Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/163826991/Glaski-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-1
Timestamp: 2016-08-29 08:36:23
Document Index: 338213489

Matched Legal Cases: ['arty 2924', 'arty 955', '§ 2923', '§ 17200', '§ 2923', '§ 17200']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCASENO. F064556
IN THE STATE FIFTH
BANK OF AMERICA, BY MERGER TO "LA MORTGAGE CHASE AND PASS HOME
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR SALLE BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU CERTIFICATES LLC, JPMORGAN RECONVEYANCE and Respondents. SERIES CHASE 2005-AR-17", BANK, N.A.,
CALIFORNIA Defendants
rlalawyer@vahoo.com Attorneys THOMAS for Plaintiff A. GLASKI and Appellant
Page I. INTRODUCTION II. A. B. C. ARGUMENT Respondents' Glaski Statement of Facts Respondents' Assignment is Inaccurate. Power of Deed to Foreclose. of Trust Does Not 1 1 1 3 5
Can Challenge 2008
The December Help
Respondents. Court Should Not Take Judicial Notice of the 2008
Assignment. E. Respondents Arguments. F. G. III. Glaski Tender Pleaded Harm and Reliance. 13 15 17 OF WORD COUNT 18 Do Not Understand or Mischaracterize Glaski's 10
is Still Not Required.
OF AUTHORITIES Page California Cases m 218 (2011) 11, 12 5 6 3,6 11, 12 _ 231 (2008) _ 1149 (2011) 3,4 8, 10 8 (2003) 13 5 11 4 16 8,10 Assoc., 16 6
/lceves Bardis Curico Evans Garciav. Giraldo Gomes Herrera Joslin Korea Lucich Nguyen Murillo Onofrio
v. U.S. BankNationalAssoc., v. Oates, v, Svanevik, 119 Cal.App.4
192 Cal.App.4 th 1 (2004) 955 (1984)
155 Cal.App.3d
v. City of Berkeley, World Savings, Dept.
38 Cal.4 _ 1 (2006) 183 Cal.App.4 of Corrections, Loans, lnc., _ 1031 (2010) 168 Cal.App.4 192 Cal.App.4
v. California v. Countrywide v. Deutsche v. H.A.S. Supply lns.
196 Cal.App.4 369 (1986) 29 Cal.4 _ 1134
th 1366 (2011)
184 Cal.App.3d Martin Corp.,
Co. v. Lockheed
v. City of Oakland, v. Calhoun, v. Fleetwood v. Rice, lnc.
19 Cal.App.4
th 495 (1993)
105 Cal.App.4 Enterprises,
m 428 (2003) lnc, 17 Cal.4 m 985 (1998)
55 Cal.App.4 v. Superior
_ 413 (1997) Court, v. Great 20 Cal.4 m 449 (1999) Western Savings & Loan
StorMedia, United
Cold Storage 1214 (1985)
165 Cal.App.3d
Mena (N.D.
v. JP Morgan
N.A., 2012
Cal. Sept. 7, 2012) California Statutes 13 4,13 4, 13 4,13 4, 13
1572 1708 1710 2924
Civil Code Penal Code
470 (<t)
I. When respondents Appellant's documents arguments, you read examine the
INTRODUCTION the Respondents' Brief, the Brief, Second rest on you have to wonder Complaint, if or
Opening Their the
Appendix. were before
arguments trial court,
misunderstandings law. they does
of appellant's
and misinterpretations improperly they failed
of California rely
Respondents the trail court when have
on a document That document
did not present not rescue
demurred. to refute
Respondents the power tender pleaded rule
appellant's that
arguments alleged
that he can attack harm, and that the has
of a lender does not
to foreclose, apply. of action
he has Thomas
A. Glaski
in his Second his case. ARGUMENT
("SAC")
to pursue II.
Respondents' make
Statement much of which for (the
of Facts a
is Inaccurate. December assigned Mortgage or "the Glaski's Pass 8, 2008 loan to Through Trust").
