MATHEWS STREET, AMERICA
A voice of We The Posterity
We remain in lawful possession of our home of four generations and 60 years
in honor and in truth.
Mighty Grace has kept us housed right here in our home of four generations: Today is February 11, 2023. Our payments were relentlessly wrongly refused since 2008. We do not consent to plunder.
.jpeg){kind=small}
Images and photos on this site link to audios, videos, documents or transcripts.
Nothing on this site is deemed to be legal advice, and is the expression of one of
the People, and a non-attorney
.jpeg)
.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Updates and the Law (below)
.jpeg)
Hear ye, Hear ye
CENTURIES OF CONTRACT AND COMMERCIAL LAW
as well as the COMMON LAW OF THE LAND, DO DECREE:
Q. "Was the debt secured by the house actually Paid In Full and thus made VOID by homeowner's perfect tender of full payoff PRIOR to the auction, and even by binding written contract?"
A. A Court of Law has yet to decide if the debt even existed
at time of sale. No trial of facts and law has been held to date.
HOWEVER, BE IT KNOWN:
That September 25, 2019
auction was VOID IN TOTO
whether the debt remained
owing to an injured party,
or deemed cancelled by tender.
Paid in Full Cancels Foreclosure
Signed,
We the People,
under witness
by God
California Civil Code 2924.11
California Civil Code 2924.12
.jpeg)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-- Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
.jpeg)
"The judicial power does not include the right to change the Constitution."
"A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law."
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
-- Chief Justice John Marshall (1755 - 1835)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg){kind=small}
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
(start 2:50 min)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
"The End of Churchianity 2" Documentary
.jpeg)
Spirit-filled Sermon
by Dr. Shadrach Meschach (S.M.) Lockridge
.jpeg)
"There are two invisible spiritual kingdoms at war with one another
on earth: Spiritual Warfare"
.jpeg)
Faith comes by hearing God's VOICE.
Not merely reading or listening to even scripture ... We open the "ears of our HEART," with Help by Jesus' Holy Spirit, he left here for us. all.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Audio Bible dramatized
New Testament
.jpeg)
Jerusalem
Father "Abba" Avelino Ramos, Mother Kimiyo Yamagishi Ramos, and little sister. Mathews Street House, January 1968
.jpeg)
My other Momma Catherine Manning, who helped raise me on Mathews Street and prayed fervently for me since 1968. Over 7 years ago I needed courage to seek the courts myself. She told me, "Your case is going to help a lot of people." I truly hoped it wouldn't have to! But Mom had a way of knowing things. She is with the Lord now, and missed by many.
Paid
in
Full
Cancels
Foreclosure
WE REMAIN PEACEABLY IN OUR HOME,
PREPARING NOW TO FILE SUIT ON THE VOID TRUSTEE SALE
in Defense of Our Perfected Tender of Full Payoff, Redeemed Days Before Deadline
October 31, 2021
CASE UPDATES & THE LAW
(Court call system dropped line)
(January 10, 2021...still waiting...)
Link to blog: commentary and convictions
December 24, 2021
.jpeg)
.jpg)
Robert N. Janes, author of Fighting the Foreclosure Machine, who has read and analyzed over 10,000 California appellate cases on foreclosure (YES he has) VIDEO PRESENTATION
.jpeg){kind=small}
.jpeg)
.jpeg){kind=small}
"Banks don't lend money. They buy your promissory note .. " [with money YOU created by your signature on the same note. Borrower's 'signature line of credit' thus belongs to the bank, now deemed a "loan" to the borrower who repays it by trading her labor for income.] 3 minute video with transcript.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg){kind=small}
July 4, 2021
YES WE REMAIN
IN OUR HOME.
STANDING ON
THE LAW AND
THE FACTS.
All is quiet and no enemy
fire for over eight months: courts temporary stay
on the matter due to
county health ordinance.
Sentinels guard door unseen: Principles. Have these beings of Light been here these almost thirteen straight years?
update for August 11, 2021
2020 DISCOVERY Unknown at the time, the afternoon prior to the auction we perfectly executed an action under CIV 2924g(d(1)
ALTHOUGH
UNNECESSARY
SINCE DELIVERY
OF UNCONDITIONAL
TENDER-IN-FULL
WAS ALREADY TIMELY -- Mandatory minimum seven-day postponement became required. By law. All parties responsible to postpone were duly noticed in writing 22 hours prior.
Deliberately unheeded.
Conclusion? Tender was timely. And actually seven and a half days more timely than anyone let on. I'm slow at this...the lawyers knew better.
.jpeg){kind=small}
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
HOMEOWNER'S RIGHT BY LAW
OF EQUITABLE REDEMPTION
WRITTEN CONTRACT IN EFFECT TO TENDER FULL PAYOFF 9/12/19:
part 1 thus completed pursuant to California Civil Code 2924.11(b)(2)
= Note extinguished by new debt instrument offered & accepted thus contracted in writing by offeror-homeowner and attorney for all the parties plus substitute trustee.
WRITTEN WIRE-TRANSFER-READY FUNDS TENDERED 9/25/19 @9:45 am
part 2 thus completed pursuant to California Civil Code 2924.11(b)(2)
= Deed of Trust extinguished alongside original Note by Tender of Full Payoff delivered
= Exercised homeowner's right to redeem: equitable.
Trustee of deed of trust & their attorneys; mortgage servicer debt-collector & their attorneys; assignee /beneficiary of deed of trust on record; auctioneer proceeded to foreclosure sale 9/25/19 @ 1:15 pm hours later
ON A NOTE + DEED OF TRUST THAT HAD CEASED TO EXIST.
Winning bidder third party buyer was given formal notice and warned for 45 minutes at sale but placed bid away ; followed by this homeowner & trustor's bonafide offer in writing to buy back the lien they bought plus $60,000 over what they paid in exchange for not recording their trustee-deed. Offer rejected. CIV 2924f(b)(8)(A).
What then does this mean? ONE THEORY, SUPPORTED BY Laws on Tender:
HOMEOWNER (and "trustor") FORECLOSED ON HER OWN NOTE + Deed of Trust, thus extinguishing both simultaneously, hours before (actually DAYS BEFORE) the trustee and auctioneer commenced the trustee sale. She fulfilled her side of the written contract which was Offered, Accepted, then PERFECTLY DELIVERED ON TIME. (see "2020 DISCOVERY" update at left).
What remedy in the law exists? We need not venture too far from the statute violated above: CIV § 2924.12(b) from California Homeowners' Bill of Rights.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE: Redemption From Lien [2903 - 2906]
CIV § 2903
"Every person, having an interest in property subject to a lien, has a right to redeem it from the lien, at any time after the claim is due, and before his right of redemption is foreclosed . . ."
"Redemption from a lien is made by performing, or offering to perform, the act for the performance of which it is a security, and paying, or offering to pay, the damages, if any, to which the holder of the lien is entitled for delay."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE:
TITLE 4. EXTINCTION OF OBLIGATIONS [1473 - 1543
CHAPTER 3. Prevention of Performance or Offer [1511 - 1515]
CIV § 1511
The want of performance of an obligation, or of an offer of performance, in whole or in part, or any delay therein, is excused by the following causes, to the extent to which they operate: 1. When such performance or offer is prevented or delayed by the act of the creditor, or by the operation of law. . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"... a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not ... conduct a trustee’s sale [if]: a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by all parties, ...and proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer."
"(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable to a borrower for actual economic damages ... resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by [such entities and if left uncorrected]. If the court finds [violation] was intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful misconduct ... the court may award the borrower the greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)."
