Let’s find ONE in the state of California—ONE WITNESS who has WON…..as a defendant in an eviction proceeding following a non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924


Judge David O. Carter has given Renada Nadine March another interesting albeit non-conclusive, non-final “win”: he has reset from Wednesday May 19 to Monday, June 14, a hearing on the evil eviction-Shark/Shylock, Steven D. Silverstein’s, vengeful Motion to have her third and latest Civil Rights Removal of her Eviction case remanded to state court, which this time was coupled with Silverstein’s Motion to have Renada declared a “vexatious litigant” which in California amounts to slamming the doors of every courthouse in the state against you and padlocking it from the inside—even if you are a defendant.  Carter entered the order resetting this hearing in response to Renada’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal: 28 USC 1447(d) RNM Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Extention of Time; 28 USC 1447(d) RNM Motion with DECLA ISO Stay Pending Appeal and Extention of Time.

The significance of this development is that Renada and her octogenarian mother Fay now have the opportunity to present evidence on what I would call the key “Greenwood v. Peacock” factor which is this: whether by the mere fact of bringing a defendant into state court, in a certain type of proceeding, the outcome is already determined against the defendant. Greenwood v Peacock 1966.

In support of Renada’s efforts, I would like to issue this challenge, statewide, or to anyone who has ever lived in the state of California. Can anyone bring to me the case number, complete docket, and trial transcript of a single eviction case, tried or summarily disposed anywhere in the state of California, during the past thirty years (that would be since Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980), in which a Plaintiff has lost, and a defendant has actually won, and prevailed, in a judicial eviction action instituted in a property which had been non-judicially foreclosed pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924 and related statutes.  I am certainly interested in collecting interesting stories about settlements, dismissals for want of prosecution, death of Plaintiff’s attorney by shark attack or otherwise, or any other outcome favorable to the defendant and the circumstances which gave rise to such defendant-favorable outcomes, but none of these are what I’m really looking for.  I want to see if anyone can document even ONE SINGLE CASE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE PAST THIRTY YEARS, in which any defendant has actually PREVAILED, as a matter of trial-of-facts or summary judgment or dismissal as a matter of law, against a non-judicial foreclosure effected under the terms of California Civil Code Section 2924.  If anyone can find such a case, and properly document it with references to Court, date of disposition, Judge, case number, parties, and available docket report, I want to see it.  Steven D. Silverstein, Larry Rothman, and Carol G. Unruh, attorneys for Meglodon Financial, are all especially invited to participate in this little concourse, this “race to the heart of darkness.”  I am betting that not even one truly Defendant-won case will be found, but if even one can be, I want to know everything there is to know about how it was done.  If I am right, or even if there is exactly one case per decade, I think that Renada and Fay March will be well-able to sustain their plea of “fixed outcome” to justify either Civil Rights Removal under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443(1) and 1447(d), as well as Greenwood v. Peacock, or else a Civil Rights Injunction analogous to the one entered in Dombrowski v. Pfister DOMBROWSKI v PFISTER 380_US_479 and found to be specifically authorized by Congress in Mitchum v. Foster Mitchum v Foster 407_US_225.  Thank you, Judge David O. Carter, for this opportunity! Mitchum v. Foster is, in my opinion, an underappreciated and underutilized source of Federal-State jurisprudence whose time has come, precisely because the state courts have drifted so very deeply into unconstitutional and unconscionable procedures and court customs having the force and effect of unconstitutional law. Mitchum v Foster 407_US_225

Anyone with pertinent information should send it to me at charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com, or else to Renada Nadine March at renadajewel@gmail.com, or else call Renada at 949-748-0398 or 949-586-4020.  Comments with relevant information can also be left (and will be published) on this blog, below: https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/

(However, I think it is important to qualify that no one reading this request for data, except a person already employed in the chambers of Judge David O. Carter, or just possibly someone employed elsewhere in the United States District Court for the Central District of California or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, should even THINK of contacting judicial chambers trying to discuss the question outside of the context of litigation with this very fair-minded judge.  It is completely improper ever to engage in such tactics as trying to extrajudicially influence the Judge, even though some licensed attorneys in the state of California have, within recent memory, tried to stir their supporters to mount telephone calling or letter writing campaigns to this and/or other judges).

