Tag Archives: power of sale clause

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

How is your deed of trust VOID?

How is your deed of trust VOID?  The example herein will be using CA law, however keep in mind that there are 34 other states that use deeds of trust.  Due to the nature of the foreclosure fraud that happens throughout the country in EVERY state, there is a sure chance that there are similar laws and rules that dictate a similar scenario in your state.

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

If someone lends you money it seems quite natural to pay them back for that action.  This is the world we have all seemingly agreed to live within.  In our global paradigm of capitalism it is natural to most people that it is honorable and just to pay the lending party back for the money that was borrowed.  This seems fair and responsible to want to pay back the lending party for their generosity.  This is something that I have heard from everyone that I have spoken to on this subject.  Sometimes there are transactions that have the person who lent the money receive interest for the money that they lent the borrowing party. All of this seems quite natural in the order of things.  People find it honorable and their personal responsibility and duty to return borrowed money.  This seems to be human nature.

There are also times when money gets exchanged and there is a contract involved outlining the details of the exchange.  In normal contract law, both parties must understand all of the details that are outlined within the documents.  It is the obligation of the contracting party(lender) to make sure that the borrower understands all of the details that pertain to the contract.  If there are certain details that are within the contract that the borrower does not understand it is the job of the lender to make clear of any questions or concerns for the borrower.  There must be a “meeting of the minds”.  Everyone must be “on the same page”.  This means simply that the lender and the borrower must know and understand all of the terms of the contract and must agree to all of the terms of the contract.

Now, let’s put this into a context using real estate.  In this context, the contract MUST be in writing.  This dates back to a law called the Statute of Frauds, back to the year 1677.  All of the terms and conditions of the contract MUST be clear and understood by the borrower, as we said that this is standard contract rules.  In real estate, the contract, through the life of the contract, MUST be signed by all parties within the contract.  This comes from the Statute of Frauds.  If there are changes in a contract, then the changes or amendments create a new contract between the parties, therefore, all parties must sign off on any changes throughout the duration of the contract.  Seems fair, right?  If this doesn’t take place and there is confusion about any of the terms of the contract this means that the contract is voidable.

What if the lender does not inform the borrower of certain terms and conditions that are in the contract?  This would mean there is never a meeting of the minds and the contract is voidable. However, what would happen if the lending party actually deceived the borrower, by hiding certain details that exist in some of the terms of the contract, in order to entice the borrower into signing a contract that if the borrower were to know that information would not sign the contract?  These details that are withheld are paramount to the meaning of the contract itself and if the borrower were to have known the details of this withheld information prior to signing the documents they would have not agreed to the terms of the contract.

If this were to happen then the contract is not voidable, it is VOID.  The contract is not worth the paper it is printed on.  This is due to the fact that the lending party knowingly defrauded the borrower by not informing the borrower of imperative details of the contract agreement, so therefore through the actions and choices made by the lender in an attempt to deceive the borrower in order to create the transaction, the contract is VOID.  The borrowed money doesn’t need to be paid back because it was created out of fraud.  If a contract is created out of fraud it is not voidable, the contract is void.  This is clear law.  It is VOID because it was knowingly created in order to deceive one party over the other.  So, the party who attempted to deceive the other is out that money due to the risk of deception they chose to enter into in order to orchestrate the contract agreement.

Everyone knows that there is some level of deception in a monetary transaction when they go to the table in Vegas to gamble.  Everyone knows that the house always wins.  However, in real estate we don’t normally think that we are being deceived when we borrow money to buy a property.  In this case, your house doesn’t win, you lose your house.

This is what happens everyday, in every deed of trust contract, in CA, and all other states throughout the country.  Again, we will use CA as an example for this, but there are another 34 other states in the United States that use deeds of trust.  And many of the other states are attempting to pass legislation that will create deeds of trust states.  If you are a homeowner then this is what happened to you, or your family, your neighbor and every homeowner you know who borrowed money using the regular avenues of institutional financing.  This has been happening in the state of CA everyday, on nearly every deed of trust agreement since the year 1998.  Whether the property is valued at $1 or $100,0000,000, or more.

How is that?  Some of this is laid out in my previous post found here, but we’ll go over it again in order to make things clear.  Do review the previous post as well for a broader scope of information and point of view.

