stocks that could move quickly on good news. Jeff would then go to work calling the companies to try to find anything good we could say about them. I would call the analysts to see I they were hearing anything. When we found a stock that looked ready technically to break out, or where the supply had been mopped up, and Jeff found something positive at the company, and I knew the analyst community didn’t know anything positive, we would load up with call options and common stock and then give the good news to our favorite analysts who liked the stock so they could go do their promotion. That would get the buzz going and we would then be able to liquidate the position into the buzz for a handsome profit.” (Confessions of a Street Addict, page 61).

This is Cramer’s big secret. He figured out early that the way to make money betting on stocks was to rig the game – control the news and you control a stock’s value. Now he has his own TV show.

Nicholas Maier worked for Cramer until 1998. He quit and wrote a book about it called, Trading with the Enemy: Seduction and Betrayal on Jim Cramer’s Wall Street (New York: HarperCollins, 2002). Here’s an excerpt showing that Cramer was into naked short selling early on:

Jim turns toward his head trader. “Mark, sell ten thousand Bristol Myers.”

“We never bought any Bristol Myers,” Mark replies.

“We own the calls,” Jim corrects Mark impatiently, aggravated by the delay.

“So sell it short?” Mark asks for clarification. Mark knows that according to the SEC rule book, selling stock you don’t already own (even if you do own the call options) must be marked and executed as a short sale.

“You are confusing me with someone who gives a shit. Just sell it! I said hit the fucking bid!” adds Jim, not interested in wasting time over petty semantics. Skirting the “plus tick” rule in this case won’t necessarily make us a lot of extra money, but in Jim’s eyes, the rule is still an unenforceable annoyance. “And don’t ever ask me that again!” (Trading With the Enemy, pages 70-71).

The story of Jim Cramer cannot be fully presented here. BUt here’s an excerpt from Mitchell’s book length expose that will get you into the ballpark:

Cramer, who is a sociopath, owns TheStreet.com with Marty Peretz, who is an aristocrat. Peretz is also the former editor of the New Republic magazine. He dabbles in high finance and Harvard professing, which has resulted in his entrusting a large portion of his family fortune to a close-knit group of hedge fund managers, several of whom were his students. For example, Cramer was his student. Then Cramer was destitute. He lived in a car with a loaded gun hidden under the seat. Eventually, though, Peretz gave Cramer some money to start a hedge fund, which Cramer managed with celebrated ruthlessness until he resolved to seek spiritual enlightenment as a TV news host.

Cramer had originally planned to run his hedge fund out of the offices of Ivan Boesky. Shortly before he was to move in, however, the feds busted Boesky for insider trading, making him one of the most famous criminals of the 1980s. (This is not necessarily to suggest that Boesky is the “Sith Lord” mentioned in Patrick’s “Miscreants Ball” presentation. Some people have wagered that Patrick was referring to Michael Milken, a business colleague of Boesky known as the “junk bond king,” who also went to prison in the 1980s. Patrick has since modified the analogy, saying that the crime has multiple masterminds – “like Al Qaeda”).

When Boesky went to prison, Cramer worked instead with hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt. The media portrays Steinhardt as a financial wizard, a deep thinker and an all-around swell guy. The truth is, he’s a thug who perfected the concept of trading on privileged information, and pounded it into the heads of his employees. “What’s your edge!?” he’d shout, pacing his trading room floor. “What’s your fucking edge!?” After one of Steinhardt’s tirades, a top employee (and the godfather to Steinhardt’s children) had a heart attack. It is said that Steinhardt showed no remorse.

Indeed, Steinhardt has one of the most fearsome reputations on Wall Street. Which is perhaps unsurprising given that Steinhardt’s father, Sol “Red” Steinhardt, was a mobster once described by a Manhattan district attorney as the biggest Mafia fence in America. Steinhardt Sr. worked for the Genovese organized crime family, with goons like Meyer Lansky and Vinnie “Blue Eyes” Alo, before he was sentenced to a number of years in Sing-Sing prison.

By Steinhardt Jr.’s own account, the principal partners in his first hedge fund were the Genovese Mafia, Ivan Boesky, Marty Peretz (the aristocrat who funded Cramer), and a man named Marc Rich. Rich is closely connected to Ronald Greenwald, described in the authoritative book Red Mafiya as the man who, along with the Genovese family, brought the Russian Mob to America.

In 1983, Rich was indicted for trading illegally with Iran while Islamic revolutionaries were holding the American embassy hostage in Tehran. Along with his associate, “Pinky” Green, he fled to Switzerland. In 2001, Steinhardt, a big-time operator in Democratic circles, convinced Bill Clinton to give Rich a scandalous presidential pardon, but Rich remains in Switzerland to avoid paying his tax bill.

In the early 1990s, Steinhardt shut down his hedge fund after he was implicated in a scheme to corner the U.S. treasuries market – a horrendous infraction with serious implications for the U.S. economy.