The Failure of the United States Supreme Court and other Federal Courts to develop the potential of Civil Rights Removal and Civil Rights Injunctions against state proceedings is, to my mind, one of the most notable failures of the expansion of Federal Power which was and remains connected with the overall decline in individual freedom in the United States seen and witnesses since the end of the Second World War.  I believe that, on the whole, the entire Civil Rights movement of the period 1948-1976 was a bit of a sham, perhaps even a scam, in that the concept of civil rights was developed ONLY as a means of raising up the African-American population of the United States just enough to keep them from being fertile ground for communist infiltration—but the U.S. Supreme Court never intended a really or fully free society. The net effect of the civil rights movement, in the end, was actually a diminution of average freedom in the United States, even considering the advances of the African-American population towards something more closely resembling equality. The white population, by-and-large, saw a diminution in its freedom and average individual autonomy, on a population wide basis. And how can the temporal correlation between the Civil Rights movement and the Explosion of the U.S. Prison population be explained except as part of a coordinated plan to destroy general individual freedom in the United States and replace individual freedom and autonomy with dependence on the State?

18 responses to “Let’s find ONE in the state of California—ONE WITNESS who has WON…..as a defendant in an eviction proceeding following a non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924

  1. Pingback: Let’s find ONE in the state of California—ONE WITNESS who has WON…..as a defendant in an eviction proceeding following a non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924 | Rssca.net

  2. Her name is Catherine Ibarra-Bryan and she is one of the Co-Founders for Kokopelli Community Workshop who provides pro-bono support for distressed homeowners facing foreclosure.

    Catherine as a Pro Se Litigant achieved Stay of Eviction before a panel of 12 jurors here in San Diego.

    Her e-mail address is: koldesigns@yahoo.com

    • Wonderful information, thank you! However, a stay of eviction is not a legal but an equitable victory and
      unless the “stay” was permanent, it was only a temporary victory. It is definitely more than I expected to hear about and I will of course pull and study this case, but I am still looking for a legal victory with permanent, I.E res judicata worthy, effect on at least one foreclosing and/or evicting party. On this case, who was the Plaintiff and had there been a non-judicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to California Civil Code 2924???

  3. The remedy in a non-judicial state is to take a Writ of Scire Facias to vacate/ release or annul the Deed of Trust

    • That’s very interesting. I will certainly study up on Scire Facias. But, again, what I’m trying to find out here is whether anyone has ever won an eviction case, and the story from San Diego was definitely more directly on point—and I’d like to find out more about that. Your answer is valuable but not directly relevant. The theoretical availability of a remedy for non-judicial foreclosure that is expressly subsumed in the All Writs act and merged, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and may have been abolished in California law as well (I just did a Google search “Scire Facias, California,” and came up with a reference to page 331 of James Henry Deering’s 1909 edition, Chapter 5, Section 802 of The Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, saying that Scire Facie/Facias had been abolished, along with quo warranto). Even if scire facies can be sometimes used in California, or that juries will sometimes, “stay” an eviction, these facts don’t mean that the California Eviction Procedure is constitutional, or that it affords due process of law, or equal protection of law both to Defendants and Plaintiffs, either on its face or as applied. This is the question that has to be answered: “is there any answer at law to or legal defense against a California eviction proceeding after a non-judicial foreclosure so that the outcome is not determined at its inception.” So far, we have one report of a jury-decision “staying” an eviction, which is not even a possible outcome listed in the eviction statute. I don’t think this answer, so far, weakens our evaluation of California superior Court evictions as removable under Greenwood v. Peacock and Georgia v. Rachel within the Congressional meaning and purpose of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443(1) and 1447(d).

  4. Try using http://www.scholar.google.com

    Enter “california” +”eviction” +”forfeiture”

    see what you get….