Respondents "Assignment "LaSalle Certificates (Respondents' Court Glaski's is that of Deed Bank N.A.
of Trust," as trustee Trust
allegedly WaMu "Trust" What document (or
Services-AR17 Brief, they at pages did not Amended
3, 10, 13.) on this
respondents when
did not tell the they demurred Request to for
Judicial Notice in Supportof their demurrerto the SAC askedthe trial court to take notice of only two documents--a letter from the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Purchaseand Assumption Agreement betweenthe FDIC, asreceiverfor WashingtonMutual, andJ.P.Morgan Chase Bank. (2 AA 000301 to 000303). Respondentsdid not requestthat the trial court takejudicial notice of the December8, 2009 Assignmentof Deedof Trust. (Ibid.) Respondents'demurrerto the SAC did not rely on the December8, 2008 Assignmentand did not mention the Assignment. (2 AA 000287to 000000298.) The trial court did not rely on respondents'Request for Judicial Notice in ruling on the demurrer to the SAC. (2 AA 000410to 000412,) Respondentsalso misconstrue the SAC. Respondents argue that Glaski made what they call a "self-serving" allegation that Brignac's signatureon the JuneMarch 20, 2009Notice of Trustee'sSaleandJune15, 2009 Assignment of Deed of Trust was forged. (Respondent'sBrief, at page 8.) They call this allegation "conclusionary" and say the trial court did not needto acceptit as true when ruling on the demurrerto the SAC. (Respondents' Brief, at pages6, 8.) Glaski did more than just allege the Brignac signaturewas forged. The SAC attached as exhibits several documents Brignac supposedly signedin other foreclosurecases. (SeeExhibits 6-13to the SAC, at 1 AA 000247to 000276.) For example,exhibit 6 wasa Notice of Trustee'sSale 2
for property owned by Jose and Anna Carrisales in Santa Barbara, California. (1 AA 000247 to 000248.) Brignac allegedly signed this
document. (1 AA 000248.) Yet, her signaturediffered significantly from her signatureson the Glaski Notice of Trustee'sSaleandthe June15,2009 Assignmentof Deed of Trust. (Compare1 AA 000248with 1 AA 000238 and 1 AA 000242.) Exhibit 7 was a Notice of Trnstee's Salefor property Ismael and EsperanzaVieyra owned in SantaMaria, California. (1 AA 000252to 1 AA 000253.) Again, Brignac supposedlysigned this document,but her signaturedid not matchthe signatureson the Glaski documents.(Compare 1 AA 000253with 1 AA 000238and 1 AA 000242.). Glaski's SAC did more than allegethat the Brignac signatureswere forged. He provided examplesof the forgery. Becausehe pleadedmore thanjust a "conclusionary" allegation,the trial court wasrequiredto accept this chargeastrue when it ruled on the demurrerto the SAC.
of Berkeley, reviewing B. 38 Cal.4 th 1, 6 (2006). ruling. Challenge that Ibid. Respondents' Gomes precludes Brief, permits 3 Power to Foreclose. Home Loan, Inc., their points if This Court must do Evans the v. City same in
the trial court's Glaski Can contend 1149
Respondents 192 power Cal.App.4 _
v. Countrywide Glaski at pages a plaintiff from 7-9.)
challenging As Glaski
(Respondents' brief, Gomes
out in his opening
he canidentify "a specific
initiated 192 Glaski showed by the correct th at
factual party." (italics
bas& for alleging Gomes added); basis"
the foreclosure Home
was not Inc., 27-28. that
v. Countrywide Opening because
Cal.App.4 identified
a "specific
he alleged before (Opening
that his loan had and Notice
not been of Trustee's
transferred Sale were
to the Trust issued.
the Notice Brief, at
of Default page
28; 1 AA 000196.) According to Respondents, of a party the idea that rests Code a homeowner can never effect et seq.