So this is a rough crowd. Says one Wall Street trader: “It was the day the bad guys came to town — when Steinhardt and his people arrived.”

One of Steinhardt’s people is Jim Cramer. Another is Cramer’s wife, who was known as the “Trading Goddess” when she worked as Steinhardt’s head trader. Maria Bartiromo, a CNBC anchor known as the “Money Honey,” is married to the top partner in Steinhardt’s newest hedge fund. (A former employee of Cramer’s hedge fund has written that Cramer often fed tips to the Money Honey, trading ahead of her stories, and it is rumored that she recruited him to CNBC.)

And then there is David Rocker, the short-selling hedge fund manager believed to be scheming, along with Cramer and Herb, with Gradient Analytics, the financial research shop under SEC investigation in 2006.

Cramer says he’s met Rocker only once – apparently while squeezing the grapefruit at some grocery store. But the truth is, Cramer knows Rocker well. Rocker is a former employee of Steinhardt’s hedge fund. He worked there at the same time as the Trading Goddess.

And, until recently, Rocker was the largest outside shareholder in Cramer’s website, TheStreet.com. Cramer sometimes quotes the hedge fund manager on his television show, and once interviewed him live. Rocker is also a regular writer for TheStreet.com, where he bashes stocks that Cramer subsequently also bashes in multiple stories on both the website and CNBC.

In February 2006, the SEC is investigating Gradient Analytics for disseminating false information about public companies. The agency has affidavits from former employees who say that Gradient’s “independent research” is produced by recent University of Arizona graduates who know little to nothing about finance and essentially take dictation from hedge fund managers, including David Rocker.

One of these employees says that Herb conspired with Rocker to hold his negative stories (premised on Gradient’s false information) until Rocker could establish short positions. This is called front-running – a jailable offense. It is reasonable to suspect that Rocker had similar relationships with TheStreet.com (of which he has owned a substantial portion) and other media.

Not long before Cramer announced his SEC subpoenas, Rocker sold all of his shares in TheStreet.com. Cramer sold around $2 million of his own shares. If Cramer knew about the SEC investigation before he sold his shares, which was almost certainly the case, he was trading on insider information – another jailable offense.

But Cramer don’t know nothin’ about nothin’. And Herb thinks the SEC investigation is an outrage. So Herb and Cramer have commandeered CNBC. They are live on CNBC. Herb has jabbered something about a conspiracy – a conspiracy to get Herb.

And now Cramer is going to show us something.

He’s pulled out a big, red magic marker. Veins are popping, rope-like, from his bald cranium. And he’s snarling. Cramer is actually snarling while he uses the big red magic marker to scribble something on a piece of paper.

He holds the paper up to the camera.

It’s…it’s his government subpoena…Cramer has vandalized his government subpoena! On live TV… in big red letters…

It says, “BULL!”

Jim Cramer is a crook. Wall Street is full of crooks. The next time you see CNBC, keep that in mind. They are not reporting. They are trying to sell you something and, quite possibly, trying to manipulate the market.

Now, one last bit about how this all relates to the financial crisis. The SEC is investigating whether abusive and illegal naked short selling brought down Bear Stearnes and Lehman as well as many other companies.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, 55, told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday the agency is investigating whether illegal trading contributed to the collapse of Bear Stearns in March and the 75 percent drop in the market value of Lehman Brothers this year. The probe focuses on traders who seek to profit by intentionally spreading false information about the New York- based firms.

In the Jon Stewart video, you can see Cramer talking up Bear Stearns. That doesn’t sound like he or one of his hedge fund buddies going short. But remeber, naked short sellers will often try to pump a stock before they trash it to create a wider spread and, consequently, more profit.

But that said, there is some evidence Cramer changed his tune after that SEC subpoena. After mocking people who complained about naked short sellers, he eventually joined the call for reform. Always covering his ass.

Watch Bloomberg’s report, which was inspired by the work of Deep Capture, on Naked Short Selling here.

The truth from behind the curtain…

I found this article on the Daily Kos. I read this periodically and find the information quite interesting. I thought I would pass this one on…

Jim Cramer Uses CNBC to Manipulate Stocks
by TocqueDeville
Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:56:48 PM PDT

I’ve been waiting for a good time to bring this story to Daily Kos and, since it’s CNBC day (or week hopefully), I figured now would be a good time.

By now, everyone should have heard about the ongoing war that CNBC is waging against the Obama administration and its plans revamp the economy. From it’s constant anti-Obama propaganda and commentary to its shady PR stunt to manufacture a bogus uprising against Obama’s mortgage plan, CNBC has been working overtime as a propaganda front against the Obama agenda.

And now, Jon Stewart has joined in for some good fun. But you haven’t seen real fun until you’ve immersed yourself into the story of Deep Capture.