CIV2924g(d)(1), CIV2924g(c)(1), CIV1624, CaRFDCPA, CalHBOR, Tender Law, Contract Law, Law of Trespass, Law
of Voids,, Law of Equity, Natural Lawwhich is the law
of God the Creator
.jpeg)
CIV2924g(d)(1), CIV2924g(c)(1), CIV1624, CaRFDCPA, CalHBOR, Tender Law, Contract Law, Law of Trespass, Law
of Voids,, Law of Equity, Natural Lawwhich is the law
of God the Creator
.jpeg){kind=small}
.jpeg)
It has been weeks & months of challenging elusive maze, so He brought me powerful reset for brain and nerves in order to see best next approach for today's hearing.
"Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying itself."
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
.jpeg)
Love to litigate and even "vexatious"? Incorrect.
In California and other "nonjudicial foreclosure states"
unless the homeowner becomes a plaintiff and proactively
DEFENDS HER HOME by filing suit BEFORE HER HOUSE
GOES TO AUCTION to compel parties seeking to take her house to auction prove they aren't committing violations or fraud, she otherwise is subject to a conveyor-belt leading to utter loss of home without a shred of judicial scrutiny ("nonjudicial").
Then after trustee sale aka foreclosure auction there is a "rubber stamp" process in an eviction-driven process known as "unlawful detainer court" (UD). We are summoned to a process whose very name sees us as "unlawful" for living in our homes, no matter what the facts may indeed be leading directly to the completed trustee sale. Our rebuttals to ALL the substantive relevant PRESUMPTIONS even outright fraud upon the court by our accusers, revealed by statutes themselves, are disallowed by California's nonjudicial rules, and codified in the "Judges' Benchguide for Unlawful Detainer." This process is not only unconstitutional it violates OTHER California laws still on the books.
So we homeowners simply cannot defend WHO we are by our legal-standing, nor defend THE FACTS of our injuries as a real party and injured party - AGAIN, we must defend ADEQUATELY in a higher competent court. Or we inevitably have "UD" issue Writ of Eviction against the California homeowner.
HENCE, we are ALWAYS DEFENDING in this arena - either before the auction as Plaintiff. If after the "trustee sale" and when sued in eviction court, defendant and homeowner acts REASONABLY when she defends herself and family against utter ruination and loss of home and dwelling.
This homeowner tendered full payoff in September 2019-- written contract between parties for tender of entire claim with written proof of funds ready to wire transfer to the debt collector with no conditions imposed -- who otherwise threatened to auction off her home.
The debt collector agreed in writing to accept their demanded payment, received homeowners proof of funds IN ESCROW from professional seasoned title escrow officer and loan broker's official emailed documentation ON TIME days before in writing, proving funds well in excess of the required amount, an UNCONDITIONAL OFFER. But the law firm representing ALL the parties had dropped all communications for the entire 12 period from our written contract entered to the morning of the sale: deliberately breached contract by deciding to reject payment, refused to provide their bank wiring instructions, never returned emails or phone calls for 12 straight days when laws required ongoing necessary communications -- only to email all of us on the morning of the scheduled trustee sale that they were going to auction because homeowner "has had ample time before this to try and settle." Direct quote email to loan professionals from "lead attorney" as sole stated reason.
.jpeg)
Of course for over 5 years we were denied any form of mod-ified loan, one after another with PROOF of ability to pay and no valid lawful reason given for denial. I NEVER PLED FOR NOR WANTED A FREE HOUSE! Only called into court my Debt-Owner, to pay them DIRECTLY: Never appeared. No court compelled it.
Would not any reasonable person guard against paying a fraud-ulent entity? My heirs too would thus lose our right by law to recoup those payments -- and from whom? This is universal uniform commercial law.
For, what world am I then leaving my children and grandchildren? This long wearisome yet sacred battle of over twelve years to simply pay the true party owed and not saddle my children opposite any rogue interlopers, has forced me to learn how to defend property rights and to my only dwelling and domain - by law.
Spiritual sustenance alone from God has borne me up all this time. I gave all I own to the One who owns heaven and earth, Jesus Christ the living Son of God. He owns my house and I am just steward. I need to do my best working for Him and for His purposes for this all. I know it is not His will that this mother, aunt, grandmother be made unjustly destitute. It is His will that our community thrive through conducting our affairs in harmony with certain principles.
Oathtakers Take Heed: We the People
have the Right to Defend our Rights:
September 5, 2020 Several years ago this woman who loves this nation, America as spirit and cosmic intent; this woman gave this legal battle, this house, this journey and everything she owns to God because it was too heavy to carry alone; asking "Just let me work for you and help me do a good job." She has Help, even when its a steep climb.
August 16, 2020 We won our continuance on the opposition's ruthless Motion for Summary Judgement, Case is stayed to September 15, 2020. The Rule of Law is returning to the Republic, only when We the People consent to nothing less.
July 17, 2020: Interestingly, a subset of court cases continue to be stayed, and do not resume until August 16th. Our case is included in that subset as informed by the court. There's a reason for everything; and we continue in heightened research, discussion, creative problem-solving. The "covid" reprieve from active litigation has given us time to plan our focused communications to those who appear to want to help.
Easter Sunday 2020
We remain in lawful possession of our family home, the dwelling of four generations continually since 1965. We insisted on paying a true identified owner and not lawyers or an agent neither of whom claimed they owned the debt -- but no such "injured party" ever appeared nor proved it's existence for over eleven years. Finally RANSOM PAYMENT IN FULL was put on the table to interloper lawyers - every disputed cent tendered - sourced from private outside funding.
But six months ago these lawyers refused and rejected the family's payment in full and are attacking in a lawless unconstitutional and gravely injurious process to take the entire house.
We do not consent.
.jpeg)
"The habitation of each one is an inviolable asylum for him."
"When a man has the possession as well as the right of property, he is said to have jus duplicatum - a double right, forming a complete title."
"Possession is a good title, where no better title appears."
"What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust."
"Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud."
"Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy."
"A right cannot arise from a wrong."
click image for audio reading of
Bastiat's classic essay, Intro-duction followed by reading of "The Law" starts at 17:45 min.
"... No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
--1848 "THE LAW" by Claude Frederic Bastiat, French economist, statesman, author, and philosopher.
TRESPASS
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1891]
"Trespass, in its most comprehensive sense, signifies any transgression or offense against the law of nature, of society, or of the country in which we live; and this, whether It relates to a man's person or to his property.
In its more limited and ordinary sense, it signifies an injury committed with violence, and this violence may be either actual or implied; and the law will imply violence though none is actually used when the injury is of a direct and immediate kind, and committed on the per-son or tangible and corporeal property of the plaintiff.
Doing of unlawful act, or of lawful act in unlawful manner to injury of another's person or property. Waco Cotton Oil Mill of Waco v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1071, 1072.
An unlawful act committed with violence, actual or implied, causing injury to the person, property, or relative rights of another; an injury or misfeasance to the person, property, or rights of another, done with force and violence, either actual or implied in law. Grunson v. State, 89 Ind. 536, 46 Am.Rep. 178; Southern Ry. Co. v. Harden, 101 Ga. 263, 28 S.E. 847; Brown v. Walker, 188 N.C. 52, 123 S.E. 633, 636.
[Trespass] comprehends not only forcible wrongs, but also are acts the consequences of which make them tortious. Mawson v. Vess Beverage Co., Mo.App., 173 S.W.2d 606, 612, 613, 614.
Joint trespass. Where two or more persons unite in committing it, or where some actually commit the tort, the others command, encourage or direct it.
Stephens v. Schadler, 182 Ky. 833, 207 S.W. 704."
"In tort law, trespass is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights."
March 24, 2020 Federal "Article III (constitutional) judge actually misquotes the Bill of Rights (or was it his law clerk who is an attorney); stating that my Notice of Removal claimed a federal question prompted removal to federal court, misquoting what I wrote: "due process before dispossession of SALE." Excuse me? No, I didn't bastardize my Bill of Rights in this odd way. I claimed my right to due process before dispossession property, of course. Bizarre "clerical error" to say the least.