to foreclosure statutes, 7-9.) Civil
on the preemptive sections reading 2924 of those
foreclosure Brief, language sections (d), which statute 17
(Respondents' reveals Civil section say that no Code 470 one
at pages expressly 1708 bars overrides and
A close other
statutes like Code to
preempting 1710, which
California fraud,
statutes, or Penal any
forgery. another 992
law rejects Cf Murillo must
v. Fleetwood apply the Ibid. be able to fraud
Enterprises, statutes, If challenge that
Cal.4 t_ 985, statutes, can
the forgery a plaintiff
and the foreclosure show fraud the or
statues he
together. should
a foreclosure. ordering (a) (1).
foreclosure have the
statutes power
themselves Civil
require Code when
a party 2924
a foreclosure A challenge
to do so. party's
to a foreclosing
basedon a specific factual allegation, doesnot contradict the foreclosure statutes;it upholdsthem. C. The December 2008 Assignment
Not According Assignment (Respondents' Glaski's investment (Ibid.) Deed of Help to Deed Respondents. respondents, of Trust 10-13.) J.P. the alleged December destroys Glaski's purports 8, 2008 case. of Deed of Trust Does
at pages from
This Assignment Morgan Chase Bank initiated
of Trust (Ibid.) the
("Chase") the
Trust. Because
in turn, was
foreclosure. argue
properly (Ibid.)
had the power present they did Deed AA
to foreclose. this argument not contend of Trust to and
Respondents they demurred
did not SAC,
to the trial that
When 2008 had to of in
to the transferred
the December therefore 000287
Assignment the power
Glaski's (2
the Trust 2 AA
foreclose. They 2008
000301 ask the trial (Ibid.)
000303;
000000298). the December
did not even Assignment. notice
court Now,
to take judicial they ask this
notice Court,
to judicially
and apply arguments Lucich
it to bar Glaski's not presented of Oakland,
SAC. to the 19
It is an old rule trial court cannot th 494, be 498
of appellate raised (1993); cannot on
law that appeal.
Cal.App.4 (2004).
Bardis raise
v. Oates,
119 Cal.App.4
th 1, 13, fn. 6
that he did not assert
Cal.App.3d party 955,
v. Oates, It is unfair
v. Svanevik,
960 (1984).
to the trial court Giraldo
and the opposing Dept. of
Corrections, The respondents, demurrer judicial be raised
168 Cal.App.4 December a complete to the SAC and
th 231, 251 (2008). is a new Yet, did not they request theory did not the and, argue trial according to
8 Assignment defense. they
it in their court take
now and it should the December
be ignored. 8 Assignment Trust required that proves all loans after nothing. The SAC to it it
Further, alleged that the
investment Date." If the loan was
by a "Closing was The invalid "Closing and
the "Closing (1 AA
Date," 000187.)
not property 21, 2005. to
Date" 2008
(1 AA 000188.) transfer the Glaski
Even loan, The
if the the trial
December transfer court Evans title power
Assignment late and
attempted the Trust never as true
came had
title to the loan. it ruled on the
v. City of Berkeley, even under the
38 Cal.4 th at 6. Because 2008 Assignment,
did not acquire never had the
to foreclose. The December of Trust 2008 Assignment, as trust. noted, purports to transfer The June 15,
to the investment 6
(RB 000078.)
2009 Assignment, which came after the foreclosure on Glaski's home, purports to do the samething--transfer the Deed to the investmentTrust. (RB 000078; 1 AA 000238.) Why did this transferneedto be donetwice? If the first transfer in December 2008 was proper, the investmentTrust already had acquiredthe Glaski Deed of Trust. It did not need a second transfer in June 2009. The only thing that changedbetween December 2008and June2009 was the nameof the trusteefor the investmentTrust-Bank of America insteadof LaSalle Bank. (CompareRB 000078with 1 AA 000238). The investmentTrust remainedthe same. The fact that a secondtransfer becamenecessaryin June2009 suggested that Chasedid not think the December2008transferwasvalid andhadto beredone. In addition, Chasewas the transferring party in both the December 2008 and June 2009 Assignments. If the December 2008 Assignment transferredthe Glaski Deed of Trust to the investmentTrust, Chasedid not have the power to do the June2009 transfer becauseit no longer hadtitle. The fact that it did the 2009 transfer implies the December2008 transfer wasnot effective andhadto doneover.
