Japanese traditional mounted archery, Yabusame 流鏑馬

My favorite paragraph in today's email is probably: "The only problem is, there is exactly ZERO ASSIGNMENTS naming EITHER Wilmington entity as Assignee and current "Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust" IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. And even if the April 8, 2015 unrecorded Assignment exhibited below WERE to be filed and recorded; it is dated almost exactly one year AFTER Aztec Foreclosure Corporation recorded the Substitution of Trustee (SOT) - still leaving as unresolved the lack of Assignment to ANY Wilmington entity prior to SOT filing."

Sigh. Emailed and then printed and mailed Priority, with copies as appropriate. Sounds like ... what we do.

We who are not legal professionals have often diverted off course on our career trajectory big-time to scale this steep learning curve. Turns out "legalese" is a strange second language, and high-school Latin class alone doesn't give one the range of skills needed when it comes to these battles -- especially if MIS-education of the judge is in opposing counsel's toolbox of strategies. Certainly in the shell game and deliberate non-disclosure that was played against borrowers at loan-origination and continuing, mis-education of judges along with presumptions taken by the court that defy logic and reason, the judicial system has too often proven that our controversies are riddled with questionable levels of honesty and integrity despite any oaths taken. We certainly applaud our honored judges who do apply their own due study of these exotic "business models" and strip the facts down to the question of "is this right and just, or wrong and unjust?"

Guerrilla-lawyering and self-representation throws a curve ball into the standard lawyeresque judicial dance: we are in the enviable position of speaking and writing AS the ACTUAL PARTY IN INTEREST, and claimed-injured party to the transaction from which a controversy has arisen, and in the arena of primary residence foreclosure defense we are the dweller and occupant of something so basic to sustain life and well-being and functionality: a roof over our heads we call "HOME."

I am reminded that though these are my opponents in a debt-collection dispute in which certain law firms and business models are structured not to reinstate monthly payments on a modified loan contract but rather whose business models dictate liquidation of a "collateralized asset," i.e. the real property itself; that these people have a HOME to go to after their long days at the office; these people MIGHT understand ON SOME HUMAN LEVEL that we are seeking some kind of judicious, prudent, reasonable and lawful oversight to resolve the controversy in a way that is fair and just and reasonable. To "resolve" is to CRAFT a resolution, usually involving compromise and negotiation, and hopefully arising from meaningful discussion and review -- even if the end result of such discussion is that there is too much we agree TO DISAGREE ON, such that we need to bring the matter to a court of law.

Well we ARE in a court of law at the moment, the Superior Court of California for my County of Alameda, the lower trial court has accepted my Complaint, it remains active and parties are proceeding through the case.

When we write an email like this (and send it by mail) to our adversaries we ARE crafting a paper trail of inquiry and discussion, regardless of the reply from parties addressed in the email - whether parties provide no response, a meaningful reply, or a reply that sheds no more light and answers none of the questions raised -- we ARE actively documenting our legal position with a date/time stamp by email; we are documenting the responses, and we are demonstrating our true intent which for 99% of the home dwellers slammed with a threat of dispossession of their primary shelter and dwelling, is the intent to "work something out," with a "lender," with the "creditor."

The problem is that when we recognize we are NOT in communication with a business entity who even attempts to call itself a "creditor / beneficiary / owner of the mortgage debt" but rather when we are faced with several business entities who "instruct" us to "work with" ONLY and MERELY third-party debt-collectors who call themselves "mortgage-servicers," and even further removed from the opposite REAL PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION, i.e. the attorneys for both the mortgage-servicer and/or the "creditor / beneficiary / owner of the mortgage debt", we as home dwellers wanting to work something out and get our lives back become both frustrated and traumatized that there is NO PARTY who looks us in the eye and says in the FIRST PERSON, "IT IS ME and/or the COMPANY I work for as a managing-level employee with first-hand testimony under oath and penalty of perjury -- saying to you, homeowner and signatory on a Promissory Note and Security Instrument -- that YOU owe me/us money. Here's the proof of purchase transaction since our company paid for value and purchased this position in an unbroken chain of title showing that I / my company has proof of standing that we are suffering an injury from your non-payment thereof."

How I would love this conversation, but it's never happened. So now, that I have been forced to bring suit and have become plaintiff calling this person into court, I yearn for this "conversation" to occur inside the courtroom; and upon conclusion of such a statement, I would look this person in the eye and say, "Thank you so very much Mr. or Ms. _____ of "true-owner-of-my-debt-company" I have a proposal for settlement with you and your company so I can get my life back and you won't have to continue to be called into litigation that goes on for years and years on top of the EIGHT years I have been trying to get my life back and this controversy settled and over with! Boy am I elated you're here."

And the truth is, I'd rather be riding.