The order denying my removal and remanding back to the land of no subject-matter-jurisdiction i.e. back to landlord-tenant procedures in the state superior court then mentioned and properly quoted my notice when it stated the second federal question asserted: the "right to equitable redemption." But ..... whether or not a breach occurred to the injury of the defendant ... court will Sua Sponte spit it back where the grievance will NOT be redressed: i.e. landlord-tenant court with its rebuttable presumptions in which no rebuttals are actually "heard" at law. Nothing to see here, move along .....
MEANWHILE back with the national emergency of COVID-19 with an entire country on "shelter in place" orders including on Mathews Street; we have a temporary court closure on civil proceedings but only (so far) until April 8, 2020. We have federal CARES Act Section 4022, and California state offices and supreme court and judicial council bodies ordering and recommending suspending either and both evictions and foreclosures for the longer of 60 days until about May 21, 2020. And last but not least we have the logic-breakdown that some but not all inhabitants with dwellings should remain status quo IN shelters in order to abide by the national emergency ORDER to in fact "shelter in PLACE." We study, pray, look up and march on.
March 5, 2020 Filed the Notice of Removal yesterday into federal court -- uploaded to the right. This morning's hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgement consisted of the judge recognizing that as of yesterday afternoon the unlawful detainer court no longer has jurisdiction of the entire matter. Federal court has the matter now and we hope we can resolve it and elevate this discourse now that the case is up there!
This has been a rough route ... and also rewarding. Will write more later about the last two weeks --- something shifted and in a good but even more challenging way. I am weary, emotionally pretty bruised, mentally over-stretched, body battles the stress, yet elated at new findings in the law and how to navigate, and overall in gratitude for a lot of goodness in my life --- all mixed in with needing a new level of rest and recuperation ... so am forced to evolve yet again. My faith is my shield and seaworthy boat.
Surprising help keeps showing up ....
Notice removing unlawful Motion for Summary
detainer case to federal court Judgement dropped
.jpeg)
Letter to opposing counsel: gesture of good faith Alternative Dispute Resolution
February 21, 2020 Completely ignoring the challenge to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing for the plaintiff (thumbnail Special Answer at right), the court calendared plaintiff's 2-page motion for summary judgement designed to obtain a writ of possession for the sheriff to serve. Hearing on that motion on March 5, 2020. But I live in a constitutional republic and our law says nothing should move forward until jurisdiction is proven and no longer assumed, and until plaintiff proves it has standing to bring the complaint at all. But "UD Court" is moving forward when it lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiff has overcome no burden of proof to the challenge. Clearly homeowner is in a non-court then! Sued as a "defendant" but not allowed to defend: now I know in my bones the wisdom and the force of my nation's LAW which guarantees to We the People our "unalienable right to due process before dispossession of property."
NO, I DO NOT CONSENT. Jury trial demanded --- or we settle soon, retaining our home.
February 1, 2020 Filed on 1/31/2020 Special Answer Objecting to Entire Complaint. Meanwhile there has been no response to date from plaintiff in Unlawful Detainer case to any of the prior responsive pleadings filed recently since just January 2nd, both relatively short responses. The Special Answer essentially amends the prior one below and is the active response. Ball in their court.
January 17, 2020 We remain completely in lawful possession of our home continually in our immediate family since 1965. Movement stalled in the UD process due to improper service of the summons and a motion to quash process, so we remained free to enjoy the extended Christmas holiday and family reunion which was one of the original reasons to pay the "ransom" in the first place and free up our lives for such important and endearing things.
Amended Answer filed January 16, 2020. We hold our stance upon the Supreme Law of our land which includes right to due process before dispossession of property, right to trial by jury and other unalienable rights mandated by our Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of California, and a 2013 and 2018 set of state laws consistent with both constitutions - California Homeowners' Bill of Rights, most especially right to due process when threatened with the loss of the protected right to property.
Certainly it would be correct to apply ALL not some of the civil code of procedure in California -- and if there is a discrepancy in application or execution that's what civil discourse, reasoned debate and wise counsel is for, i.e. that's what our courts are for. All our courts are under oath to apply above all else the Supreme Law of the Land, which may reveal other lesser statutes to be in fact objectionable if wrongs replace peoples' unalienable rights thus deeming those lesser statutes or administrative procedures "repugnant to the Constitution."
Surely, few jurists could argue against Chief Justice John Marshall’s statement of principle near the end of his opinion, “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
-- Supreme Court of the United States' opinion in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) 1803.
November 8, 2019 This assault on reason and my rights has taken a definite toll on body-mind. But that means new resources and upgraded resilience rises to the occasion. We are challenged of course. But we are not afraid. We are outraged but we are not consumed by the toxicity wielded by the unfortunate choices of those who have abandoned honor of word, deed and civil exchange. In all the study of law and writing of drafts soon to be released for final transmission, we forgot that sites like Zillow usually take "public records" as true on its face when the truth is a vastly different story. Throughout the entire controversy all we have insisted on is that payments and the loan contract be made opposite the proven owner of the loan and debt; and not its debt-collector agent who proves it is unclear or even clueless of the true identity of that owner. This is known as proving "standing" so we cure the ambiguity. It would be wrong to saddle our grown children with years more of this damaging and costly ambiguity of just who the "obligee" is opposite us the "obliger" on a Note. Instead, third party apparent interlopers attack not to be paid but to take our very homes -- in violation of one or more laws do these entities commit such well-dressed but blatant savagery.
{Please see "OUR STORY" page on this site for a short version narrative of the last decade of so.]
AFTER YEARS OF HOLDING TO PRINCIPLE AND INSISTING ON LAWFUL CONDUCT, RECENTLY THIS HOMEOWNER FINALLY decided to pay "ransom" to the debt collector after YEARS of total non-appearance and failure to prove even the existence of an actual loan and debt OWNER opposite the homeowner.
Yes all in writing and duly provided to decision-makers by email and discussion with their ATTORNEYS.... who instead REJECTED their own wire transfer after agreeing in writing to accept it, and obstructed HOMEOWNER'S RIGHT TO TENDER FULL PAYOFF, when they deliberately failed at law to provide wire transfer instructions for receipt of tender funds, and cancel the "foreclosure auction."
It appears clear that lawyers, tasked with knowing the law, intentionally violated, at minimum Calif. Code of Civil Procedure Section 2074: "An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money, or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property, is, if not accepted, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property."
Zillow updated HERE.
.jpg)
CCP 2074, 2924.11(b)(2), 2924.12(b), Comm 3603 ...
October 6, 2019
Not Your Fairy Tale
So today is October 6, 2019 and what follows here is a voicemail message that I was leaving the title escrow officer, a very nice woman whose been calling me back to support me. She's witnessed this whole transpire, this whole thing over this last few days, the few days leading up to the impossibly egregious trustee sale. All of us were completely ready, at the ready, to fund full payoff. She had escrow open, lender was ready to post the funds into it, we were simply waiting wiring instructions from Nationstar's attorneys.
What Nationstar and their attorneys did between September 13th and 25th was deliberately and repugnantly obstruct my right to post full payoff once it was proven and shown I had the funds at the ready. They wrote they would be accepting my payment in full but at the same time refused to cancel the sale event on my house; then obstructed their own wire transfer by dropping all communications -- and finally telling the world I failed to post the payoff before the date of sale which they'd refused to cancel when they contracted to full payoff.
This series of actions appear to be a deliberate obstruction of homeowner's "right to tender" and "right to equitable redemption" of real property, as well as a violations of "California Homeowners' Bill of Rights."
So, which of us is forcing the matter back into courts? Not I.