D. The Court Should Not Take Judicial Notice of the 2008
Assignment. The notice. December 2008 Assignment did not ask is not a proper the trial court subject for judicial notice
to take judicial
of the Assignment and they have not filed a formal requestfor judicial noticewith this Court. Second,"' [t]aking judicial notice of a documentis not the sameas acceptingthe truth of its contentsor acceptinga particularinterpretationof its meaning.' While courts take judicial notice of public records,they do not take notice of the truth of mattersstatedtherein."
Bank Joslin judicial National v. H.A.S. notice Trust Ins. Co., 196 Cal.App.4 th 1366, 369, Herrera v. Deutsche quoting "When proper
184 Cal.App.3d . . . the
374 (1986). and
truthfulness Inc.
interpretation Court,
of the document 457,
are disputable."
StorMedia,
20 Cal.4 th 449, What respondents of
fn. 9 (1999). are asking stated Deed this Court December to do is take judicial 2008 notice
matters Glaski's proper
in the of Trust
Assignment--that Trust. Yet, the
transferred and and
to the investment of this Assignment read together,
"truthfulness The Glaski 2008
interpretation" when
are disputable. no sense, as
2009 above.
shows Third,
the December Deed of Trust, Chase been
assignment disputable that
assumes point.
Chase least
to the hearing Mutual
Glaski a case home
against loans had
of trust called Chase
on Washington "WaMu Bank, Asset 2012
transferred Mena
to an entity Morgan
v. J.P. 8
U.S.Dist. LEXIS 128585,at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept.7, 2012.) The samething may have happenedherebecause,as the Mena
were common The could to the with Washington this Mutual loans. for respondents 2008 acquired FDIC. of the only is that Chase court noted, such transfers
problem Glaski's
possibility of Trust
transfer Deed. and
in December Chase with the
only if it had title title under its
According Assumption 7-10.)
to respondents, Agreement" Even shows a generous that Chase
"Purchase Brief,
(Respondents' "Purchase the assets and of does
reading acquired
Assumption Washington not mention If the Mutual "Purchase acquire allegation do so. Fourth, defeats the Bank
Agreement" Mutual "WaMu Glaski Bank. Asset Deed
(RB 000037 Acceptance of Trust 25, 2008,
and 000045.) Corporation."
of Washington signed did make the SAC the not this to
on September Assumption loan
the FDIC (RB
and Chase Chase can
Agreement" under case the
000037), Glaski leave
on the Mena
for this claim,
to find take this
Assignment and to all
it must Only assets, Chase
of the gave
"Purchase title
Assumption Washington Without
Agreement." Mutual
Agreement including
Chase Glaski's
supposedly could
mortgage. Trust,
title to the loan,
not transfer 9
it to the investment
as it purported to do with the December2008 Assignment. Giving Chase title in December 20089 requires the Court to accept the truth of the statements madein the "PurchaseandAssumptionAgreement,"which it is not allowed to do when considering a request for judicial notice.
StorMedia, Deutsche Inc. Bank Fifth, purports section v. Superior National Court, 20 Cal.4 th at 457, th at fn. 9; Herrera v.
