From Lawzilla: RAINN GAUNA v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

legal14

RAINN GAUNA v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

RAINN GAUNA v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

Filed 3/6/19 Gauna v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Nevada)

—-

RAINN GAUNA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

C078490

(Super. Ct. No. CU13-079937)

Rainn Gauna sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan Chase), Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase Home Finance), California Reconveyance Corporation (CRC) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank) after her property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to all causes of action in a first amended complaint without leave to amend.

Gauna now contends the trial court erred in (1) taking judicial notice of hearsay and disputed facts, (2) ruling that her fraud and deceit cause of action is time-barred, (3) concluding that the first amended complaint does not state a cause of action for breach of contract and that her breach of contract claim is time-barred, (4) ruling that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust and that tender is required to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, (5) sustaining the demurrer to her causes of action for cancellation of instruments, slander of title and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (6) denying her leave to amend, and (7) hearing defendants’ demurrer before her discovery motions.

We will reverse the judgment as to the wrongful foreclosure cause of action, a portion of the cancellation of instruments cause of action, and a portion of the slander of title cause of action. Based on the well-pleaded allegations in the first amended complaint, which we must accept as true at this stage of the lawsuit, JPMorgan Chase could not assign the deed of trust because it did not have an interest in the note and deed of trust. In all other respects we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Gauna’s first amended complaint alleged the following:

Pursuant to a note secured by a deed of trust, Gauna promised to pay Long Beach Mortgage Company (LBMC) $168,800 plus interest. LBMC’s loan to Gauna was not funded by LBMC, it was funded by investors who bought certificates to the Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 (LBM Trust).

Gauna signed a deed of trust in relation to real property located in Nevada County (the property). The deed of trust identified Gauna as the borrower and LBMC as the lender and trustee. It secured to LBMC repayment of the note. Through the deed of trust, Gauna irrevocably granted to LBMC the property, in trust, with power of sale. The deed of trust provided that the note and deed of trust could be sold without prior notice to Gauna. It further provided that the lender may appoint a successor trustee who shall succeed to all title, powers and duties of the original trustee.

Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) was the original servicer on the loan. It became the successor in interest to LBMC’s assets when LBMC closed its operations. However, Gauna’s note and deed of trust were sold before LBMC closed and WaMu did not acquire Gauna’s note as part of LBMC’s assets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over WaMu’s operations in 2008. JPMorgan Chase bought certain assets of WaMu from the FDIC, but it did not buy any interest in Gauna’s note.

A process to modify Gauna’s loan was started in August 2008. Gauna did not miss a payment on her loan until March 2009, when a JPMorgan Chase branch representative was unable to process her monthly payment. A JPMorgan Chase branch representative also could not process Gauna’s April 2009 payment.

On or about May 1, 2009, Gauna received a Trial Period Plan (TPP) offer which outlined the steps she should take to obtain a loan modification, including making three monthly payments of $1,034. The cover letter for the offer was from WaMu which purportedly was “becoming Chase.” The offer identified JPMorgan Chase as the lender. The offer promised to modify Gauna’s adjustable interest rate loan if Gauna timely made TPP payments and if she qualified under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Gauna accepted the TPP offer. She made TPP payments in May, June and July 2009.

At some point, Chase Home Finance serviced Gauna’s loan. A Chase Home Finance representative instructed Gauna to continue making TPP payments until she received a loan modification agreement. Gauna made TPP payments during the period August 2009 through January 2010. In January 2010, Gauna was instructed to stop making further payments until a loan modification agreement was executed. She attempted to make payments in February and March 2010, but those payments were refused.

Gauna received a loan modification agreement on March 18, 2010, with instructions to sign and return the agreement within seven days. The agreement did not account for $10,340 in TPP payments Gauna had made. It increased the principal balance on Gauna’s loan from $168,800 to $172,063.08. It contained undefined terms and terms Gauna opposed.

Gauna sought clarification about the role of Chase Home Finance and asked about the identity of the lender. She spoke with several Chase Home Finance representatives about terms in the loan modification agreement and the non-credited TPP payments. Chase Home Finance representatives refused to explain terms. They intimidated Gauna into signing the agreement by threatening to deny modification altogether. Gauna signed the agreement but wrote on it, “I am requesting an appraisal and an extension; I am signing with great stress and pressure with unanswered questions. Also your window of response is unreasonable.”

Chase Home Finance refused to execute the loan modification agreement. It required Gauna to go through the modification process again. And it instructed Gauna to stop making payments to requalify for a loan modification. After making her April, May and June 2010 payments, Gauna did not make a July 2010 payment upon the instruction of a JPMorgan Chase representative. She sent her completed loan modification application to JPMorgan Chase. And she made a modified loan payment in August 2010.

In December 2010, CRC recorded an assignment of the deed of trust in Nevada County. The assignment said JPMorgan Chase assigned to Deutsche Bank, as trustee of the LBM Trust, Gauna’s note and deed of trust. The LBM Trust was closed at the time of the assignment.

CRC also recorded a substitution of trustee. The person who signed the substitution purportedly signed it as an officer of JPMorgan Chase, as attorney in fact for Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee of the LBM Trust. The document said Deutsche Bank substituted CRC as the trustee of Gauna’s deed of trust.

CRC also executed and recorded a notice of default stating that Gauna was in default by $23,358.34 as of December 22, 2010. CRC then executed a notice of trustee’s sale which was recorded in Nevada County.

Gauna filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code about a month later. The bankruptcy action was dismissed.

Almost 11 months after the termination of the bankruptcy action, CRC recorded another notice of trustee’s sale. CRC recorded three more notices of trustee’s sale in 2013. It ultimately conducted a trustee’s sale in September 2013. And it recorded a trustee’s deed upon sale, transferring all of its right, title and interest in the property to Deutsche Bank, as trustee of the LBM Trust.

Five days later, Gauna filed a complaint against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend.

Gauna filed a first amended complaint, alleging fraud and deceit, breach of contract, cancellation of instruments, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and conversion. Defendants also demurred to that pleading. The trial court sustained the demurrer to all causes of action without leave to amend. It denied Gauna’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the action. Because Gauna’s appellate opening brief does not address the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the conversion cause of action, we will not address the propriety of a demurrer as to that cause of action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading. (Milligan v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) We independently evaluate the pleading, construing it liberally, giving it a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole, and viewing its parts in context. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) We assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded or implied and consider judicially noticed matter, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) We also disregard those allegations in the pleading which contradict judicially noticed facts. (Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1054.) Viewing matters through this prism, we determine de novo whether the factual allegations of the challenged pleading are adequate to state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Milligan, at p. 6.) We will affirm the judgment if proper on any grounds stated in the demurrer, whether or not the trial court acted on that ground. (Carman v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, 324.) The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the demurrer was sustained erroneously. (Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1485.)

DISCUSSION

I

Gauna argues the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of hearsay and disputed facts. We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for judicial notice for abuse of discretion. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264, disapproved on another ground in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 939, fn. 13 (Yvanova).)

Gauna asserts the trial court took judicial notice of a “private agreement pulled from a website.” Her claim is forfeited because she does not cite the portion of the record supporting it. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) Gauna further claims the trial court took judicial notice of disputed facts contained in the notice of default. Again, however, she does not cite the portion of the record in which the trial court took judicial notice of the facts she describes. We are not required to examine such an undeveloped claim. (Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, 984.) The claim is forfeited. (Nwosu, at p. 1246.)

II

Gauna next contends the trial court erred in ruling that her fraud and deceit cause of action is time-barred.

While Gauna addresses the statute of limitations ground for the trial court’s ruling, she does not address the other grounds upon which the trial court sustained the demurrer on the fraud cause of action. The trial court correctly determined that the first amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud because the pleading falls short of the specificity needed to state a claim for fraud and fails to allege specific facts showing all the elements of fraud. Accordingly, we need not address whether the fraud cause of action is time-barred.

“ ‘The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ [Citations.]” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) To withstand demurrer, a plaintiff must plead facts constituting every element of fraud with particularity. (Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23, 35 (Kalnoki).) The plaintiff must plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom and by what means a misrepresentation was tendered. (Lazar, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.) And when the defendant is a corporation, the plaintiff must “ ‘allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.’ ” (Ibid.) General and conclusory allegations will not suffice. (Ibid.)

Gauna alleges fraud with regard to the loan origination, the modification of the loan, the notice of default, and the assignment of the deed of trust.

A

As to the loan origination, Gauna alleges wrongful acts by LBMC. The trial court found the allegations lacked the requisite specificity, and we agree. For example, regarding the allegation that LBMC changed the interest rate for Gauna’s loan from fixed to adjustable, there is no allegation that a specified individual made a specified misrepresentation on a specified date. But there is also another deficiency. Gauna fails to allege facts showing how Chase Home Finance, Deutsche Bank and CRC can be liable for the alleged fraudulent acts by LBMC, which is not a defendant in this action.

B

Turning to the loan modification, the first amended complaint alleges the lender and Chase Home Finance represented that if Gauna entered into the TPP and complied with its terms, Chase Home Finance and the lender would modify her loan. It alleges Gauna justifiably relied on that representation and made modified payments, but Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the modification agreement and instead demanded that Gauna resubmit her financial information and make another set of TPP payments. Chase Home Finance and the lender then rejected Gauna’s TPP payments, declared a default and foreclosed on the property. Gauna says she lost the property as a result of defendants’ fraud.