NATIONSTAR AND YOUR ATTORNEYS: "I task you to apply Contract Law and Reason, which is "clean clear mind = sanity": Take a look at Nationstar's September 2019 monthly statement mailed to me at my home address, billing one Renee S Ramos (that is I) aka Yamagishi, and just a few inches below my name see the line item "Full Payoff: $694,992.16." PLEASE CONSIDER the "four corners" of this CONTRACT proffered (presented as the one offering the contract) by your client Nationstar, to myself. Consider what transpired -- ALL OF WHAT TRANSPIRED - between parties of interest and their attorneys - from approximately August 10th to September 26, 2019 -- may I suggest you review your email paper trail as well as telephone call incoming call logs.
As you review this please counselors, please remember that the "obliger" on that CONTRACT has a name, printed on the same document i.e. on Nationstar's September 2019 statement mailed to the Mathews Street address; and the named obliger BY CONTRACT HAS THE RIGHT TO POST FULL PAYOFF BECAUSE FULL PAYOFF EXTINGUISHES THE LIEN CLAIMED AS DUE AND PAYABLE BY THE VERY CONTRACT PROFERRED by the debt collector, which is the invoiced "mortgage statement" demanding a "full payoff" as the CURE which extinguishes the claim of lien. At law, this is known as "right of equitable redemption" which is law in all 50 states.
See also, California Code of Civil Procedure 2074: Payment-in-full was TENDERED in "proof of written funds" (CCCP 292411(b)(2), in writing with proof of receipt by attorney several HOURS prior to 12:30 pm 09/25/2019. A single phone call lasting 10 seconds could have cancelled the scheduled trustee sale as required by law. You called my property at that sale anyway in violation of several - announcing in writing the very act. You are invited to defend why 2924.12(b) damages claims should not be awarded by a court of law in jury trial
"Reinstatement" is a completely different animal from "full payoff." Reinstatement is paying back all "missed payments" but then requires an ongoing loan modification for the remainder of the outstanding balance -- THIS WAS NOT --- NOT --- NOT A reinstatement between Obliger and Nationstar. See the approval loan documents at right -- funding was posted FOR PAYMENT-IN-FULL and ready to wire transfer to satisfy the entire claim, once and for all (YES, WRITTEN PROOF GIVEN - see right). Please therefore, attorneys, refrain from becoming confused that this was a "reinstatement" scenario, thank you. And please review 2924.11 CalHBOR.
Hence we have unlawful and egregiously injurious BREACH OF CONTRACT committed by Nationstar and their legal team and partners; business tort; promissory fraud; concealment fraud; deliberate fraud ..... but even absent these - we have a "homeowners' bill of rights" statute in California. Claimed and wanting.
Maxims of Law and specifically of Equity as determined by a Court of Record which is by jury of twelve peers as twelve justices: integrity of word and deed, moral conduct based on PRINCIPLES of "Right" and "Wrong" and accountability as individuals endowed with free will --- are all in play here:
"Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy."
"Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud."
"Equity abhors a forfeiture."
“Basically, I was pointing out that it was a huge, very, very injurious, incorrect breach of contract. When decision-makers such as Nationstar or their attorneys, and Aztec, I suppose, whoever the decision-makers were, knowing full well that we were in contract for full payoff, with all the proof … and even before I met Tom and Todd and you .. through our emails (with attorneys), huge breach. It shows bad faith at the very least. You don't contract for full payoff and then have the possibility of going to trustee sale. Period. The two things are completely… !
So I'm going to have to obviously seek a court of competent jurisdiction to point all this out and I've just been learning what I have to learn and preparing what I have to write for this. But basically, that's all I was going to lay out. That I've come in honor all this time. I wouldn't have wasted Todd's time and your time and Tom's time, I wouldn't have wasted David Kindopp’s … you know there were three reputable, professional hard money lenders [and] I had to finally weed through all of the other dross and find you guys.
I wouldn't have wasted my time or your time at all unless we had a contract for full payoff. They completely breached it. It's there, it's in black and white, there is no ambiguity there. Complete breach of contract causing irreparable egregious harm against me that has to be remedied. That's all there is to it. My status as title owner in lawful possession doesn't obliterate at the stroke of midnight like Cinderella. Full payoff posted by me.”
Okay, so that's the voicemail, I just played it back, that went to Teresa Harris, title escrow officer that has been in contact with me and she's been nice enough to just spend extra time with me on the phone checking up to see how things are going. She was right there front and center with me and Tom Modica, the hard money loan broker with whom she's been acquainted and worked with for six or seven years I hear, watching this whole thing unfold. She was the one that opened escrow and said, “Tell them I've opened escrow, we are ready to go.” And Tom Modica was the one whose loan I accepted and signed for; so we had signed loan approval by Tom, myself and his lender ready to fund escrow!
And, boom, we are going to trustee sale. What? No, it doesn't work that way. That means that was bad faith all along. If there was always a possibility of going to trustee sale just because the date rolled around, the calendar turned around and came to September 25th at 12:30, that means that that was just a bunch of bad… Actually it was contract fraud. Right?
Because if you are saying in email, we are fully ready to accept full payoff -- in fact we will take $5000 off and I say, okay, I'm looking at the statement so that means you are up at $689,992.16, right? Okay. I'm talking to hard money lenders. And then, oh, could you please get back to us? The whole story. Silence. No email returns, no phone call returns. Loan brokers reaching out. She (Nationstar’s attorney) did talk to one loan broker on the 23rd and I had emails from that point on. From definitely the 20th. I think from even the 16th or 17th on left voicemails, hey, I'm talking to hard money lenders. Nothing.
As if they could actually put in writing that they were in contract with me for full payoff, I could respond and say, yup, I'm posting full payoff as soon as I get the funding in and escrow open and wiring instructions from you -- and that they can take that and trash the their own word, trample on their own contractual capacity as lawyers to the extent that they would actually call the sale on the 25th?? Wow.
Breach of contract, egregious irreparable harm, contract breach, bad faith, business tort. I'm a sole proprietor, owner of this home which is my home, which is my equity. They have done torturous interference with myself as a sole proprietorship of a home that also produces rental income. It's also income property that sustains me. They are going to strip me of all it because of a stroke of the clock at midnight. “Oh, there is no more stagecoach, it's a pumpkin again. You lose.” What?
What they're saying is, if you don't wire the money, especially after we failed to respond to any of your emails and phone calls for a week, therefore it's impossible to wire the money because we completely dropped communications! Given that, we don't see a wire transfer for the full amount in our account because we've made it impossible because we deliberately thwarted that from happening….
But for whatever reason, there is no full payoff wired to our account that you have no idea what account number it is. And, my goodness, it's now the stroke of midnight! Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. It's Wednesday, September 25 at 12:30. We are just going to call the property. And strip you of everything. You title owner, lawful homeowner in possession, person who owns all of the equity of the property: defined as the fair market value estimate minus our full payoff amount, which accounts to about half a million dollars.
We would like to take that half a million dollars from you because, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, stroke of midnight, it's September 25. We would also like… We are going to give a green light for this other third party to just basically take possession of the whole house. That includes your rental income, people, by the way. Ms. Ramos Yamagishi. The whole shebang. Oh yeah, because look what time it is! It's 12:30 on Wednesday, September 25.
I don't know what you're talking about with regard to full payoff. The point is moot. You didn't have it posted by the date and hour. Didn't have it posted to us. Really? And I have that email. In fact, she emailed Tom Modica and Teresa Harris (loan broker who’d emailed twice and phoned once, produced signed loan approval emailed to Nationstar’s attorneys); that they were going through with the sale that morning because I “had had ample time to settle.”
You guys have created a paper trail of epic contract breach against yourselves. Just proof in the pudding of egregious conduct. These injuries will not go unremedied against me and my four generations here.