    • I just did what you suggested and what I got was a lot about Landlord-Tenant law and “relief from forfeiture of tenancy.” I didn’t go too far down the list but it looks like this is all about relief from evictions during rentals/leases of property which the “tenant” never owned. It is typical for the occupant of a foreclosed property to be called a “tenant” rather than a “dispossessed owner.” It makes the Sheriff feel better about throwing a family and their children on the street I guess. But “tenancy at sufferance” is a distinctly non-contractual, non-consensual relationship, so it’s basically like comparing the laws relating to marriage, divorce, and rape. The best defense against rape is the use of force against the rapist, and there was a time when homeowners who used force against armed government officials trying to dispossess them based on false claims, or even factually and legally unverifiable claims, would have been called “Patriotic Americans”. I look forward to the time when homeownership, family, and private property mean something again.

  5. Here’s a crazy thought. Perhaps the reason the defendants always lose is because they’ve stopped paying their mortgages. You know, the ones that they’re legally obligated to pay in return for being able to buy the house.

    • Damn right it’s a crazy though to say that all defendants lose because they are legally obligated to pay their mortgages. Their mortgages are illegal, Bozo!
      I published this comment, which really is a crazy thought, only to remind people of what we’re up against here. We’re up against people who are either brainwashed or paid to support the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the known world: namely the world of securitized mortgage finance based on Federal Reserve Money Multiplier Credit. If I were alone in believing this, OK, you’d have to wonder. As a matter of fact, if you and I were alone (whoever “you” are) in believing this, you’d still want to wonder. But basically, everyone who doesn’t work for a Bank, a Mortgage Service Company, the SEC, or a law firm representing one of these entities or types of entities, including 100% of the people who’ve studied the issue who have any integrity at all, will admit to you that it is true: NO ONE is legally obligated to pay a securitized mortgage as they exist in modern America. First among these reasons is that the parties to one side of most mortgage contracts have either “sold their interest” in full or been obliterated by one or more processes of securitization, which I always compare to the process of making pasta out of wheat sprigs: Each wheat sprig starts out as an identifiable individual plant, but by the time the wheat flour has been made into fettucini, spaghetti, or ravioli, the individual plants have long since been ground out of existence and the flower made from the seeds could be all in one “string” or “noodle” or in 2000. Likewise, in securitized mortgages, contrary to common law enshrined in statutes around the country, but especially clearly in Florida, once the owner of any promissory note sells or transfers that note into a security, where the security is merged, “bundled” or “pooled” with other securities, the identify of the owner is lost forever, until and unless the Anglo-American law of contracts is completely rewritten. After securitization there is no longer any holder in due course; there is no direct or derivative privity of contract; there are substantial questions about whether many of the “trustees” or collecting entity corporations even exist. Mortgage foreclosure is rampant because it is safe to be a crook in the Union of Soviet Socialist-Bush-Obamanation once called “America.” California laws such as California Civil Code Section 2924 do a better job of protecting the crooks and the liars than any other statute I know of, and I have taken a blood oath to fight until California Civil Code Section 2924 and all its Federal and State supporting statutes are gone.

      • I’m with you 100%, we the people should get together work hard to abolish this statute for it only allows the culprits to harm the people (us) by violating our constitutional rights. Just look at Civil code 2932.5 for example, why would this code requires a mortgage and not a deed of trust to be recorded, when both document clearly intend to secure the debt obligation (the note) while most if not all of these so called instruments are deed of trust as they are used throughout California. Judges throughout California State are saying the there is no requirement of the promissory note to be produce under 2924. That 2924 is an exhaustive procedure. But isn’t it common sense that the code intends a procedure to be followed assuming that the one following is the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee of agent of the three entities just mentioned. Now what happen if we (the people) are contesting the the validity of these entities? And the only way we can do it is by requiring evidence that can prove our contention (that these foreclosing entities are not the right entities). I guess the court does not want to hear this argument because we the people are presenting it. But let us change it around a bit. If an unknown entity all of a sudden records a document that can lead to a foreclosure of the people’ property and they are doing it in accordance to 2924 and all of the sudden the lender opposes (brought up the validity of the entity by way of filing a complaint to the court) the foreclosure, I would not be surprised at all if all of the sudden the court will make an issue of validity. It seem like the court are interpreting the law strictly to the bank favor. Surely if the people are raising the issue whether the trustee appointed by MERS acting as a nominee for lender(ex-lender), it’s successor (securitized trust), who really can not prove it’s standing for 2 reasons that I can think of namely 1. their closing date prevents any transfer of mortgages pass the closing date, 2. there is really no harm to them caused by the homeowners because these securitized transactions were insured upon default of borrowers on the notes (which by the way is what these note notes are designed to “to fail”). What is worst even is the fact the government have to bail out the banks with taxpayer’s money. When our country was terrorized by a group of terrorist back in 911, we had an idea who the enemy were. These times I think the enemies are within. We the people should wake up and get together and change the laws that are harming us instead of helping us. It is within our rights to change the law and the government if we have to. It is in the constitution and bill of rights of the the american people. AMEN