* TocqueDeville’s diary :: ::
*

This rabbit hole involves the thugs surrounding Jim Cramer and some of the top financial “journalists” from the New York Times, WSJ, Fortune magazine and BusinessWeek, top hedge funds, the Mafia, and the DTCC. It also includes “blackmail, smear campaigns, espionage, fraud, harassment, extortion, bribery, rumor-mongering, sabotage, off-shore money laundering, political cronyism, frivolous lawsuits, witness tampering, biased financial research, false identities, bogus credit ratings, bribery, libelous blogs, bad science, forgery, wiretapping, counterfeiting, collusion, lying, cheating, threats and theft.”

And if that wasn’t fun enough, it may be the underlying story of what collapsed the entire, global banking system or at least served as the catalyst for the collapse.

Unfortunately, this story is so rich and multi-dimensional that I cannot possibly hope to do it justice here. So I will primarily focus on the financial media angle and, specifically, Jim Cramer and his thug cronies.

The story begins when a very highly respected journalist and business editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, Mark Mitchell, decides to look into allegations made by the CEO of Overstock.com, that some top hedge fund managers, in cahoots with a circle of financial analyst and reporters, had conspired to make a lot of money by betting short on companies and then systematically destroying those companies by spreading false negative information about them and employing other tactics such as flooding the market with “phantom shares” to drive down a stocks value.

To understand this you have to understand how short selling works. A short seller will borrow stock (say at $10) and then sell it immediately and pocket the money ($10). Then, when the company’s stock value plummets ($1), they buy it at its deflated value and pocket the difference ($9). This is perfectly legal. But there’s another variety that takes place because of a flaw in the system.

This is where a short seller sells stock that they haven’t actually borrowed yet. There are loopholes that allow shorters to do this legally, but those loopholes have allowed the practice to be abused – which is illegal. Therefore, it is quite easy to fraudulently put on the open market shares of stock that do not, nor ever will, exist. These phantom shares do nothing but crash the value of a stock and therefore make legitimate short transactions highly profitable.

This is what Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne had discovered had been done to his company. Naked short selling combined with bogus financial analysis, lies and rumors propagated by CNBC reporters all served to trash his company’s stock. So he decided to fight back. He gave a big conference call presentation to a bunch of corporate CEOs and broke the story. That’s when Mark Mitchell comes in. (For the record, Byrne is a Republican. I don’t much care for him. But this is completely irrelevant to this story.)

To the 500 Wall Street honchos who listened in to this conference call, Patrick said that a network of miscreants was using a variety of tactics – including naked short selling (phantom stock) – to destroy public companies for profit. He said this scheme had the potential to crash the financial markets, but that the SEC did nothing because the SEC had been compromised – or “captured” – by unsavory operators on Wall Street.

In January 2006, I [Mark Mitchell] was working as an editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, a well-respected ( if somewhat dowdy) magazine devoted to media criticism. Patrick had claimed that some prominent journalists were “corrupt” and were working with prominent hedge funds to cover up the naked short selling scandal, so I called to discuss.

Patrick picked up the phone and said: “Chasing this story will take you down a rabbit hole with no end.” He said that the story had it all – diabolical billionaires, phantom stock, dishonest journalists, crooked lawyers, black box organizations on Wall Street, and a crime that could very well cause a meltdown of our financial system [This was in 2006].

Not only that, Patrick said, but “the Mafia is involved, too.”

Well, Patrick seemed basically sane. I decided to write a story about the basically sane CEO who was fighting the media on an important financial issue while harboring some eccentric notions about the Mafia.

I figured it would take a week.
* * * * * * * *

Months later, my desk was buried under evidence of short seller miscreancy, I had done nothing but investigate this story since the day I first called Patrick, and I had just gone to a topless club to meet a self-professed mobster who told me all about a stockbroker who had peddled phantom shares for the Russian Mafia and the Genovese organized crime family.

Heh, it gets better. But, again, way too long to address here. So back to the media angle:. Here’s Mitchell later on:

I have analyzed well over a thousand stories written by this clique of journalists. The vast majority of them were sourced from a small group of short-sellers who are also friends of Cramer. Other popular sources for this group of journalists include convicted felons, mobsters, dubious private investigators, crooked lawyers, hired stock bashers, and gun-toting goons – most of whom are tied to the Cramer constellation of short-sellers.

Some of the stories written by these reporters are accurate enough. But many are not. The journalists misconstrue data with seemingly purposeful intent. They exaggerate and obfuscate. They publish innuendo or merely repeat, Deus Optimus Maximus, the words of their hedge fund and criminal friends. A single negative story by one of these reporter-thugs can send a company’s stock tumbling by more than 50% — pure profit for their hedge fund sources, who of course sell the company short (often right before the articles are published). Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of the companies targeted by these journalists will also be the victims of phantom stock selling and other shenanigans. The journalists do not mention this in their stories, and in fact go out of their way to deny that phantom stock exists.

Anyone who says otherwise is subjected to a vicious media smear.