This is Renée Ramos Yamagishi 2703 Mathews Street, Berkeley, California. Homeowner in lawful possession since 1965. Title owner and owner of every shred of the equity that qualified me for the hard money loan that funds your full payoff in the first place. My status does not obliterate at the stroke of midnight.
This is not your fairy tale.
October 3, 2019
CCP 2924.11b2, 2924.12b, 2074, Comm 3603 ...
September 28, 2019 We are homeowner in possession and title owner still, since trustee sale is NOT an event that transfers title to the real property -- it deals only in an unproven "lien" sale. Furthermore the mere routine recording of the "trustee's deed upon sale document" is NOT a deed to the property at all -- and does NOT convey title ownership away from the homeowner either. These entities bully and falsify their statements about this all the time -- but it takes a court order or at least a quasi-court-order lookalike to paper over the dispute and issue a writ of eviction -- EVEN THEN THIS IS NOT TITLE! Its sadly a mockery -- and totally rebuttable at law. SEE BELOW article "California's Nonjudicial Foreclosure Two-Step Should Be Danced to the Right Tune," by retired attorney Robert Janes.
As of this date, in order to avoid litigation we have the option to make an offer to the winning bidder of that lien at a steep premium over and above their bid price. OR we may be forced to raise the lawful counterclaims inherent in the controversy from the beginning: Nationstar nor Aztec (defendants who have taken certain actions) have any authority at law to have conducted this "trustee sale" of our home and property. Furthermore, servicer and debt collector Nationstar was offered full payoff "ransom" without providing proof of who owned the loan at all -- but for the waiting period of seven business days Nationstar's legal team decided to push through the nonjudicial conveyor belt -- having "won" nothing in any court of law against me since NONE of the cases ever proceeded to trial or discovery against me.
So the next few days will be carefully spent researching and arriving at the next best course of action, given all the stakes and directed by Our Lord Christ Jesus.
Father Avelino "Abba" Ramos; with Mother Kimiyo Yamagishi Ramos and
little sister in the Mathews Street house. Jan. 1968
September 26, 2019 Chronology of anguish and unbelief ---
September 9 - 19, 2019 After extensive research, I contacted hard money lenders and had to weed through many of them ended up being time-wasters because they did not truly intend to fund my loan - which was for FULL PAYOFF TO NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC . It took days to finally find the good ones - few and far between.
NATIONSTAR ADMITS IT DOES NOT OWN MY LOAN -- AND NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER APPEARED FOR YEARS TO CLAIM THEY OWN MY LOAN - DESPITE SUMMONS INTO COURTROOMS AND LEGAL NOTICES PUBLICATION ---
FULLY COMMITTED TO CLOSING A HARD MONEY LOAN FOR FULL PAYOFF AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO NATIONSTAR for $690,000 on our $1.1 Million house.
AS TITLE OWNER, when I post full payoff Nationstar MUST accept it -- and leave me and my house alone.
NATIONSTAR AND AZTEC FORECLOSURE CORPORATION
INSTRUCTED THE AUCTIONEER TO CALL MY HOME
AT 1:00 PM WED 9/25 -- an illegal unlawful violation of all protocol and California law and any kind of equitable conduct -- WHEN THEY KNEW THE LOAN WAS ALREADY IN PROCESS OF FUNDING! ESCROW OPENED!!!
September 13, 2019 Around the mid-summer of last year 2018 this homeowner gave everything she has and owns to her Maker and Creator, to God as she understood this personality to be; and in a state of anguish and exhaustion pledged "It's Your case, Your house please take it! I work for You now, just show me and help me know what I should do." This burden is not on one woman's shoulders alone. And though she has known for years the Help has shown up in minor and not so minor miracles through so much unknown ... that Help is about to make some kind of major showing. We are not sure - at all - what this will look like. But its likely to include a more public face and discourse in the commons and amongst We the People; to support and encourage and also to edify and educate one another in practical ways.
It's also time for a more major miracle and some kind of win win strategy to effectuate our long sought resolution. Who, what, how? Cant see that exactly -- we walk by faith. We've had to learn to do so, and we've come to find a peace thereby, inexplicable feeling of being okay ... even amidst such troubled waters.
We the People INCLUDES members of our legislature, judiciary and executive governments --- We the People are greatly pressured by forces that would divide and conquer and thus weaken Americans and dampen the American Spirit of 1776 -- and we who call ourselves Americans are in this together. Everywhere individuals are now entering a time in history unlike any other .... perhaps best captured in the admonition "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve."
Correction page 3: Calif. Civ.Code 2924.17
September 4, 2019 The court cancelled today's Case Management Conference stating that it had already deemed plaintiff a "vexatious litigant," and in the face of the following Case Management Statement, which still could have considered reasonable issues not at all voiced or adjudicated inside a courtroom. An order that currently deems plaintiff a "vexatious litigant" does not automatically prevent the case from proceeding, nor is that order immune from being challenged. Yet, we have not had a chance today to meet and conference about the case as it stands.
This court has determined that "security" has to be posted by plaintiff as part of its determination of her "vexatious litigant" status, and YET that "security" of $100,000 as determined by this court (!) is completely ambiguous in the written order: it is not specific if this "security" amount is to be deemed a surety or bond for any clear specific outcome. This means that until or unless this "security" and the order is clarified, if plaintiff were to post $100,000 under the terms of the ambiguous order, any defendant is actually invited to make a claim against it for "the trouble and expense of litigating with a vexatious litigant!" Who in their right mind can consent to this? The order and determination is rebuttable on its face; and we make the necessary adjustments to oppose it.
August 29, 2019 A turbulent and trying time these past few weeks. The court has apparently continued its trajectory by declaring me a "Vexatious Litigant" in an attempt to completely deprive me access to the courts. It is an especially abusive order aimed at shutting down my case entirely by requiring I post $100,000 to my opponents for all their years of trouble my cases and tenacity have "cost them," and to post this by 13th September or have the case dismissed.
Wow. No we do not consent to this DeFacto Denial of Due Process before dispossession of property and primary dwelling no less. Opposition and amended pleadings pending. We have a duty to set the record straight - no matter how weary and battle worn we are.
So I am consulting with my team and committee.... who include good people I can count on one hand and who include Helpers from on High ... A creative solution is making its way into effect. Not sure what that looks like yet. But we live by faith not by sight.
August 4, 2019 Notary below appears to be on the run. Or at least last week Friday July 26th she signed receipt of my letter at that address in Euless Texas, 32 days after it left my post office in California. But one week later Friday August 2nd, FedEx reports "recipient moved" and my demand letter is undeliverable to the same address. What is going on?
It turns out for Texas notaries public, members of the public who wish to see the notary log book or obtain certified true copies on an entry regarding a specific document she notarized, must send a letter to the registered mailing address for the notary on file at the Secretary of State notary unit and request in writing that the notary send a certified copy of the log book along with her notarized statement that it is a true and correct copy of her original log book for the document. So, she received my request for the log book copy. Now, she has possibly moved out of her apartment days later, unable to receive my demand letter which is an attempt to validate more information about the specific document signer she acknowledged on the document, and more, before being forced to escalate the inquiry as a matter of law.
July 17, 2019 The "2924 trustee sale" on our home was postponed at 9:00 AM today, which otherwise was scheduled by third party debt collectors at 12:30 PM today. Nationstar's attorney (mortgage servicer debt-collector 3rd party) emailed me the news this morning. So why did they postpone the sale without even a court order granted in my favor? Answer: NOTARY FRAUD. I evidenced clear forgery of the notary signature on the Assignment; having obtained the certified authentic notary application signature from the Secretary of State of Texas (the notary, a Colleen Barnett, is registered in Texas). Her authentic signature found on the official document however, bears little if any resemblance to THREE forgeries found in my County clerk recorders' office; one of those document being mine, the Feb. 2, 2018 Assignment of Deed of Trust.
