Tag Archives: CA Civ Code 2934a

Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah​ and a CA Boo Boo Part One

0Shares
By Doug Boggs                July 12, 2019

I personally don’t know if one might find bagels at a Bar Mitzvah, but I do know of a CA Boo Boo.

I recently found myself lost in a website reading through a Comment thread from a post named “Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah” and came across some interesting exchanges. This process wound me through a few different paths and down some shill filled rabbit holes. It was in that chaos of information that I came across a CA boo boo.

Now for clarity, this CA boo boo was not a code or quotable precedent but a moniker to a commenter whom I then followed a few thought trails. I will borrower this moniker though to help make my metaphor, thank you very much. The CA boo boo that I will be showing in this post stems from California’s SB1638. This legislation that the state Senate voted on in the summer of 1996 made a change to CA Civil Code 2934a that began on January 1, 1998. You can follow and learn more on this issue by visiting my previous post dedicated specifically to senate bill 1638. This legislative debacle helped to create arguments for Fraud and Standing to be viable causes of action to address in any given foreclosure. This legislation also made every deed of trust in the state, since January 1, 1998, void. That is a CA boo boo.

If every deed of trust is found to be void due to the fact that there is no independent trustee then that would bring up the question of Standing. Perhaps an argument in the alternative. Standing, or the argument for the lack thereof, is gaining some momentum in foreclosure courts as of lately. I find it a valuable cause of action because in all of the loan securitization audits that I have ever reviewed from anywhere across the country I have found fraud, forgery, and corruption leading to an argument for Standing, to say the least. Although, an argument for standing vs a ruling in your favor regarding your argument for standing is two different things. Due to corrupt courts, there are no guarantees about anything and therefore everything must be questioned.

What I have found is that most lawyers and nearly all of any Pro Se litigants take too much information for granted as prima facie. The Latin term prima facie means “at first glance,” or “at first appearance,” and it is generally used to describe how a situation appears on initial observation. In the legal system, prima facie is commonly used to refer to either a piece of evidence which is presumed to be true when first viewed or a legal claim in which enough evidence is presented to support the validity of the claim. In the U.S. legal system, there must be a prima facie case in order to commence legal proceedings, meaning that there must be enough evidence at first glance to assume that the plaintiff has a valid legal claim. This does not mean there must be sufficient evidence to prove the claim when filing, as determining the presence and truth of such evidence is the purpose of the trial system. The term prima facie is sometimes confused with the term res ipsa loquitor, which means “the thing speaks for itself.” Res ipsa loquitur may be used to refer to a situation in which the facts make it self-evident that the negligence, liability, or responsibility for damages lies with a party, based on the very nature of the accident or injury.

However, Res ipsa loquitur aside, if you don’t go down every rabbit hole this can come back to bite you in the proverbial ass. The difference between these two terms is that prima facie means there is enough evidence to file or pursue a case. Res ipsa loquitur means that the facts are so obvious that there is no need for further explanation. Let’s look further into that.

In my reviews of countless legal foreclosure cases, every legal team acting on behalf of any financial institution or beneficiary has filed facts as Res ipsa loquitur. When I was put in this position I chose to Respond and argue that nothing is self-evident in a non-judicial foreclosure. This is due to the idea of the self-evidence in a non-judicial foreclosure stems from the check and balance of the independence of the trustee who is ordered to participate in the transaction at arms length. In other words, it was the intent of the court to place the trustee to act on its behalf. This is where the filings of the trustee, as per the rules of the power of sale clause, come into play under the guise of their presumption of correctness. Since it is the intent of the law that the trustee is to act independently of either party in order to best protect the title as per the power of sale clause in a deed of trust agreement, thereby creating the presumption of correctness to any document filed, by amendment to the civil code of the power of sale clause negating the independence of the trustee thereby eliminates any presumption of correctness of the trustee acting as the adjudicating arm of a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding. The presumed protections to the borrower, or title owner, have all but been eliminated when the foreclosing party is able to file any document whether it is true or not in order to quickly and fraudulently foreclose since the trustee is acting on behalf of the foreclosing party. In order for this trustee to act on behalf of the judiciary, it was deemed by the CA Supreme Court to be independent. Because of this independence, it was assumed that the documents and rules to be followed in a non-judicial foreclosure are Res ipsa loquitur. However, since the SB1638 legislative decision in 1996 took away the independence of the trustee in a deed of trust agreement it is a veritable no-man’s-land in the legal lawless world of foreclosure. Res ipsa loquitur be damned. Question everything!