To fully appreciate the Jim Cramer angle a little journey to his past is in order. This is from Cramer himself:

“We had it down to a science in 1992: my wife would pick stocks that technically looked ready to go up, or she would keep track of merchandise to see what was down to tag ends. She would then generate a list of stocks that could move quickly on good news. Jeff would then go to work calling the companies to try to find anything good we could say about them. I would call the analysts to see I they were hearing anything. When we found a stock that looked ready technically to break out, or where the supply had been mopped up, and Jeff found something positive at the company, and I knew the analyst community didn’t know anything positive, we would load up with call options and common stock and then give the good news to our favorite analysts who liked the stock so they could go do their promotion. That would get the buzz going and we would then be able to liquidate the position into the buzz for a handsome profit.” (Confessions of a Street Addict, page 61).

This is Cramer’s big secret. He figured out early that the way to make money betting on stocks was to rig the game – control the news and you control a stock’s value. Now he has his own TV show.

Nicholas Maier worked for Cramer until 1998. He quit and wrote a book about it called, Trading with the Enemy: Seduction and Betrayal on Jim Cramer’s Wall Street (New York: HarperCollins, 2002). Here’s an excerpt showing that Cramer was into naked short selling early on:

Jim turns toward his head trader. “Mark, sell ten thousand Bristol Myers.”

“We never bought any Bristol Myers,” Mark replies.

“We own the calls,” Jim corrects Mark impatiently, aggravated by the delay.

“So sell it short?” Mark asks for clarification. Mark knows that according to the SEC rule book, selling stock you don’t already own (even if you do own the call options) must be marked and executed as a short sale.

“You are confusing me with someone who gives a shit. Just sell it! I said hit the fucking bid!” adds Jim, not interested in wasting time over petty semantics. Skirting the “plus tick” rule in this case won’t necessarily make us a lot of extra money, but in Jim’s eyes, the rule is still an unenforceable annoyance. “And don’t ever ask me that again!” (Trading With the Enemy, pages 70-71).

The story of Jim Cramer cannot be fully presented here. BUt here’s an excerpt from Mitchell’s book length expose that will get you into the ballpark:

Cramer, who is a sociopath, owns TheStreet.com with Marty Peretz, who is an aristocrat. Peretz is also the former editor of the New Republic magazine. He dabbles in high finance and Harvard professing, which has resulted in his entrusting a large portion of his family fortune to a close-knit group of hedge fund managers, several of whom were his students. For example, Cramer was his student. Then Cramer was destitute. He lived in a car with a loaded gun hidden under the seat. Eventually, though, Peretz gave Cramer some money to start a hedge fund, which Cramer managed with celebrated ruthlessness until he resolved to seek spiritual enlightenment as a TV news host.

Cramer had originally planned to run his hedge fund out of the offices of Ivan Boesky. Shortly before he was to move in, however, the feds busted Boesky for insider trading, making him one of the most famous criminals of the 1980s. (This is not necessarily to suggest that Boesky is the “Sith Lord” mentioned in Patrick’s “Miscreants Ball” presentation. Some people have wagered that Patrick was referring to Michael Milken, a business colleague of Boesky known as the “junk bond king,” who also went to prison in the 1980s. Patrick has since modified the analogy, saying that the crime has multiple masterminds – “like Al Qaeda”).

When Boesky went to prison, Cramer worked instead with hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt. The media portrays Steinhardt as a financial wizard, a deep thinker and an all-around swell guy. The truth is, he’s a thug who perfected the concept of trading on privileged information, and pounded it into the heads of his employees. “What’s your edge!?” he’d shout, pacing his trading room floor. “What’s your fucking edge!?” After one of Steinhardt’s tirades, a top employee (and the godfather to Steinhardt’s children) had a heart attack. It is said that Steinhardt showed no remorse.

Indeed, Steinhardt has one of the most fearsome reputations on Wall Street. Which is perhaps unsurprising given that Steinhardt’s father, Sol “Red” Steinhardt, was a mobster once described by a Manhattan district attorney as the biggest Mafia fence in America. Steinhardt Sr. worked for the Genovese organized crime family, with goons like Meyer Lansky and Vinnie “Blue Eyes” Alo, before he was sentenced to a number of years in Sing-Sing prison.

By Steinhardt Jr.’s own account, the principal partners in his first hedge fund were the Genovese Mafia, Ivan Boesky, Marty Peretz (the aristocrat who funded Cramer), and a man named Marc Rich. Rich is closely connected to Ronald Greenwald, described in the authoritative book Red Mafiya as the man who, along with the Genovese family, brought the Russian Mob to America.

In 1983, Rich was indicted for trading illegally with Iran while Islamic revolutionaries were holding the American embassy hostage in Tehran. Along with his associate, “Pinky” Green, he fled to Switzerland. In 2001, Steinhardt, a big-time operator in Democratic circles, convinced Bill Clinton to give Rich a scandalous presidential pardon, but Rich remains in Switzerland to avoid paying his tax bill.

In the early 1990s, Steinhardt shut down his hedge fund after he was implicated in a scheme to corner the U.S. treasuries market – a horrendous infraction with serious implications for the U.S. economy.

