Tag Archives: substitution of trustee

Dear David,

51Shares

Dear David,

You are in the state of CA, therefore, ALL of the documents pertaining to the borrower’s (your) original deed of trust purchase agreement are fraudulent on its face and therefore VOID.  This is true, but very difficult to argue in the court of law due to the fact that if the court negates your contract on this issue, it means that the court contends that every deed of trust contract in CA is VOID.  No court wants to rule on this.  So, it must be argued carefully and precisely and in a way to which a court might rule in your favor.

(This post is In response to a comment and email exchanges to a reader.)

The bank misrepresented and deceived the borrower at the inception of the deed of trust agreement.  The bank substituted a Trustee without your permission, acceptance or knowledge.  This is against the Statue of Frauds (1677) wherein EVERY change in a real estate contract MUST be agreed to and signed by ALL parties involved in the agreement throughout the life of the agreement.  This is BASIC real estate contract law.  The other problem with the substituted change is that the bank did this without your knowledge or consent.  This means that they are able to change the Trustee at their will.  According to SB1638 (1998) the bank is allowed to change the Trustee at their discretion.  This means that the acting Trustee is not allowed to NOT be substituted if they deem so otherwise.  This means that the Trustee is NOT independent, as it was ruled by the CA Supreme Court in 1978 in Garfinkle v Superior Court of Contra Costa County [21 Cal.3d 268}.  The independence of the Trustee is deemed imperative to the non-judicial foreclosure process because the courts have given the Trustee the presumption of correctness.  This means that it is the intention of the non-judicial process that the Trustee act as the court and therein what the Trustee states as true and correct is deemed true and correct.  This is due to the fact that the Trustee is to be independent as based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1978.  However, in 1996, the Senate Bill 1638 became enacted law in 1998.  This Bill allowed the banks to substitute the Trustee at the will of the bank.  This means that the Trustee is controlled by the financial institution.  This means that there is no independence of a Trustee at the inception of the Deed of Trust agreement.  This means that if the bank does not inform the borrower of this fact at the inception of the contract agreement then they have deceived the borrower into using a Deed of Trust agreement.  This means that through this misrepresentation by the banks of the material fact that the Trustee is not independent, that the Deed of Trust agreement is in fact fraudulent on its face and therefore VOID.  This means that there was never a legal Deed of Trust contract agreement to begin with.  Let this sink in!!

This means that you acquiesce to a viable contract if you argue ANYTHING outside of these facts.  This is what the opposition wants you to get to.  The fact that there is no contract means that absolutely anything you argue pertaining to the contract brings you to the point of agreeing that there in fact actually was a contract.  This is what they want.

First, they must prove that the original and subsequent substituted trustees in the Deed of Trust agreement are in fact independent and can protect the borrower from ANY wrongdoing by a financial institution or any other party acting on behalf of the financial institution throughout the duration of the deed of trust agreement.  They are incapable of proving this issue.  This is where they do not want to be, because they cannot prove that the Trustee is independent.  If the original and any subsequent Trustee is not independent and can protect either party’s best interest in a deed of trust agreement then there is no deed of trust agreement.  This was the intent of the CA Supreme Court ruling in 1978 that the trustee is entrusted to protect BOTH parties from any wrongdoing to the other party in a deed of trust agreement.

As the Trustee is given the presumption of correctness in all of the their actions in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure in the state of CA, it is assumed that all of the documents and actions by either party that the trustee is entrusted to deem as true and correct are in fact so.  This means that the trustee is entrusted to make sure that the bank follow all of the rules to the deed of trust and the power of sale clause, CA Civil Code 2924 et al, in the state of CA.  If the bank controls the trustee and are allowed to break the rules of the power of sale clause then the trustee is incapable of acting in the best interest of the borrower at any point of the duration of the deed of trust agreement.  This means that the borrower was deceived by the bank in that the bank knew all along that the trustee was not independent and was in fact controlled by the bank since the inception of the deed of trust agreement.  This means that there is legal contract.

If there is no true legal deed of trust contract agreement then the bank lent the borrower money under false pretense and the deed of trust is void and the money borrowed by the borrower is not backed by any real estate agreement.  The money borrowed was in fact borrowed under a different premise to which is not arguable in this specific case and must be decided in a different court.  But, the court herein, MUST rule, based on this premise that the deed of trust is in fact VOID.  Now, since there is not deed of trust contract the borrower is the true owner of the title then there is no claim by the bank to any part of the borrower’s title.  Therefore, the bank must now prove to the court of their standing to foreclose.  If the bank has no legal agreement to any claim to title based on their intended use of a deed of trust contract which is fact deemed void then the bank has no standing for any claim whatsoever to the borrower’s title.  They might have claim to the money that they lent the borrower, but this would be a personal loan or some other instrument, but this is another argument in another court of law and cannot be included in this case.  The borrower is the owner of the property and the money.

Whatever documents a bank or trustee acting on behalf of the bank might show are bogus simply based on the fact that they first must prove that they have standing.  They cannot prove standing in ANY non-judicial foreclosure procedure because they are incapable of proving that the trustee is in fact independent in their position.  Since the CA supreme court stated that this must be the case, and the SB1638 states otherwise, and the banks have acted against the CA supreme court ruling and the courts have allowed the banks to control the trustee using 1638, then the trustee is not independent and therefore, based on CA Supreme Court and the Power of Sale clause (CA Civ Code 2924) the deed of trust is in fact void.  If it is void then the bank has no standing.

Also, this means that since the inception of the deed of trust agreement between the lender and the borrower, ANY monies collected on the basis of this agreement have been collected so illegally.  This means that for every month, and every year that the borrower has paid for the money borrowed based on this agreement have been billed and collected for under false pretense and must be returned to the borrower until the courts can rectify how the bank is able to actually collect on the money that they lent due to the fact that there is no legal binding agreement in place that instructs the borrower appropriately and legally to pay the debt off to the lender.  Since the deed of trust agreement is bogus, the bank has no legal basis to come for any debt to the lent money to the borrower.  They have no legal right to challenge the borrower’s title whatsoever.

I am not an attorney and do not offer any of this information as legal advice.  Any information found herein is not to be construed as legal advice.  Please consult a licensed attorney for any further advice on this issue.  This is simply an explanation of how I proceeded in my case based on the legal information that I collected during my case.  I suggest that you talk to your own attorney or licensed legal counsel prior to acting on any of this information.  This information does not in any way constitute any legal binding agreement between the author or the reader.

I hope that this helps clear things up for you.

Doug Boggs

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

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

51Shares

It’s actually all quite simple, but so corrupt

77Shares

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

We will go over the true repercussions of this next.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

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

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

77Shares

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