It is hard for people to grasp that they have been swindled when they are still in their homes, are paying for their money that they borrowed and no one is knocking on their door demanding for their money.  Life seems “normal”.  It seems that all is okay and that they were not defrauded.  I hear it every time I talk with people.  They say, “Oh, that didn’t happen in my case, because everything is going well.”  However, you have been swindled and the bank is betting on your moral compass that you will pay them for defrauding you.  And the banks are winning.  You’ve all been duped.

But, what if the contract were VOID and you didn’t have to pay back the bank for defrauding you out of your hard earned money?  How would that change your life?  How would that change our society?  What would you do with all of that money?  How different would your life be if you didn’t have to pay back the bank every month for their deceptive behavior?  It was their actions, not yours, which dictated the result of them not receiving their money back because they lent the money through deceptive means.  Why should the bank be rewarded the return of their money if the only way for you to borrower it was to deceive you?

What makes the banking industry immune to the rule of law?  Why are they able to lie to every borrower in order to secure a contract?  Why are they able to cheat every borrower out of hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars on a monthly basis?  Every month, every year, for decades?  Every month a property owner receives a statement requesting payment for a mortgage.  Every month a property owner is deceived out of their money through this statement from the financial institution requesting payment for the VOID contract that they are collecting on.  Every month, on every deed of trust real estate contract, the bank is defrauding you of your money.  This is mail fraud, and this goes on for each contract throughout the country, month after month, year after year.

How are the banks able to steal homes when someone paid cash for their home and never had a bank in the transaction?  How are banks able to steal homes from people who are current on their mortgage?  If these actions can happen does this mean that the entire system is wrong?

No, actually.  There are laws in place that are designed to orchestrate a proper real estate transaction.  The laws just aren’t being followed or policed.  What it means is that the entire system is corrupt, that’s all.  The systems that pertain to real estate are the lending system and the judicial system.  Both are corrupt in this transaction, otherwise we would have had solutions to this specific issue and I wouldn’t need to be writing this.  But, this is not the case, and I am sitting here writing.

You see,  in 1978, the CA Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Garfinkle v Superior Court for Contra Costa County, respondent being Wells Fargo Bank, specifically detailing the independence of the trustee in a deed of trust agreement.  The independence is what makes the deed of trust work.  They were clear on this, because the Trustee in the transaction is given the power of the court in the transaction.  The independence is what makes the “court” fair and just.

In CA, the process of foreclosing on a borrower is called a non-judicial foreclosure procedure.  The non-judicial foreclosure process was created in order to alleviate any burdens to the court system of any frivolous lawsuits and to help streamline the foreclosure process.  So, if the Superior Court was taken out of the foreclosure process, then another party needed to be reinstated to act as the court in order to conduct a fair and just foreclosure procedure.  So, as the “court” now being the trustee, which the CA Supreme Court ordered was to be independent to both the lender and the borrower in the real estate transaction, they are the rule of law.  It is their position to act independent of all parties and to make sure that both parties in the transaction follow the rules of law as it pertains to a deed of trust agreement.

These rules are outlined in the CA Civil Codes.  The Civil Codes create rules which dictate what is known as a Power of Sale clause that is in a deed of trust real estate agreement.  This rule is CA Civil Code 2924.  When the borrower defaults on the loan payments the Power of Sale becomes activated and the bank is able to begin the foreclosure process.  However, there are also a set of rules with which the lender must comply with.  They must comply each and every rule in order for the non-judicial foreclosure process to be done in accordance to the rule of law. If there is a rule that is missed or done incorrectly, it is the duty of the Trustee stop the foreclosure process.  It is then their duty as “the court” to make the banks comply with the certain code that they failed to comply with.  In other words, the foreclosure process must stop, the lender must make the efforts to comply with the rules of foreclosure and begin the foreclosure action again so that the lender then does in fact comply with all of the rules as they pertain to the foreclosure civil codes and rules of procedure.

So, if the bank doesn’t comply with the rules accordingly, the Trustee is able to stop the bank from wrongly foreclosing on the borrower.  One would think, but no.  It is this reason that people who have paid cash for their home are able to be foreclosed on.  It is for this reason that someone who is current on their mortgage can be foreclosed on.

You see, in the year 1996, the bank lobbyists wrote Senate Bill 1638.  It was brought to the table by then Republican Senator Ross Johnson and signed into law by then Republican Governor Pete Wilson.  This bill became enacted law on January 1, 1998, to amend CA Civil Code 2934a, which is part of the Power of Sale.  What was it that was in this bill that created every deed of trust to become VOID?

 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.

