California court holds that omission of trustee does not preclude nonjudicial foreclosure

11 Dec

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:02 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: California court holds that omission of trustee does not preclude nonjudicial foreclosure

Yet one more lousy ruling putting more nails in the coffin of home ownership and perpetuating the bankster controlled judiciary. And of course they easily publish this case.

A case of first impression? Seems to me I sent out citations from California related to this issue some time back.

Note:

· No objection to RJN on at least two occasions (and finally making the objection on the same RJN after the SAC demurrer, which of course failed)

· An assumed “Beneficial Interest” in the Deed of Trust by MERS

· Post foreclosure action…no Tender or offer of Same and no arguing Tender Rule Exceptions

· No pleading additional material facts in the SAC

· No attempt to distinguish out of state citations

· No attempt to argue “commencing a non-judicial foreclosure sale” v. sustaining a foreclosure sale are very different!

· Failure to argue prejudice when no indorsed note was provided timely…apparently failing to claim forgery

· The court claiming Plaintiffs were :”in default;” “owned more than 90k in back payments;” “continue to occupy the Property “rent free,””

· Since when is forging a note indorsement; failure to name a trustee; substituting a trustee when there was none (what about the term “substitute” do you not understand!) merely “seek shelter in MINOR ministerial omissions” (emphasis added)…well, I guess certainly in California!

Sound familiar?

Also interesting is the court cites probate cases re failure of a trust does not occur for lack of a trustee but it appears, there was never addressed the fact that similar statutory authority exists that an unfunded trust DOES NOT EXIST. (while on the other hand stating the trustee serves as a common agent in the typical argument on these issues) The pick and choose your law out of context (from any jurisdiction they want, even if non-controlling) to argue your point still seems to succeed only for the banksters…

Yet more bad law made on what appears to be another poorly litigated case.

The theft of real property continues with the blessing of the judiciary.

Shuster v. BAC.docx

Advertisements

One Response to “California court holds that omission of trustee does not preclude nonjudicial foreclosure”

  1. Constance Anne Dudley December 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    The pick and choose your law out of context (from any jurisdiction they want, even if non-controlling) to argue your point still seems to succeed only for the banksters…News Flash it also exist to Fiduciaries who wish to raid trust and family law attornies that do not want to be governed by Jurisdiction either Constance, 831-238-2580 mobile carmelcrown@comcast.net Carmel Crown Properties Lincoln and Seventh 2nd N.E Postal Box 5367 Carmel by the Sea, CA 93921

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: