This case involves objectively verifiable proof of fraud and forgery in the recorded chain of title in regard to critical foreclosure documents such as the Assignment of the Deed of Trust, and the Substitution of Trustee. Under California law, these documents must be duly acknowledged and recorded in order to be deemed valid foreclosure documents supporting the right to exercise the private power of sale, and to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure sale.
This case also involves two notaries (recently added as parties to this action) who REFUSE TO PRODUCE THEIR NOTARY TRANSACTION LOGS, as required by notary laws, and who are active participants and co-conspirators in the effort to defraud Plaintiff’s and to rush them to foreclosure without regard to the Notary Laws, or the California Foreclosure Laws which must be strictly followed, without fraud, deceit, or other unscrupulous action. These notaries were never present to verify identification of parties signing foreclosure documents, they did not witness signatures or administer oaths and they failed to perform legally required notarial acts. Instead, their notary stamps were literally offered up for lease which is why they are now “lawyering-up” instead of producing their notary transaction logs as required by law.
This case also involves forged signatures made by unknown third party DOE Defendants who sign documents without reviewing them, and without any legal authority to sign the documents they are asked to sign. Fraudulent and forged documents are VOID ab initio and there is no requirement to tender the balance of the loan to challenge acts that violate both civil and criminal statutes of the State of California. The evidence has been duly attached and noted and there is an elephant in the room. Defendant seeks to sweep it under the rug, while Plaintiff seeks to set aside the foreclosure sale that was not only a product of fraud but was sanctioned, authorized, ratified, approved, aided, abetted, and encouraged, by not only the Foreclosure Trustee, (Quality Loan Service), but also the Loan servicer for the securitized loan (previously Indymac Federal, and now OneWest bank), and the Trustee of the Securitized Loan trust that alleges to own and hold Plaintiff’s loan (Duetsche).
Each of the Defendants have acted in concert (which is why one law firm normally represents all the Defendants in a foreclosure case) with the specific intent of inducing Plaintiff to challenge nothing; to assert no rights; to raise no stink; challenge no motions in the bankruptcy court; and to essentially “go quietly into the foreclosure night.” Plaintiff’s relied on the notary stamps, the representations in the recorded chain of title documents, and the authenticity of recorded documents in believing the foreclosure process was being conducted to the letter of the law, (no reasonable person believes notarized documents must be challenged) and they suffered damages in the form of attorney fees, and other damages to be proven at trial, when seeking to rectify the fraud, and in asserting their legal rights to reverse and set-aside the wrongful foreclosure sale and demand that the process be re-done in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
If the rule of law does not apply in foreclosure settings, then we should dispense with notary requirements and not demand any compliance with state foreclosure laws. This of course would compel the conclusion that when foreclosure is involved, we become a nation of men, and not a nation of laws. Plaintiff’s respectfully urge this Court to send a message to Defendants, and those similarly situated, that exercising the power of sale in California requires strict compliance with the law - without exception.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONTACT US IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE CASE CITATION SO YOU CAN TRACK THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
Comments(26)