So this is a rough crowd. Says one Wall Street trader: “It was the day the bad guys came to town — when Steinhardt and his people arrived.”

One of Steinhardt’s people is Jim Cramer. Another is Cramer’s wife, who was known as the “Trading Goddess” when she worked as Steinhardt’s head trader. Maria Bartiromo, a CNBC anchor known as the “Money Honey,” is married to the top partner in Steinhardt’s newest hedge fund. (A former employee of Cramer’s hedge fund has written that Cramer often fed tips to the Money Honey, trading ahead of her stories, and it is rumored that she recruited him to CNBC.)

And then there is David Rocker, the short-selling hedge fund manager believed to be scheming, along with Cramer and Herb, with Gradient Analytics, the financial research shop under SEC investigation in 2006.

Cramer says he’s met Rocker only once – apparently while squeezing the grapefruit at some grocery store. But the truth is, Cramer knows Rocker well. Rocker is a former employee of Steinhardt’s hedge fund. He worked there at the same time as the Trading Goddess.

And, until recently, Rocker was the largest outside shareholder in Cramer’s website, TheStreet.com. Cramer sometimes quotes the hedge fund manager on his television show, and once interviewed him live. Rocker is also a regular writer for TheStreet.com, where he bashes stocks that Cramer subsequently also bashes in multiple stories on both the website and CNBC.

In February 2006, the SEC is investigating Gradient Analytics for disseminating false information about public companies. The agency has affidavits from former employees who say that Gradient’s “independent research” is produced by recent University of Arizona graduates who know little to nothing about finance and essentially take dictation from hedge fund managers, including David Rocker.

One of these employees says that Herb conspired with Rocker to hold his negative stories (premised on Gradient’s false information) until Rocker could establish short positions. This is called front-running – a jailable offense. It is reasonable to suspect that Rocker had similar relationships with TheStreet.com (of which he has owned a substantial portion) and other media.

Not long before Cramer announced his SEC subpoenas, Rocker sold all of his shares in TheStreet.com. Cramer sold around $2 million of his own shares. If Cramer knew about the SEC investigation before he sold his shares, which was almost certainly the case, he was trading on insider information – another jailable offense.

But Cramer don’t know nothin’ about nothin’. And Herb thinks the SEC investigation is an outrage. So Herb and Cramer have commandeered CNBC. They are live on CNBC. Herb has jabbered something about a conspiracy – a conspiracy to get Herb.

And now Cramer is going to show us something.

He’s pulled out a big, red magic marker. Veins are popping, rope-like, from his bald cranium. And he’s snarling. Cramer is actually snarling while he uses the big red magic marker to scribble something on a piece of paper.

He holds the paper up to the camera.

It’s…it’s his government subpoena…Cramer has vandalized his government subpoena! On live TV… in big red letters…

It says, “BULL!”

Jim Cramer is a crook. Wall Street is full of crooks. The next time you see CNBC, keep that in mind. They are not reporting. They are trying to sell you something and, quite possibly, trying to manipulate the market.

Now, one last bit about how this all relates to the financial crisis. The SEC is investigating whether abusive and illegal naked short selling brought down Bear Stearnes and Lehman as well as many other companies.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, 55, told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday the agency is investigating whether illegal trading contributed to the collapse of Bear Stearns in March and the 75 percent drop in the market value of Lehman Brothers this year. The probe focuses on traders who seek to profit by intentionally spreading false information about the New York- based firms.

In the Jon Stewart video, you can see Cramer talking up Bear Stearns. That doesn’t sound like he or one of his hedge fund buddies going short. But remember, naked short sellers will often try to pump a stock before they trash it to create a wider spread and, consequently, more profit.

But that said, there is some evidence Cramer changed his tune after that SEC subpoena. After mocking people who complained about naked short sellers, he eventually joined the call for reform. Always covering his ass.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

©copyright 2014-2016 Doug Boggs

Hypocricy

hy·poc·ri·sy –  həˈpäkrəsē/ – noun
1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does to conform; pretense.

synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity;

More antonyms: sincerity
Origin – Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part,’ from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend,’ from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge.’

How can we dig ourselves out of such a hypocritical system?  We live in a financial world where we use words like Trust, Trustee, Deed of Trust.  In 35 of our 50 states, someone who is borrowing money to purchase a home is given a Deed of Trust contract agreement by a financial institution.  In this system, through my own personal lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank for fraud, I uncovered that through revisions that were done to Ca Civil Code 2934a, in 1998, a financial institution is well aware of the fact that a Trustee in a Deed of Trust contract holds no protections for the borrower and the borrower’s title.  The financial institution is well aware that the Trustee is a straw man, and that the bank is able to control and manipulate the borrower’s title the moment the borrower signs the paperwork.  The banks are well aware of this, yet, fail to inform the borrower of this fact, therefore, deceiving the borrower into a false contract agreement making this entire contract void on its face.