Attorneys are officially all "officers of the court," having taken an oath to follow the law. Notary fraud and notarial malfeasance is illegal, it is a violation of the notary's own oath and stated duties. The public at large relies on the notary's lawful compliance otherwise ALL of our crucial documents governing property, life and death all come into question.
Judges are taking notary malfeasance more seriously when evidenced in connection to property disputes, especially when the documents proffered are being used to take peoples' homes illegally. We are weary, it has been grueling, I can think of at least 199 things I"d rather be doing with my life than wrangling with this beast ... but I accept the task confronting me and aim for the greater purpose and intent for all this tribulation.
July 11, 2019 In filing the necessary formal objection to the document recently filed by one of the defendants it has become clearer, through figuring out what to write and how to write it that my life has become unacceptably hijacked by this decade-long defense of the family home entrusted to me. It is impossible to quantify the loss in my life; but I am not after money. I have never not wanted to pay hard-earned money; I have needed, however, to stand guard against condoning legalized plunder and unjust irreparable and egregious injury which leaves not just myself and family but the public at large marching into woeful and pitiless enslavement. Honor - and the right of humanity to evolve towards life and enlightenment -- are just a starting list of what's at stake: everything on that list is bigger than myself alone, while also held in resonance in my one heart.
June 28, 2019 The court ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) which we met in person for on June 7th. One attorney showed up who allegedly represents servicer/debt-collector Nationstar Mortgage LLC and three other entities whose names form part of the "trust" that supposedly owns the note and loan. Though there is no formal proof that the three other defendants have actually retained this law firm or attorney. Anyway, Nationstar was represented and only a Nationstar employee or agent was available on the phone during the conference. Aztec Foreclosure failed to even respond nor attend.
A week prior to MSC we delivered our Statements to the commissioner, a judge who would not rule, but who provided consult and meeting in chambers with him, most of it privately in separate short meetings that morning. Settlement Conference is different from Mediation: we are attempting to see how far each side is from a potential settlement. Our written Statements are not formally filed or docketed into the case - for the eyes of the other party plus the commissioner only. However our Statements are also not confidential in the way mediation materials might be. Kept to less than 10 pages, my Statement is my legal position as of the date of its writing and status of the case, i.e. as of May 31, 2019 prior to exploring settlement I wrote my position. [Disclaimer: I stand on the legal theory and argument stated in the Statement, but I have not formally pled into the case anything written here; and I may not formally plead it in this way. This Statement was for the purpose of exploring possible settlement. We continue to communicate in and out of court]
Statement is to contain four elements along with Case Background summary. The four elements are Liabilities, Damages, Demand and Offer. Nationstar had not upgraded or changed their Demand and Offer from February 2019 which I'd already answered was unacceptable. The attorney wasn't authorized to offer anything different -- doesn't sound much like any room to negotiate does it. I was met with essentially this position from Nationstar: "If you don't agree to "full payoff" (which was never completely itemized and challenged by me on their line item categories) or agree to "reinstate" the loan with a large cash restatement amount then start making payments towards the "full payoff" we are only able to offer that you vacate in 30 days and take $5000 in exchange for the keys to your house."
Hmmmm... No we already had this conversation as far back as October -- it still didn't adjust at all in February - and now in June its the same unacceptable offer. Attorney stated, "I am authorized to only agree to these and nothing more." That's called ultimatum not negotiation. Maybe its standard for their "settlement talks" and this is not the world of business and the entrepreneurial spirit here anymore. Sadly. Of course, when two business entities (which include myself) are both actually the "real parties in interest" and not an unproven "agent" for one; then there is most always room to actually negotiate and compromise. Why? Because business is fluid, dynamic, there are several moving parts in play; and most importantly in my estimation, there is a code of honor and fair dealing to any reputable business.
This was not an actual negotiation with any capacity to offer and counteroffer or wrangle a darn thing. It was rigid ultimatum and highly uncreative. But I learned a lot. And then the attorney called it quits after only one meeting and a chat in the hallway. What? All we accomplished is my adverse claimants refuse to make formal demand for payment because that would require "proof of standing" and none of the parties represented by counsel that day have it.
Otherwise they'd prove it and we'd actually be able to settle in such a way that is lawful, equitable and right. The following is a fictionalized "plain speak" narrative:
"You owe me money"
"Prove it so i know you're the one I legitimately owe money to"
"No. We don't have to prove anything - we know you've missed payments to somebody and we don't want your payments actually. We are after your house, using California's 2924 conveyor belt designed to take people's houses without any court's scrutiny, without due process."
"You say you're an agent third-party debt collector for the owner of a debt claimed against me. But when I contact the company who agrees to serve as "trustee" of a "trust" that you say owns my debt - the trustee company state in writing multiple times that they have zero knowledge about my "loan" and they aren't making ANY claim about my "loan" against me. No claim whatsoever, based on their utter lack of knowledge. They point back to you, the debt-collector. I don't have a contract with a debt collector who doesn't own a debt claimed against me, i owe a proven debt-owner. Where are they?"
"We wrote we represent the debt collector AND the debt owner."
"But your debt-owner said they never hired any attorneys to make a claim on their behalf. They admit in writing they are neither making a claim nor hiring any attorneys against me."
" ......"
[Fast forward to the recent Settlement Conference]
Nationstar (debt-collector) attorney: "So, what would it take to prove to you that Nationstar owns the debt?"
"Well, you have to show you have the original wet ink note, properly endorsed ........"
"Ah," nods head.
"Often the original note is lost so you can bring in a Lost Note Affidavit, and someone has to sign it, and that gets notarized ..... and there's a way to do all this ... but ... does Nationstar own the note?"
[Flustered, change the subject.]
Meanwhile the ONLY managing level employee or representative joined by telephone into the Settlement Conference was Nationstar's representative. The defendant who supposedly owns the debt was not involved at all in the conference by phone.
Yes it doesn't follow logic does it? That a business entity or individual investor or group of investors who supposedly bought the note and currently owns it would utterly fail to appear and make its claim for years upon years. And yet our State Attorney Generals and courts accept the word of these debt-collectors who are not even claiming to have standing as the "injured party" and a "real party in interest." All they've actually proven is they have knowledge of payment history on the note. that and a color laser printer to print and mail me statements. Seriously: Nationstar has PROVEN they have nothing else at LAW. I have the same knowledge, many entities can find when the last payment was made, that knowledge grants zero standing to attack and demand payment under threat to take our home! But we find government agencies, a slate of so-called consumer protection entities and the court --- oh the courts -- simply hear the debt collector's claims as if they're legitimate. In the absence of proof of validity or authority under the law, and in the face of proof of fatal defects in key documents used to proceed with foreclosure by parties who are NOT the debt owner.
This sorry state of affairs consistently points to the most plausible situation, and homeowners have been comparing notes for quite some time: if there was a true owner of the note and debt in the past, they have abandoned their claim OR most likely have cashed in on it one way or another (Credit Default Swaps, taking federal bailout money and pocketing it since no mandates were attached to it, selling note-debt instrument to unwary entities who have no recourse to cash in on the collateral, buybacks in settlement agreements, other hidden transactions) and these FORMER real parties (if ever there were) therefore wish to quietly exit the fray keeping their name farrrrrrr away from litigation!
So the standoff is between an unproven debt-collector who refuses to prove it has an agency relationship with a current injured party; and whose "injured party its collecting for" sends in writing that it is NOT making ANY claim of collection (!!!) squaring off opposite the original note-maker and homeowner who has lawful possession of the real property and a controversy on the contract. The contract is the Note, the debt instrument.