Gauna fails to allege a false representation because she admits she received an offer to modify her loan. The first amended complaint alleges Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the loan modification agreement, but it also alleges facts showing that Gauna did not unconditionally accept the terms of the loan modification agreement. Rather, Gauna asked for an appraisal and an extension and objected that she signed the agreement with “great stress and pressure with unanswered questions.”

“ ‘[T]erms proposed in an offer must be met exactly, precisely and unequivocally for its acceptance to result in the formation of a binding contract [citations].” (Panagotacos v. Bank of America (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 851, 855-856; see Civ. Code § 1585.) An acceptance which, as here, contains additions or limitations is a rejection of the offer and amounts to a counteroffer. (Panagotacos, at pp. 855-856; Ajax Holding Co. v. Heinsbergen (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 665, 669-670.) A counteroffer containing a condition not in the original offer, if not accepted by the original offeror, does not result in a contract. (Ajax Holding, at pp. 669-670.) Gauna cites no authority requiring an original offeror to accept a counteroffer.

Guzman v. Visalia Community Bank (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1370, a case Gauna’s counsel cited during oral argument, is not on point. That decision held that general contract principles did not apply in determining whether a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer was rejected. (Id. at p. 1377.) But this case does not involve an offer to compromise made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998.

The first amended complaint also fails to allege facts showing knowledge of falsity, intent to defraud and that Gauna’s alleged injury — making modified payments and loss of the property — was caused by Chase Home Finance or the lender’s alleged misrepresentation. As for the last fraud element, continuing to make modified loan payments does not constitute detrimental reliance because Gauna was contractually obligated to make loan payments. (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 79 (Lueras); West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 795 (West).) Gauna fails to allege specific facts showing how her reliance on defendants’ promise to modify her loan caused her to default on her loan or prevented her from curing that default. (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1499-1500 (Rossberg).)

C

Regarding the notice of default, the first amended complaint alleged the notice represented that Gauna was in default by $23,358.34 as of December 22, 2010, but the representation was false because it did not account for $13,442 in TPP payments and it included improper charges. Gauna alleged Chase Home Finance and the lender caused the notice of default to be recorded even though they knew it was false. She claimed the false representation prevented her from clearing the arrears and she lost the property as a result.

A plaintiff asserting fraud must plead actual reliance, i.e., a causal relationship between the alleged misrepresentation and the harm claimed to have resulted therefrom. (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 864.) The plaintiff must “allege specific facts not only showing he or she actually and justifiably relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations, but also how the actions he or she took in reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations caused the alleged damages. [Citation.]” (Rossberg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1499; see Lueras, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 79.) “If the defrauded plaintiff would have suffered the alleged damage even in the absence of the fraudulent inducement, causation cannot be alleged and a fraud cause of action cannot be sustained.’ ” (Rossberg, at p. 1499, italics omitted; see Lueras, at p. 79.)

The first amended complaint does not allege facts showing a causal relationship between Gauna’s alleged injury and the allegedly inflated amount stated in the notice of default. In particular, Gauna does not allege facts showing that she took or did not take some action because of the misstatement in the notice of default. (Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1008 (Orcilla); Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1615 (Hamilton); Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1091.) Her general allegation that she relied on the false representations by defendants is conclusory and insufficient to plead fraud. (Glaski, at p. 1091.) While she alleged she could have cleared the arrears, the first amended complaint indicated Gauna did not make other payments, and she stated in her appellate opening brief that she last made a payment on the note in August 2010 and she was $13,442 in arrears. She does not say she could have paid the arrears not caused by defendants’ alleged refusal to accept her payments. Without a loan modification, Gauna was still obligated to make the payments due under her note. (Lueras, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 79) The TPP Agreement expressly provided that the lender’s acceptance of a payment during the TPP period did not constitute a cure of Gauna’s default under the loan documents unless such payments were sufficient to completely cure her entire default under the loan documents. It also stated that the terms of the loan documents remained in full force and effect and the TPP did not release the obligations contained in the loan documents.

D

As for the assignment of the deed of trust, the first amended complaint alleged Colleen Irby falsely represented in the assignment that she was an officer of JPMorgan Chase, thereby obscuring the identity of the lender and preventing Gauna from resolving the servicing improprieties, which resulted in the loss of the property. But those allegations are not specific enough. They do not allege what action Gauna took or did not take in reliance on Irby’s alleged misrepresentation (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1007-1008; Hamilton, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1615), and they do not specify exactly how she lost her property because of Irby’s alleged false representation. Gauna was in arrears and the first amended complaint does not allege that she was able to bring her loan current.

III

Gauna further argues the first amended complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract.

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract include (1) the existence of a contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) damages to the plaintiff caused by the breach. (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005.) To the extent Gauna alleges the breach of a written contract, she may plead the contract by its terms (set out verbatim or with a copy of the contract attached to her pleading and incorporated therein by reference) or by its legal effect by alleging the substance of its relevant terms. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 993.)