Trust Co., and
196 Cal.App.4 is open assets which no idea the proper
1375. Although in section in sections apply. it 3.1, 3.5, A that on the
Agreement Mutual
to dispute. to Chase
to transfer 3.1 mentions
all Washington several
exceptions, We have is not issue
are if those
3.6 and 4.8. request dispute. merits. E. for
(RB 000045.) judicial notice of that
exceptions for and
handling a trial
Respondents Glaski's
Arguments. fail to understand or mischaracterize "does not allege many of Glaski's
Respondents arguments. at issue provisions those 9.) They were not
contend recorded
that Glaski or served Code...
that the documents with the applicable in
of California documents
or that the information (Respondent's
contained Brief,
recorded The point 2009
not accurate." charge
at page Sale and because
of the forgery Assignment,
is that the Notice documents,
of Trustee are false
the Brignac signatureis forged. (1 AA 000189to 1 AA 000190.) The SAC allegesin the SecondCauseof Action for Fraud that the Notice of Default and the Notice of Trustee'sSale are invalid because they falsely represent that the foreclosing entity has the power to foreclose. (1 AA 000190to 1 AA 000192.) The same allegations undermine respondents'attemptsto invoke
Nguyen v. Calhoun, 105 Cal.App.4 cannot th 428 (2003). sue to undo Nguyen, they when say, stands he alleges at page
for the rule defects 15.)
that a plaintiff or "dehors shown alleging and the
a foreclosure (Respondents' the
"outside" But, as by Sale
the foreclosure." Glaski the 2009 attacks
above, that June are
foreclosure on forged falsely the
documents Notice that of the that
themselves, Trustee's foreclosure respondents Because "outside"
signatures are they
documents have these
fraudulent to foreclose. the
the power charges
(1 AA 000189
to 1 AA they
000192.) are not
or "dehors Respondents'
the foreclosure." interpretation of Nguyen hold rely See, Aceves Garcia 11 also does not accurately state
California or undo during Cal.App.4 Cal.App.4
Numerous when
that homeowners on misrepresentations e.g., Garcia Bank
can sue to prevent lenders Savings, Assoc., or make 183 192 their
a foreclosure the foreclosure th 1031 _ 218
process. and In
v. World National the
(2010), (2011).
v. U.S. and
representativesmade oral or written statements to homeowners that foreclosureswould be postponedif the homeownerscompliedwith certain lender requests. The misrepresentationscame outside the foreclosure documentsand, under respondents'interpretationof California law, were "dehorsthe foreclosure." Yet, the Garcia
cases that to proceed. you can sue outside These to two opinions, undo a among and Aceves others, even courts stand if you allowed the
for the principle are relying on
foreclosure documents.
the foreclosure then
Respondents of action insist for violation waived brief
Glaski's Competition
arguments Law
of the Unfair any right
(or "UCL"). of this claim
the dismissal Court's 17.)
his opening Cause
did not "address (Respondents'
the Trial Brief,
as to the Ninth respondents on those the trial
of Action." pages
at page Brief.
did not read pages court why erred The why These and pages Glaski
40 and 41 of the Opening a claim for violation
argued and why
he pleaded in sustaining Opening pleaded
of the UCL
the demurrer also refers and
to that cause the Court back
of action. to earlier Brief, arguments on
Brief harm
reliance. was
(Opening harmed
40-41.) conduct Brief, at
that Glaski
by respondents' (Opening
demonstrate 30-31,
he has standing 40-41.)
to sue under
Next, respondentssay that Glaski's UCL causeof action doesnot plead "facts demonstratingthat the practice violates an underlying law." (Respondents' Brief, at page 18.) The OpeningBrief, however,pointedout how the SAC alleged violations of at least five California statutes--Civil Code sections 1572 (3), 1709, 1710, and 2924 (a) (1), and Penal Code section470 (d). (OpeningBrief, atpage40.) Respondents arguethat Glaski "doesnot allege.., any.., factsthat would entitle him to relief that is actually recoverableunder the UCL. (Respondents'Brief, at page 18.) Again, one must wonder if respondents have read the SAC. The SAC asksthe trial court to issueseveralorders, including an order cancelling the trustee'ssaleof Glaski's home,vacating the foreclosuresale,andcancelingthe Notice of Default,the Assignmentof Deed of Trust, and the Notice of Trustee's Sale. (1 AA 000203.) These orders,in effect, amountto an injunction, because they requirerespondents to take affirmative stepsto undo the foreclosuresale. An injunction is one form of relief underthe UCL.
