From: Charles Cox [mailto:email@example.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.
· 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!
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.