  6. Douglas Pettibone

    The Case of Graupner v. Select Porfolio is scheduled for Jury trial on July 16, 2010. Case No: BC318930 in Los Angeles Superior Court. There is a pending motion for summary judgment. This will be the first case we know of that is going to jury trial on these issues.

    • Well….now you have heard of at least two. In civil case, Case# 37-2009-00040923-CL-UD-NC,I prevailed 10-2 vote by jury, In Pro Per, against my eviction on February 2. 2010, in North County San Diego, by demanding a jury trial. The day I won the court sealed the records.???
      Goldman Sacks d/b/a/ MTGLQ Investors L.P. has recently appealed my judgment against them
      My Plaintiff was Goldman Sacks d/b/a/ MTGLQ Investors L.P. who purchased my property from themselves with Select Portfolio Servicing acting as attorney in fact, for G Samp Securities where Goldman holding interest for its investors. For my In Pro Se litigant’s statement to jury go to this link.
      I have been litigating against Select Portfolio Servicing for damages due to their wrongful acts of mortgage fraud since 2008, I have demanded a jury trial in this case as well. Which is still pending in department C-75 at the Hall Of Justice in San Diego.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/28365655. I have a forensic analyst (Charles Koppa0 who will testify at my trial regarding their wrongful acts of title fraud, allowing us to establish an evidentiary foundation. All our files are available on line, for review. I can be reached by email at koldesigns@yahoo.com

  7. MTGLQ Investors LP v Betty Bryan, 37-2009-00040923-CL-UD-NC (S.D. Super Ct. CA 2010) “THE JURY VOTED 10-2 In Support of this Pro Per litigant defendant EVICTION CANCELLED!”

  8. The remedy in a non-judicial state is to take a Writ of Scire Facias to vacate/ release or annul the Deed of Trust….I totally agree

  9. You will not find docket information for any eviction case in the California courts where the defendants has won, for any reason. CCP 1161.2 seals the records in this situation to avoid a unearned black mark on the rental history of the defendant. The lack of a publicly accessible record does not mean that no defendants have ever won and fought off eviction following a non-judicial foreclosure.

    1161.2. (a) The clerk may allow access to limited civil case
    records filed under this chapter, including the court file, index,
    and register of actions, only as follows:
    (1) To a party to the action, including a party’s attorney.
    (2) To any person who provides the clerk with the names of at
    least one plaintiff and one defendant and the address of the
    premises, including the apartment or unit number, if any.
    (3) To a resident of the premises who provides the clerk with the
    name of one of the parties or the case number and shows proof of
    residency.
    (4) To any person by order of the court, which may be granted ex
    parte, on a showing of good cause.
    (5) To any other person 60 days after the complaint has been
    filed, unless a defendant prevails in the action within 60 days of
    the filing of the complaint, in which case the clerk may not allow
    access to any court records in the action, except as provided in
    paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

  10. Writ of Scire Facias to vacate / release or annul the Deed of Trust.

  11. A reader of this blog, M. Soliman, reports,
    “I am up to 20 …U/D so what ?
    Queit [sic] title ….thats the deal . Currently at 2 (cited)”

    I would very much like to know more about M Soliman’s activities and what he is up to. Richard Mendez, a co-plaintiff of mine in Orange County Constitutional litigation, is reporting similar results….but I have yet to see the paperwork on either….

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