29 Cal.4 th 1134, F. 1144 (2003). Pleaded devote committed at pages Brief, Harm a good forgery 8-10.) at pages 13 and Reliance. portion of their brief to the argument Glaski. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
Respondents that, even (Respondents' was harmed. if they
and fraud, The Opening
they did not harm Brief shows
Brief, (Opening
how Glaski
and 39-40.)
What concealment the plaintiff Glaski forged Trust? foreclosure correct Restarting to pursue keep have
respondents case. have done The done had key
all, case
fraudulent would would were Deed restart of the of the
in a concealment revealed the
is what What
the truth? Brignac
respondents Trust
and that the Glaski process
did not have that
title to Glaski's respondents in the
demanded a new Notice
by issuing Respondents
of Default had given
have have time
no choice Glaski
but to agree. time, time and months
the foreclosure a loan
modification If nothing else,
or perhaps Glaski
had a few more harm. was
to stay in his home. Respondents and 10.) would But, have lost
The loss of that opportunity fall back on the argument
is sufficient that Glaski
in default at pages purpose 8of
anyway. in default
(Respondents' lose their home.
Brief, The
not all homeowners relief programs and
mortgage keep their
loan could a
modifications have fact applied that factual has
is to help for not those been or
homeowners programs. proven. make A
homes. argument is not the
Respondents' demurrer assumptions.
assumes place to
is Still Not Required. repeat his loan their balance demurrer before argument he could that sue. Glaski (Respondents' rule is little was
Respondents required Brief, more to tender at pages than
Respondents' of cases favoring
discussion tender.
of the tender (1bid.) those the They
a recitation exceptions
do not address apply has to no
the multiple Glaski. exceptions. rule Brief, in detail
rule and how believe
exceptions tender rule
(Ibid,) (Ibid.)
apparently Opening Brief excuse
analyzes him from
the exceptions tendering.
to the (Opening
and explains 32-33.) pleaded and
at pages Glaski
several wrongful
causes foreclosure.
of action (1 AA
including and tender 1 AA rule
fraud 000194 bars
to 1 AA
000192, why the this
to 1 AA a claim
000196.).
Respondents and they
for damages Brief,
cite no case that supports
proposition. What exceptions equitable tender. hundred figure
(Respondents' happens and relief Tender thousand bars
at pages are for In
14-16.) correct that the tender rule has no for allege several six in of
if respondents any claim
wrongful few
foreclosure, plaintiffs can must mortgages
whether ever raise
or damages? means dollars in most before
reality, that suit,
cases filing
a plaintiff as most
has that kind of money, make his payments. 15
he is not in foreclosure The practical effect
as he can easily
respondents'tenderposition is that they are entitled to immunity from any wrongs they commit in the foreclosureprocess. Because a plaintiff cannot tender,defendantscan never be suedunder any theory, equitableor legal. Lendersandservicerscan commit fraud andforgery andbe immune. This result is a distortion of California law and cannotbe true. The tender rule is a principle of equity and should not be applied when it is inequitableto do so.
Court should decline Onofrio to enforce v. Rice, the 55 Cal.App.4 tender rule th 413,424 (1997). This
to a grant
of immunity. Ultimately, party Great (1985). equity. charged that seeks the tender equity Savings who rule must rule first comes from the equitable United States principle Cold 1214, hardly when that a v.
do equity. Assoc.,
Storage 1224-1225.