We live in a confused hypocritical world where our leaders are filled with empty talk, dishonesty, insincerity, posturing and deceit.  Where their duplicitous nature seems to be the norm.  Where one stands up against drugs and touts the continued need for the failed ‘war on drugs’ only later to be found with cocaine and marijuana after being stopped in a routine traffic violation.  Where another married, white, maleCongressman who stands firm against LGBT or minority rights, is only later to be found shagging an African-American transvestite in the congressional bathroom.

The people in the United States live in a perceived ‘democratic’ society.  But, our own previous President, Jimmy Carter, has called it an Oligarchy.  This oligarchical system where we have our armed forces, at the bequest of American corporations, travel all over the world overturning democratically elected officials of other countries, overthrowing those politicians in order to install a more politically American friendly despot. Of course, all of this is done in the facade of spreading democracy around the world in order for American companies to have a more strategically powerful capitalistic stronghold over another country’s own labor, oil or mineral reserves.

Americans live in a system where we are taught that our vote can make a difference.  Yes, the original ideals of our system of government are the idea of one person one vote, however, history shows us that through the gerrymandering and redistricting of voting boundaries, our one person one vote is shut out to a specifically calculated populace that will create a delegate who will vote, as in many cases found,  for whichever political party that they are paid to do so.

Our ‘democratic’ system is continuously passing new and more refined voting laws that have shut out the elderly, the minorities, the sick and frail to fend for themselves.  These new laws create so much confusion that when people show up to cast their vote, they show their government supplied ID or drivers license, but then they are told that they cannot vote because they do not have the proper new identification that is necessary due to some new rules that was instituted.  Or, that people in these new redistricted areas find that they have less voting centers and must travel many miles to cast their vote, as well as, wait in line for hours on end in order to do so.  I guess it is up to us to find the time to stand in line, as seen recently in Arizona, 6 hours to vote, allthewhile, needing to work 60 hours a week just to keep food on the table.  Fit that into your schedule.  Our government knows that creating a national holiday can be dangerous, because that would make more people have the opportunity to vote.

I think we are all well aware of the fact that our political system is rigged and filled with fraud and corruption.  We know that there are some voting machines that are reporgrammed and tampered with, that change a vote from one party to another, or one candidate to another once the vote is cast, but we can only hope that all of the machines aren’t re-programmed in this way.

We all live in a world where politicians lie in order to acquire the trust of the people who are tasked to vote for them.  Where the Supreme Court has allowed politicians the levity to lie and make it okay to do so in the political arena.  Yet, we are asked to vote for the politician who has the best interest of the public in mind.

We live in a country where the Constitution states that one person is one vote.  We live in a country where a corporation is considered a person.  Albeit, a person who has more rights that another person.  Our Supreme Court ruled in 1818, in the decision of the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward(17 U.S. 518 (1819)), writing: “The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court.” Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

Seven years after the Dartmouth College opinion, the Supreme Court decided Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823), in which an English corporation dedicated to missionary work, with land in the U.S., sought to protect its rights to the land under colonial-era grants against an effort by the state of Vermont(the home of Bernie Sanders) to revoke the grants. Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons. Seven years later, Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men.”

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in the right winged Koch Brother’s private organization called, Citizens United, things have changed dramatically.  Through the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, the United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment. Since, there have been several calls for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood.  While the Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Stevens’ dissent claims that the majority opinion relies on an incorrect treatment of corporations’ First Amendment rights as identical to those of individuals.  Riiiiiiight…

We live in a system where that one person is allowed a maximum political contribution of $2700, yet, due to the ruling of Citizen’s United, corporations are allowed to give unlimited amounts to any specific candidate.  Perfect way to keep an oligarchy running.

As you may have been these last few days, people rush to complete their tax filings.  Yet, it is well documented and public knowledge, which most people seem to refuse to acknowledge or believe, that the income tax system of the United States was never ratified by all of the states and because of that fact that there is absolutely NO law that requires any person in the country to pay their hard earned money to the IRS.  Many people cannot wrap their head around the fact that our tax system is designed around a private corporation, called The Internal Revenue Service.  This private company is tasked to extort and collect money from the citizens of the United States in order to pay another private corporation called The Federal Reserve.

We must have the courage to take deeper look into the hypocrisy of our society and what we as a society are going to do change our systems to allow us to live in a more sincere civilization.  It is our responsibility to create the world we wish to live in.  We cannot ask those hypocritical leaders to create a sincere civilization.  In the words of Mark Twain, “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

©copyright 2014-2016 Doug Boggs

CA Civ Code 2934(a) and why EVERY Deed of Trust agreement is void!

The state of CA is a Deed of Trust state.  Which means there is a note and a deed of trust agreement attached with a real estate contract agreement.  The state courts use a non-judicial foreclosure process in which to administer a foreclosure procedure.  The idea of a non-judicial foreclosure process is that it gives the judicial power over to the trustee to administer the foreclosure through the rules of CA Civ Code 2924, which is known as the Power of Sale clause in a deed of trust agreement.  In a non-judicial foreclosure process there is a presumption of correctness that is given to the trustee by the court as it is the job of the trustee to act in the best interests of the court.  It was stated by the CA Supreme Court that the trustee be at arms length and independent of both parties to the agreement in order to create fairness.  It is the job of the trustee to protect the Title from any wrongdoing of either party during the life of the contract agreement.

The fact that the trustee holds no power to protect the borrower from any wrongdoing from the bank in a foreclosure process means that the idea of the trustee and a deed of trust are corrupted as the trustee is a strawman.

Read thoroughly through CA Civ code 2934a.  This code was changed in 1998.   Herein, we will look at the rules as they are written to be effective after January 1, 1998.  I urge you to take a look to a side by side review of the code as it was written prior to January 1, 1998.

In its changes it takes away the powers of the trustee. It gives the power of the trustee, to protect the Trustor’s title from the beneficiary, back to the beneficiary. Which means that the beneficiary is in control of protecting the Trustor’s title and not the trustee, as it is assumed and outlined in the Power of Sale clause, or Ca Civ Code 2924, of a Deed of Trust contract agreement in the state of CA.

The bank knows this, yet, gives the borrower a deed of trust agreement to sign without informing the borrower that the details in the deed of trust are false which make the Power of Sale clause invalid.  The bank does not inform the borrower that the borrower has no protections to their title as soon as they sign the agreement, and that the bank is able to do whatever it wishes to the borrower’s title whenever they wish to do it. This is fraud by the misrepresentation of a material fact.

Because the banks know this information and neglect to inform the borrower of this important detail, that the trustee to a deed of trust contract is a strawman, then there is not a meeting of the minds to the contract agreement. The contract was constructed by the bank against the borrower without the borrower having all of the same information as the bank, as per the rules of the contract. Due to there not being a meeting of the minds to the contract prior to the signing of the contract, and that the rules of the contract are deceptive in nature and benefit one party over the other to the benefit of the bank constructing the contract, this is fraud by the misrepresentation of a material fact.

This also goes against the rules of the CA Supreme Court as per the independence of the trustee necessary in order to protect the interest of both parties involved in a deed of trust.

Through the rules that dictate contract law, and through the Statute of Frauds(1677), it is given that any and all changes in any real estate contract must be done in writing and signed by all parties involved in the contract.  There must be a meeting of the minds of the rules governing the contract or the contract is to be deemed void.

There are currently 35 states in the United States that use a Deed of Trust agreement.  There is legislation in nearly all of the other states to conform to a deed of trust and non-judicial foreclosure process.  There are similar rules in all states that allow this to take place.

 

CA Civil Code 2934a

2934(a)(1) “…a trustee may be substituted by the recording in the county in which the property is located of a substitution executed and acknowledged by: (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…”

This states that the beneficiary is allowed to name a trustee to be substituted, and acknowledge that they have done so and file that in the county recorder’s office.

It is also the job of the trustee to be independent in nature and arms length from either party to the transaction, as per a CA Supreme Court ruling, in order to make sure that all of the rules of the Power of Sale clause are to be followed by both parties in order to protect the interests of either party as to their relationship with the Title. Therefore, if there are any changes to the deed of trust contract it is the obligation of the trustee to make sure that all of the rules are correctly followed and the documents are correct in their information.

this means that the beneficiary is in full control of the trustor’s title, the Power of Sale process, and that the trustee is indeed a strawman.

2934a(4)(b) “If the substitution is executed, but not recorded, prior to or concurrently with the recording of the notice of default, the beneficiary, or beneficiaries, or their authorized agents shall cause notice of the substitution to be mailed prior to or concurrently with the recording thereof…”

As it is the job of the trustee to make sure that all of the rules of the Power of Sale are followed by either party in order to protect the interest of either party in the transaction, the question then lies, “how could the substitution take place and be ececuted without the knowledge of the trustee, or the signing off by the trustor?”

this means that the beneficiary is in full control of the trustor’s title, the Power of Sale process, and that the trustee is indeed a strawman.

2934a(4)(c) “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…”

this means that the beneficiary is in full control of the trustor’s title, the Power of Sale process, and that the trustee is indeed a strawman.

2934a(4)(d) “…the substitution of trustee shall be deemed to be authorized to act as the trustee under the mortgage or deed of trust for all purposes from the date the substitution is executed by the mortgage, beneficiaries, or by their agents. Nothing herein requires that a trustee under a recorded substitution must accept the substitution…”

this means that the beneficiary is in full control of the trustor’s title, the Power of Sale process, and that the trustee is indeed a strawman.