AND NO. THE LIEN CREATED BY THE DEED OF TRUST SECURITY INSTRUMENT IS NOT -NOT - NOT THE SAME as the DEBT CREATED BY THE NOTE. Therefore even if Wilmington / M&T Bank actually appeared and proved it was the "assignee of the Deed of Trust" that doesn't make them the owner of the Note or Debt = and certainly Nationstar isn't even remotely attempting to prove it owns the note or debt. So WHO DO I LAWFULLY OWE? WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY WHO I CAN PAY DIRECTLY?
Centuries of law dictate I the notemaker have the right to an audience with that person or entity ("Presentment" UCC 3-501) so I can PAY THEM DIRECTLY. But they have to first exist (!) and be capable of suffering the financial injury due to missed payments on MY NOTE, then they have to appear and prove "standing" in order to be paid. In that order.
Persona Standi in Judicio. Nationstar is Persona NON Standi in Judicio, because it is not a party to the contract and I am not in contract with Nationstar; who is an entity who burst on the scene without any doing on my part, when Bank of America N.A. the prior debt-collector shuffled off servicing to this non-bank debt-collector.
Nationstar claims to be an agent for a corporate "person" who has standing to demand payment or to foreclose; but no one is home there (M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust N.A.) and when they finally come to the door they say IN WRITING (paraphrasing quite accurately from letters and two conversations with M&T Bank parent company IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL, whose conversation is in Affidavit:) "We have zero knowledge and aren't investing a dime in debt collection against you and haven't hired those attorneys who Nationstar hired, even though the attorneys' pleadings filed into courts of law claim they represent us. We don't know if they do or not but we never hired them. Please don't sue us -- we are trustee of a trust IN NAME ONLY but have no duties of a true trustee according to centuries old law governing trusts. We have no idea what is contained in the trust -- that's beyond our duties, so we have no idea if your loan is contained there or not, which is why we don't and can't make a claim about your loan at all. None, no type of claim coming from us, no Sirree! We formally make No Comment when you inquire us to prove we or the trust owns any debt, due to our formal cluelessness. We don't even track how Nationstar is doing defending against your counterclaims. Did we ask you not to sue us already? Oh OK, we are a borderline non-entity due to utter lack of knowledge, and making no claim regarding your loan or your note or your debt or your case .... and we really hope you agree that our non-entity status should keep our company from being sued. By you. Thank you, goodbye."
June 4, 2019 After sending an email reminding Aztec's management and confirming by phone this morning, their online advertising page has been updated to show "Off calendar." They now will have to record a new public Notice of Trustee Sale at the County, which they can't do unless our court dissolves the protective order and fails to grant Injunction on the 11th of June or anytime thereafter. Hey, Aztec DOES consult the normal everyday calendars. Great! I was getting concerned there for a moment .. that maybe there was an inter dimensional shift time warp and we'd never get on the same page. Hope to see their attorneys this Friday! Stay tuned.
.jpg)
June 3, 2019 All set for Mandatory Settlement Conference first meeting June 7, 2019. Our summary 10 page Statements are turned into our commissioner who will facilitate our attempts at reasonable intelligent negotiations aimed at "good faith settlement." Nationstar will have one or more attorneys present in person. I will have my support present.
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation are totally rogue and have failed to appear at the hearing on Injunction, nor did they submit a Statement, nor have they replied that they will or won't attend the "Mandatory" conference ordered for all parties. But they still manage to defy two successive court orders with ease: 1) They never abide by any TRO's in 5 years - ever; and 2) Even with Continuance on Hearing on Injunction Aztec refuses to remove the published trustee sale date on their websites, for June 5th. Even though current order for a Continuance for hearing on Injunction together have ordered all defendants to cease all this trustee sale business and have our conference followed by the continued hearing, BOTH dates being AFTER the 5th of June (as in the 7th and 11th). Hmmmmm.... it takes Aztec awhile to fully cogitate on a calendar and details like dates.
Maybe that's why in defense against me at the TRO hearing Aztec's attorney pled that they complied with the due diligence mandates of California Homeowners' Bill of Rights (CalHBOR section 2923.5) required BEFORE the filing of their February 2018 document, by attorney adamantly citing to a conversation their company had with me in May..... of 2018. February .. March .. April ... You can NOT make this up. ** Images to the right open to full docs.
Thank you friends, family and support -- for good intended outcomes for June 7th exploratory settlement and June 11th follow-up hearing on Injunction.
May 22, 2019 Hearing on Injunction continued to June 11, 2019 while TRO remains in place. The court ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference for June 7, 2019 (MSC) in which counsel for defendants must appear in person and parties are to file good faith offer or settlement demand one week prior. We aim for productive talks -- and a judge will be officiating. While we do understand that it is possible to reach a mutual settlement and just as possible that the gap is too wide such that we would have to proceed to trial, we hope for lawful conduct and reasonableness on all sides.
We applaud the court for compelling parties to conference in-person --- so far it is questionable if one of the named Defendants will be in atten-dance: Defendant "Aztec Foreclosure Corporation," a franchise of The LOGS Network, has been the recorded self-filed Substituted Trustee for over five years .... the court's order applies to all Defendants to conference on June 7th, but its not clear Aztec believes the order applies to them! Stay tuned: another audio letter is soon likely.
May 15, 2019 COURT IS STILL "TAKING UNDER SUBMISSION" my application for Injunction - reversing its tentative "denial" to the current status, yet unknown, after we showed up and contested it in Judge McGuiness' courtroom.
May justice and correct ruling prevail ~ yesterday we attended hearing on Injunction, after receiving the court's tentative ruling the day before that the court was inclined to deny it citing to a host of legal arguments that have become all to familiar to the disheartening mood of too many California homeowners. Undeterred, I replied I would appear to contest the tentative ruling.
At yesterday's hearing I think our judge and I were able to glimpse a tiny bit more the human side of my unfortunate circumstances and long battle for a reasonable and fair outcome --- the words flowed from me, in honor and truth; while my daughter sat behind me in support. The good judge did reach his decision at hearing that he would not be reversing the denial but instead ordered a Settlement Conference for all parties for June 21st. Perfect, even better: to converse in -person and in-depth with principals and not only their legal counsel. This also would push the soonest "2924 trustee sale" date to after the July 4th weekend.
After the hearing it dawned on me as the afternoon progressed what a victory it was that court-ordered Settlement Conference would compel management-level personnel of three different companies fly to Oakland
to meet in person before a judge who would officiate a studied plea from both sides and not templatized character-assassination and far-flung erroneous conclusions about why our family should be irreparably harmed. A Settlement Conference is up close and personal -- homeowner welcomes it, and apparently our adversaries cringe. This is seen as better than an injunction with out such a conference!
But today (May 17th we await the final order of the court who has continued to take the matter of Injunction "under submission." Either way we are undaunted and look forward to a fun and excellent weekend!
May 9, 2019 It has been a steep climb with crazy fast twists and turns but now we have it back upright, the proper civil unlimited venue court CAN hear and issue an order on application for Injunction. May 14th, 3:00 PM in Dept. 22. I won the TRO (see below) and then noticed that the hearing for Injunction was calendared in Dept. 511 a normally-limited-venue-only courtroom. I thought perhaps the judge had authority to grant the injunction anyway? But then the courtroom clerk in Dept. 511 informed me that they are "unable to issue orders on the case" in that Dept. I AM PLAINTIFF, AND THIS IS NOT UNLAWFUL DETAINER COURT; I filed a civil unlimited case; but somehow the hearing on Injunction was scheduled for hearing in a Limited-Civil courtroom?? So I motioned to reclassify in a four-page handwritten hurry -- but when I asked the clerk to reserve ex party to hear motion to reclassify they corrected the error and calendared Injunction hearing with the proper UNLIMITED civil venue, Dept. 22. Whew.