& Loan has
165 Cal.App.3d fraud shield and forgery respondents
A defendant The them tender
committed not
has done Glaski has
For GLASKI reversed. Dated: January 17, 2013 these additional
reasons, that
appellant of the
THOMAS trial court
CATAR1NA
CERTIFICATE Calif. The Word Dated: 2007 text word in this Rules brief
OF WORD Rule
COUNT (c) (1). as counted the brief. by the
of 3,809
processing 17, 2013
Glaski - Appellant's Reply Brief-1 by 83jjmack49 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionTHIS IS APPELLANT GLASKI'S REPLY BRIEFTHIS IS APPELLANT GLASKI'S REPLY BRIEFInterests: Types, Business/LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedFederal Injunctionby Eric DaGreatCALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS -FREE EXPERT ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR THE NEW HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA-THIS IS SEPTEMBER 2013 NEWSLETTERby 83jjmackGlaski v Bank of America California Fifth Appelate Court Certified Opinionby Mike MaunuGlaski Opinon by CA 5th Districtby Martin AndelmanTHOMAS A. GLASKI v BANK OF AMERICA Re: Second Amended Complaint by Barry Fagan Esq.OUTSTANDING REQUEST FOR SUPPORT TO ENLIST CFPB TO INTERVENE AND/OR FILE AMICUS----ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS!!HANDY TEMPLATE INCLUDEDby 83jjmack2013 CERTIFIED FOR PUB-- UNIQUE CALIFORNIA WIN FOR HOMEOWNER MICHAEL FULLER v First Franklin California Court of Appeals -broker fiduciary duties Butte Countyby 83jjmackSaldivar v JPMorgan Chaseby divinawGlaski v BOA Published Version-California Court of Appeals Decision -Cert for Pub August 8 2013by 83jjmackYvanova v New Century Depublication Request to California State Supreme Courtby Mike MaunuCASE FILE California Wrongful Foreclosure, Slander of Title, Viol. § 2923.5, and Viol. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code §§ 17200 M-T-D Denied BARRIONUEVO v. CHASE BANK, ND,Califby DeontosGregory Johnson v Hsbc Bank--big Win for Homeonwer -CA FEDERAL COURT-HOW TO USE SECURITIZATION IN YOUR COURT CASEby 83jjmackFDCPA Fraudby Jeff WilnerGREGORY JOHNSON V HSBC, BOA--HIS COMPLAINT AND HOW HE RESPONDED TO BANKS MOTION TO DISMISS PLUS EXHIBITS-MARCH 2012 CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT-SOUTHERN DIST.by 83jjmackComplaint Symoniak False ClaimS.C. Second Amended Complaint (ECF) (3)by Foreclosure FraudAssignment Fraud Example 01by Allen Carlton Jr.Similar to Glaski - Appellant's Reply Brief-1Federal InjunctionCALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS -FREE EXPERT ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR THE NEW HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA-THIS IS SEPTEMBER 2013 NEWSLETTERGlaski v Bank of America California Fifth Appelate Court Certified OpinionGlaski Opinon by CA 5th DistrictTHOMAS A. GLASKI v BANK OF AMERICA ReOUTSTANDING REQUEST FOR SUPPORT TO ENLIST CFPB TO INTERVENE AND/OR FILE AMICUS----ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS!!HANDY TEMPLATE INCLUDED2013 CERTIFIED FOR PUB-- UNIQUE CALIFORNIA WIN FOR HOMEOWNER MICHAEL FULLER v First Franklin California Court of Appeals -broker fiduciary duties Butte CountySaldivar v JPMorgan ChaseGlaski v BOA Published Version-California Court of Appeals Decision -Cert for Pub August 8 2013Yvanova v New Century Depublication Request to California State Supreme CourtCASE FILE California Wrongful Foreclosure, Slander of Title, Viol. § 2923.5, and Viol. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code §§ 17200 M-T-D Denied BARRIONUEVO v. CHASE BANK, ND,CalifGregory Johnson v Hsbc Bank--big Win for Homeonwer -CA FEDERAL COURT-HOW TO USE SECURITIZATION IN YOUR COURT CASEFDCPA FraudGREGORY JOHNSON V HSBC, BOA--HIS COMPLAINT AND HOW HE RESPONDED TO BANKS MOTION TO DISMISS PLUS EXHIBITS-MARCH 2012 CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT-SOUTHERN DIST.Complaint Symoniak False ClaimS.C. Second Amended Complaint (ECF) (3)Assignment Fraud Example 01Assignment Fraud