NOTICE: I am not an attorney and am not herein offering any legal advice. This is form informational purposes only. For legal advice please consult your own attorney.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

©copyright 2014-2016 Doug Boggs

Statute of Frauds

I wrote in the last post about the Statute of Frauds in hopes that you might take a bit of time to review the rules that I specified in order to follow and learn, as I did, how my mind was beginning to learn and process information. I wanted to show you what questions began to arise and why. I want you to be able to expand your thinking, as I had to, so that you don’t do as I did and take any document on its face, as if it were legitimate, simply because it seemed official and it was registered in the County records. This, I began to find, means absolutely nothing.

As we were doing research, and we began to put our complaint together with our paralegal, specific questions began to arise. We were curious as to this new entity named NDEX West, LLC. This company was never part of our original contract paperwork. How could they be involved now at this point? We had no documentation sent to us previously regarding their inclusion into the contract. The foreclosure paperwork that began on Dec. 28, 2010, was sent to us by NDEX West. Yet, who are they? How do they have any part of our Deed of Trust? If they do have any participation in our contract where is the valid legal proof of this?

I thought that if the bank did not comply with the law, in the process of their attempts to foreclose on us, then they are in fact the party that is in Breach of Contract. If this new party, NDEX West, was not legally part of the contract then they have no right to be sending us documents on behalf of the bank. I couldn’t find any points that they did in fact have any right, and I felt that they could not legally prove that they have the right to initiate any part of the foreclosure process. As I have posted previously the rules which govern the foreclosure process, in the state of CA, are outlined in California Civil Code 2924.

(NOTE: Some codes have been rewritten or modified, or have become updated law. Remember to review the codes that are pertinent to the rule of law for the contract at the time of the crime.)

My pressing questions that were keeping me up at night seemed simple to me. How can the bank legally initiate the non-judicial foreclosure process by filing fraudulent information, beginning in the first document, named Declaration by Wells Fargo Bank, sent to the court regarding the foreclosure? In this document, if you recall, they checked a box which stated that they tried all attempts to contact us regarding our breach of contract, but failed to get a hold of us. This was a lie, since we had been in contact with the bank a few times a week for the previous year and a half in our lengthy attempts to modify our loan. We had previously been current on our payments, until they advised us to stop paying in order to better qualify for any modification program.

The bank checked the box relating to the code 2923.5(g) which stated that they had tried ALL of the numerous attempts outlined within that code to contact us, but were unable to. As the code read, that in order to comply with this rule, the bank would have had to comply with ALL of the items within the code. Not some, but ALL. Yet, the bank was stating their compliance with the code 2923.5(g), in that they could not find us. By checking this box in the Declaration, they were stating to the courts that because they claim to have made all of these attempts to contact us, yet were unable to contact us so, that because of this, they could begin the “fast track” process of foreclosure. They checked the box regarding CA Civil Code 2923.5(g), because they were claiming that they were unable to locate us in order for them to allow us to attempt to rectify our breach. So, in their submission of this document to the County Recorder’s Office they committed a fraud against the court, therefore the bank is in breach of contract.

I began to research Fraud itself. As I was doing so, I came upon what is known as the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds (29 Car 2 c 3) (1677) is an Act of the Parliament of England enacted on April 16, 1677. This rule of law is still active and pertinent law in the United States. It required that certain types of contracts, wills, and grants, assignment or surrender of leases or interest in real property must be in writing and signed by all parties involved to avoid fraud on the court by perjury and subornation of perjury. It also required that documents of the courts be signed and dated.

Let’s look at this for a moment. The contract that we were dealing with was a Deed of Trust mortgage contract. This means that it was dealing with real property. Ok, check.

Was it in writing? Yes, check.

So, then if all assignments or surrender of interest must be in writing, were they? Did our original trustee sign off their interest to this new entity, named NDEX West? No.

Was it done in writing? No.

Did all parties sign off on this? No.

Did the bank lie, or commit a fraud against the court, in their stated attempts to contact us regarding our breach? Yes.

Can you start to see how things can begin to formulate themselves? We are still in the early stages of all of this, but I think that you can begin to see that, in my case, beginning from the first document, that the banks began to defraud the court in order to quickly foreclose on us and not allow us the opportunity to rectify any breach. You can begin to see that the non-judicial foreclosure system which allowed the bank to defraud the court is indeed flawed. You can begin to see that there is no true oversight to the documents that the bank was submitting to the court. You can begin to see that the Count Recorder’s office is not in the position of verifying the legitimacy of documents to be submitted, but recording documents to the county record. They record the document, they do not verify the legitimacy of the contents of the document. That, I began to learn, was the job of the Trustee.

So, the Trustee we had on our Deed of Trust, named Golden West Savings Association Service Company, did not do their job correctly. As the Trustee of record they did not verify the legitimacy of the documents being submitted to the County Recorder’s Office. They were not the entity submitting the documents that were initiating the non-judicial foreclosure procedure against us. They did not legally transfer any part of their right to title to any other entity, namely NDEX West. They did not inform us of any transfer of any of their rights. Because there was not legal transfer done.

I welcome those reading my story. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

©copyright 2014 Doug Boggs