So, as an alternative procedure, the new law set forth the procedures for the substitution of trustee under a deed of trust upon real property.  So, this new law pertains to the party (beneficiary) or beneficiaries under the deed of trust who hold more than a 50% control of the record beneficial interest of the note or a series of notes secured by the property.  In other words, this new law allows the beneficiary to be the party to dictate the substitution of a trustee under a deed of trust.  It goes on to state that in order to substitute a trustee that all parties to the transaction would be required to sign and record a document containing specified information.

Let’s tear this apart.

If the bank is the beneficiary, which in many cases is so, then this gives the bank the power to substitute a new trustee.  So, this means that if an original or other substituted trustee is not allowing the bank to perform illegal actions against the borrower, this law gives the bank the right to substitute to a trustee who will allow the bank to perform illegal actions on behalf of the bank in order to wrongly foreclose on someone.  It also means that every borrower must be a party to sign the substituted trustee when the bank is attempting to do this action.

Now, let’s tear this apart further.

If a bank chooses to foreclose on a borrower who is current on their mortgage and the Trustee is not allowing the bank to file the necessary fraudulent documents into the court, or the County Recorder’s Office, because the bank is unable to prove that the borrower has defaulted on their obligation, then the new law has now given the bank the right to change that Trustee to a party who will comply with the illegal activities of the bank who is choosing to illegally foreclose on someone.  So, let’s take this a bit further.  If someone has paid cash for their home and the bank’s computer spits out an address through their foreclosure software, or a human being puts in an address 222 instead of an 888 into the address of the party to be foreclosed, and there is no independent trustee to put a stop to the wrongdoing, then the wrong home will be foreclosed on.

So, when the bank offers the borrower a deed of trust agreement in the real estate transaction, it would be only natural for you as a borrower to assume that there is an independent Trustee that is in the transaction to make sure that the bank complies with all of the appropriate rules and regulations of the foreclosure process in order to protect your title, your home, your asset. The fact that the bank does not inform the borrower that they know that they can replace a Trustee who acts in the interests of the bank, and holds no interest to act on behalf of the borrower in order to protect the borrower’s title, is fraud.  Because this is fraud, the contract is VOID.

Would you sign a real estate contract if the bank, or realtor, told you that the trustee will not act on your behalf and will not protect your title if the bank were to decide to foreclose on you whether you defaulted, or whether you were current on your payments?  No, nobody would.

The courts have also allowed, because of this rule, the banks the ability to substitute the trustee in all deed of trust real estate transactions for decades.  They have also allowed this action to take place without the borrower’s signature, as it was outlined in the new law, as well as, the Statute of Frauds rule dating back to 1677.

The Trustee is a strawman.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines a strawman as a third party used as a cover in illegal or shady deals; a weak or flawed person with no standing.  So, if the banks know that they have the power to create a strawman for a trustee then there is in fact no independent trustee in the transaction as it was defined by the CA Supreme Court in 1978.

So, the law states that there is to be an independent party, named Trustee, in a deed of trust agreement.  But, the banks have the power to substitute a new trustee.  The courts have allowed the banks to levy this power without the borrower’s signature since 1998.

So, it is very clear that every deed of trust contract agreement that has been signed since the year 1998 is fraudulent.

How did I find this out?

When the very first documents in my non-judicial foreclosure action had incorrect information in them allowing Wells Fargo bank to quickly and illegally foreclose on me, I began to look into the computer archives at the county recorder’s office for a legitimate deed of trust agreement and a legitimate Substituted Trustee that was signed by all parties involved in the transaction, as the 1996 law stated was to be the case, I had to go back into the archives to the year 1997.  It was only then when I began to look into why.

When I began to understand the gravity of this specific issue, I realized that this was the needle in the haystack that no one is talking about.

When I formulated my argument in the court for the 4th Amended Complaint, Judge McGuiness of Superior Court in Alameda County looked me straight in the eyes and told me he understands what I am trying to state.  That he now fully understands my argument. He stated that he gets my points of fact and he would need to take this into consideration.

Why didn’t he simply rule on my case then?  Because the courtroom was filled with people.  Because it would become precedent and common knowledge that all deeds of trust, in CA, were fraudulent and illegal and VOID.  Since 1998…This would have created a situation that would have made every real estate contract either go into litigation and become VOID dating back to 1998, or certainly some other repercussion that was to be measured only as astronomical in our capitalistic paradigm.  But, I believed it is necessary for us to make these type of changes since the entire system is actually based on fraud.  And this is only the beginning.

My case was immediately dismissed and my court files were quickly silenced.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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