really your honor good morning your honor and may it please the court first i'd like to address their defendant's motion for to take judicial notice of the three documents the first two are recorded documents recorded in the county recorder's office but while defendant says all of the documents reference to a matter of public record and are thus proper it is incorrect exhibit three is actually from murders own website if you look back at the document itself you can see that it's a web page screenshot it is copyrighted by mercy corps holding and under the eight two thousand and three case it talks about private websites and it is because it could not verify the information found on these websites for accuracy or authenticity it would not be accepted considering is a private organization they keep their documentation private there is no way to determine the validity of the statements made on its website you're just supposed to take their word for it so therefore it is not office website that may be appropriate public here in government public eye government exactly not like oh i mean there are would leak says all kinds of things and therefore we could present everything on the internet as if it was true and the court would have to take that issue notice of it so that's exactly why the  said it has to be able to be he asked people to be verified so for example if you have a county recorder's office like the first two documents one could if one wanted go down to the county recorder office the official building of the county one could look up the records pull the document get a certified copy and know that the actual document on the website was the actual document that was recorded murderers or for any private company they put in a list of whom they believe their members are and then you go to verify so and that which is the only significant i take it if we agree with your argument that  that only subsequent our success or lenders within the earth is register a are can be represented by maurice and i didn't see any language to that effect in the actual language well what the what they're pointing out and survived to use i believe his transfer has to be recorded in the county recorder's office and it just describes when mers holds the beneficial interest and when are the well i can say as we disagree we believe that if you're not a member of murderers you have not made a contract with murderers you are not in privity with murderers the lender did the assignee never signed the document so you have a one sided document claiming that the person who signed it represents the person who received it but the person who receives it never signed never agrees is not in fact in contract will present he with murderers and all and now we know from survivor entries that if they're not then murderers is no longer going to track them no longer has anything to do with it in murders own opinion so you have to get authority from somewhere and you can't understand how the borrower would have a position to make that argument well because the borrower is the one who signed the original darkman and the borrower is the one who looking at the documents  first of all is of any bar heart looked at these documents we see which is extremely unlikely it really comes down to the point as how did these people become an agent you cannot become and when that language was in not make them via successors in assigns you cannot make somebody in agent of somebody else by your own agreement so in our view if you come in and i were to say we'll look this person is going to represent you you have to agree with that person does not represent you otherwise as an agent that person could make representations on your behalf they everything they do could be put back to you and responded superiority and so suddenly you have two parties saying look we agree then short going to be the agent of a third party yet another class going to the coast should rest in slightly off of foreclosure has taken place the foreclosure has so would this be properly raised as a defense in the foreclosure action rather than as well there is no fact closure action it's a nontraditional foreclosure so there is nowhere for a b to challenge in the nontraditional system there is no place for them to come out and say we object the only thing you can do is exactly what mr obama did which is go to the courthouse and say wait a minute this foreclosure process going back to the notice of default going to notice a trustee sale going to any of those non judicial we have no way of doing that other than that and that's certainly one of the advantages of a judicial foreclosure is that the lend here is the plaintiffs the lender therefore has to prove their case in a nontraditional state pretty much anybody can record a notice of a right to foreclose that's right it's exactly like a lot of where does your client get standing to question how that person came into possession of the note itself who is the person that we're questioning why does it matter to your  statute says void the problem is no court not soldered back not turn or roger mom has ever said the word void is ambiguous and miriam webster gave us two words is the new york court doesn't speak english well and therefore they picked the wrong word we're going to rewrite the statute to say it's void above all not void because if we don't look at all the problems we're going to they cannot interpret them to mean the opposite of what the word is especially if that word is not in big u s has never been found by any court to be in big u hear from the other side since the court's already familiar with our arguments i just want to summarize a few key points and perhaps address some of the comments of my colleagues ultimately the issues in this case are not new and they're not novel over the course of the past decade in california there's been increased scrutiny on california's non judicial foreclosure scheme this case raises issues with california's non judicial foreclosure scheme in particular the overarching theme of the lawsuit is whether or not my client h s b c bank has standing to pursue a non judicial foreclosure so now deponent notably doesn't argue that he hasn't made a mortgage payment since two thousand and nine or th quarter million dollars in arrears on the loan he posits to the court that the underlying lawsuit is intended to ask to ascertain who in fact is entitled to collect those back payments from him not as he ten this is an excerpt of the record page seventy one the appellate alleges that mortgage it the original lender sold plaintiff's mortgage loan to be restructured products at paragraph trust and even even if we were to assume that there was a defect in any point in that transfer the california supreme court has concluded there are held that a borrower who has actually suffered it wrongful foreclosure can challenge that transfer only an event that it's void but not if it's avoidable and as your honor noted this court has already determined in the turner case that under new york trust l i think at the end of the day the allegation in the complaint is that the the structure product is not in the merge registry that record is a snapshot of the merge registry showing that in fact allegation is incorrect  i don't think it matters i think as i noted that in this case the appellant has actually admitted that the loan was sold h s b c bank if nothing else murders as the beneficiary of record had some obligation at least in a ministerial