The amendment to CA Civil Code 2934a, due to the approved legislation of SB 1638(1996) gave the banks the power to replace a trustee at their discretion. Remember, the CA boo boo. This simply means that it is the bank’s decision, and no other party to the contract, as to who will hold the position as trustee in the deed of trust agreement. This defies all aspects of basic contract law and the Statute of Frauds (1677). Firstly, because the lender never tells the borrower that the borrower holds no control of their title as soon as they sign the contract agreement. The lender never informs the borrower that the lender can and will sell the borrower’s title on Wall Street and profit from that sale with no financial gain given to the borrower or title holder. The lender never informs the borrower that they could be foreclosed on at any given time for no reason and no rules need to be followed whatsoever as soon as the power of sale clause to the signed contract. This is a misrepresentation of facts on the lender’s part which is the basis of fraud. There is no meeting of the minds in the contract negotiation, thereby making the contract void. Since the contract is void there is nothing else to argue…however…

So, based on this path of logic drawn from the 1996 CA Senate, it is safe to say that if a trustee finds fraud, misrepresentation of facts or misleading information in any filings from any lender or beneficiary and calls them out on that claiming the lender cannot file that specific document or fulfill that specific rule of the power of sale clause of the civic code until they rectify the issue, the lender has the legal authority to replace them with a trustee they feel more inclined to work with who will do the bidding of the lender. This means that the trustee is not independent. The independence of the trustee was ruled on by the CA Supreme Court in 1978 case Garfinkle v Superior Court of Contra Costa County [21 Cal.3d 268}.

The facts are all there, but what is prima facie and what is res ipsa loquitur? Is it prima facie or res ipsa loquitur that the financial institution can file for foreclosure because they wrote the contract? Not one of the documents filed in any non-judicial foreclosure can be construed as either prima facie or res ipsa loquitur based on the fact that there is no independent trustee in the deed of trust agreement. The judicial and legal system placed the independence of the trustee as the pivotal point to allowing a non-judicial foreclosure to be legal and a valid means of litigation outside of the courts. it is through the independence of the trustee that gives the power of correctness to any and all documents being filed in a power of sale clause. However, if the banks can control and manipulate the trustee and negate the independence of the deed of trust agreement allowing them file any forged or fraudulent document to the court in order to foreclose on someone the whole idea of the non-judicial foreclosure as legitimate is defeated.

Since this is the world we live in let’s take things to the very basics and review when a homeowner begins receiving foreclosure documents. Is the original lender of record on the agreement the same as the lender acting as the foreclosing party? If so, does that lender have the right to write an agreement in the first place? Were they legitimately in business and granted the ability to do business in that state by the Secretary of State in order to construct a legally binding document? If so, did they follow every rule of contract law?…and we move forward from there.

What inspired me to write about the CAbooboo in this way was when I read through their comments of the thread from “Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah” and saw that all of the parties to the foreclosure in their case was the same as I had in mine. In Part Two, we will move forward and see how BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS, LLP, World Savings, Wachovia, and Wells Fargo all have to do with one another and how they continue to run large scale fraud against the court and every party to a foreclosure they are party to.

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my blog. 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.

 

©2014-2019 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

 

0Shares

Why the judge silenced my court documents

5Shares

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

5Shares

The Trustee is given the presumption of correctnes

0Shares

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

0Shares