COURT PAGE will later upload pleadings closer to hearing date of May 14, 2019.
The below AUDIO came a few hours before the dental disaster .. healing up fine, thank you Dr. Choi (dentist in Vallejo, whew).
"That's About It" AUDIO, directed to adversaries, off the cuff.
April 23, 2019 We won our Protective Order in court today
Hearing on Injunction in three weeks. Now that we understand the article by Bob Janes below, however, we are prepared if we ever do get taken to trustee sale! Must-read.
'Aztec' thinks
"postponing" is compliant
with the order, even when
Injunction is granted. We disagree. But what's new?
Injunction to follow.
April 19, 2019 Complaint filed. Ex Parte application for protective order (TRO) to be heard prior to 4/24/19 scheduled trustee sale (likely calendared for Tuesday April 23, 2019 at Superior Court, Alameda County, Hayward Hall of Justice, Dept. 511.) Stay tuned.
TRO Granted (see above).
"COURT" page on this site has uploads of full pleadings now active.
Click above image for video of author speaking on the main points made in his book.
4/18/2019 Further Analysis of the article titled "California's Nonjudicial Foreclosure Two-Step Should Be Danced to the Right Tune," by retired attorney Robert M. Janes. If you haven't read it, recommended to do so - there's also a link to an audio reading of the same article just under the link to the PDF.
After taking in the quite revelatory analysis by Janes, this is the blogger's audio after mulling it over for another ten days or so. The audio mixes narrative specific to this particular homeowner's case and controversy, and is illustrative as well. This analysis and audio here is BASED on the speaker's study of Robert Janes' well-researched article.
Most recent four blog posts are updated to include this revelatory analysis. Additionally due consideration should be given to the ancient maxim of law " "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet." (updated 4/28/19 )
April 2, 2019 Added practical steps to blog post on California Homeowner Bill of Rights. "CalHBOR" came up for renewal on January 1, 2018 and retained power!
The four most recent blog posts ("BLOG" page above) together weave analysis and some strategy for California homeowners especially, and also very applicable to any "nonjudicial foreclosure" state in which Assignments of deed-of-trust is used to claim title ownership upon "trustee sale:" it does NOT. Furthermore, for all 50 states, applicable is Negotiable Instrument Law (UCC3) and Maxim of Law: "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet." (updated 4/28/19 )
Updates and additions made to the blog post on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and more.
The post and this site as a whole is for self-represented homeowners, policy makers including We the People who seek a redress of grievances, to law professionals and court personnel, and also especially our respectable JUDGES tasked with daunting decisions on a daily basis: RESPECT for what is on judicial shoulders,
in these dire times, regardless.
March 24, 2019: Added this video to the page on this site "Who is the Injured Party?" Check it out -- 50 minutes of plain-speak titled "MORTGAGE CRSIS IN A NUTSHELL," presented by acting attorney and professor of law John Campbell.
March 15, 2019: Today created a new page on this site -- "WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?" and sent out initial outreach to friends and colleagues in these trenches with me for some years -- us old-timer frontliners, yes indeed. We are connected, and those alliances do nothing but grow over time.
March 3, 2019: After voluntarily dismissing my bankruptcy last week just 14 days later after filing, it appears opposing parties have postponed trustee sale date to April 24, 2019 so 26th March has been moved up -- nice relief! I didn't do anything except retreat from litigation and courts. Of course I also had offered them a lot of money if they would agree we both retreat and was rejected. Let's see whose paying attention now that an offer from me was formally made -- and not a ridiculous one at all either.
It will be one year ago in June when I consciously and deliberately gave this case and all I own to God and asked, begged Him to take the wheel. "I work for you now on the whole thing God, its your case and your house, please ok? Thank you for taking it from me! It's too much for me alone. " So my job now is really about discerning divine will for each step -- and to glean clearly the lessons and bigger picture as I take it through. One lesson is total trust and patience -- especially when all I can see is one small step in front of me. What an adventure. Boy I'm glad I'm not alone.
2/28/2019 Wasn't sure until just before falling asleep last night - lessons of calm patience. Clarity came: no need bankruptcy court and we distance in respect and peace.
Time to rest the brain circuits and nerves. Must silence noise; orbit widen, travel & creative & natural setting without so much radiation smog ... Total trust: at the appointed time correct words and will of God manifests - without fail. Guided to now body & brain renew by outdoor physical work, an old friend one longs to be with again.
Noon February 15 2019
No trustee sale next week - WE DID IT!
We have protection from a short 30 day stay in bankruptcy - so we prepare our motions proposing a clear and reasonable plan towards resolution ~ to plead before our chief judge in bankruptcy court ~ who probably and hopefully will like our plan, because the controversy leaves his court entirely and returns where it belongs: civil unlimited State Court of Alameda County.
11:33 am 2/15/2019 "postponed" to 3/26/2019
February 14, 2019 A settlement offer was rejected by attorneys for Nationstar yesterday; and so was my next offer rejected which was 33% higher still. Nope. Maybe they didn't like my reference to the Constitution in my email accompanying my offer. I had to clarify a point of correction in reference to something the attorney wrote in his first rejection. Can't say I didn't try to avoid new lawsuit.
However while the attorney was composing and sending this to me I already had the hunch and had filed for bankruptcy protection on 4:24 PM after getting the guidance from an attorney who showed up in my orbit and gave me two phone calls - perfect timing. Returned the lawyer's email while walking out of the filing clerks' with this in hand: part of my reply mentioned "failure to grasp the concept," and a heads up to look for documents tomorrow.
This new bankruptcy petition immediately guards against any dispossession of our home; while we work within the parameters and procedures properly. We are worn and sometimes weary; but we are unafraid and our hearts have learned to be unbroken. There's a much bigger picture here than our little 111-year old kinda broken down house. Our Constitutional Republic and Principles of Law and Rightdoing -- are fighting for its life.
February 12, 2019 There is a formal settlement offer from our family FedExed yesterday, sitting on the desk of Reed Smith LLP law firm in Los Angeles; offered to defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC who has clarified verbally that they are mere third party debt collectors for an unknown, non-appearing, and apparently non-existent alleged "injured party." Nonetheless, we have had a minimally helpful telephone conference that "ransom" paid from us to only Nationstar, sourced from our outside funding options, could end this ten-year controversy once and for all, indemnifying (protecting) our family from any future claims from any entity not a party to the settlement agreement at this time.
Defendant Aztec Foreclosure Corporation who is the same entity as Shapiro, VanEss, Sherman & Marth LLP law office in Costa Mesa, has continued to advertise a 2/19/2019 auction of our home, so our offer is on the table only until 2:30 PM Wednesday February 13, 2018 after which we will implement Plan B or Plan C. Stay tuned.
Mejiro "white eye" and sakura, Tokyo Japan
January 15, 2019 By now we know that "the case" is fought both in and out of courts ...
After winning preliminary injunction in State court pleading violations of California Homeowner Bill of Rights, defendants removed the case to federal court, albeit improperly. We went along cautiously because we TRUSTED the word of attorneys that since federal court mandated good faith negotiations in "Alternate Dispute Resolution" conference, all parties would finally bring reasonableness to the table towards settlement. This phone-only "exploratory conversation" turned out to be a farce though helpful going forward in litigation. Apparently litigation is preferred over discussion and bullying over fair play. These ten years it is our Intuition guiding the way above all.
That intuition and hunch led to the choice to dismiss the case without prejudice so we could, if needed, start it again later ... it was the best light and skill we had at the time. So, our November 5, 2018 Dismissal Without Prejudice we filed afforded us a Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year's without litigation -- in itself our victory of claiming our lives-and-joyful-times from usurpation by this battle. See Court 2018 scroll to bottom for some pleadings in the case.