The first amended complaint alleged that the note, deed of trust and TPP were breached. The trial court took judicial notice of the note and deed of trust; those documents show an agreement between Gauna and LBMC. The note and deed of trust did not mention JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank. Further, based on the allegations of the first amended complaint, neither JPMorgan Chase nor Deutsche Bank is a successor in interest to LBMC. The first amended complaint did not allege facts showing the existence of a note or deed of trust between Gauna, on the one hand, and JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank, on the other, and the terms of any such note or deed of trust. Therefore, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action based on the note and deed of trust because Gauna cannot assert a claim for breach of contract against an entity that is not a party to the contract. (Universal Bank v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. (1997) 62 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 (Universal Bank); Tri-Continent International Corp. v. Paris Savings & Loan Assn. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1359 (Tri-Continent).)

Turning to the TPP agreement, the first amended complaint alleged Chase Home Finance and the lender breached that agreement by refusing to execute the loan modification and by failing to provide Gauna with a fair and reasonable modification agreement.

Exhibit 3 to the first amended complaint is a copy of the purported TPP agreement. That exhibit includes a three-page document entitled “Home Affordable Modification Trial Period Plan” (hereafter TPP agreement) and a cover letter from “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor to Washington Mutual Bank.” Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank are not mentioned in the TPP agreement. Moreover, the first amended complaint fails to state facts showing that Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank are parties to the TPP agreement. Accordingly, the first amended complaint fails to state breach of contract claims against Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank based on the TPP agreement. (Universal Bank, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1066; Tri-Continent, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 1359.)

The TPP agreement said if Gauna was in compliance with the TPP and her representations in the document continued to be true, JPMorgan Chase would provide her with a Home Affordable Modification Agreement which would amend the note. JPMorgan Chase does not argue that the TPP agreement is not a contract. Under the terms of the TPP agreement, JPMorgan Chase was obligated to provide Gauna with a loan modification agreement if Gauna complied with the terms of the TPP and her representations in the document continued to be true. (Bushell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 915, 925-928 (Bushell); Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (7th Cir. 2012) 673 F.3d 547, 560-561 (Wigod).)

However, the first amended complaint alleges that Gauna received a Home Affordable Modification Agreement (loan modification agreement). The facts alleged do not, therefore, demonstrate a breach of contract. Gauna did not unequivocally accept the terms of the loan modification agreement. She does not state a cause of action for breach of contract based merely on the argument that defendants were required to accept her counteroffer.

The first amended complaint also claims defendants breached the TPP agreement by failing to offer a fair and reasonable loan modification agreement. We agree with Gauna that a lender’s duty to offer a loan modification pursuant to a TPP includes a duty to offer a good faith permanent loan modification. (Bushell, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 925-928; West, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 796-799; Wigod, supra, 673 F.3d at p. 565.) But Gauna argues the loan modification agreement was not in good faith because it was a contract of adhesion presented to her on a “take it or leave it” basis, it inexplicably increased her principal balance by $3,200, it included a balloon payment of $38,513.47, and it had vague terms that were prejudicial to her.

The phrase contract of adhesion “signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it.” (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694.) A contract of adhesion is nevertheless enforceable according to its terms unless it defeats the reasonable expectations of the weaker or adhering party, and even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the adhering party, it is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 108; Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 201; Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1375.) Unconscionability has both procedural and substantive elements. (Lona, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 109.) Substantive unconscionability may exist when a contract has overly-harsh or one-sided results or when it reallocates the risks of the bargain in an objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner. (A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 487.)

The first amended complaint did not allege facts showing how the loan modification agreement defeated Gauna’s objectively reasonable expectations. (Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 694, 721-724.) Gauna had to allege specific facts because an allegation that a contract is unconscionable is mere legal conclusion. (Shadoan v. World Sav. & Loan Assn. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 97, 103.)

The loan modification agreement stated that the modified principal balance on the note would include all past due amounts, including unpaid and deferred interest, fees, escrow advances and other costs (but not unpaid late charges), less any amounts paid to the lender but not previously credited to Gauna’s loan. The cover letter to the TPP similarly advised Gauna that past due amounts, including unpaid interest, taxes, insurance and assessments paid on Gauna’s behalf to a third party, would be added to the principal loan balance. According to the first amended complaint, no monthly loan payments were made on Gauna’s loan for two months in 2009 and for at least four months in 2010. On this record, an approximately $3,200 increase in the principal loan balance was not without explanation and was not substantively unconscionable.

In addition, Gauna offers no facts showing that the terms of the proposed modified loan or other circumstances were overly-harsh or one-sided and unjustified. She does not present legal analysis with citation to supporting authority establishing that the loan modification agreement is unenforceable, and we are not obligated to perform that function for her. (Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1045, fn. 1 (Okasaki); Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 656 (Keyes).)

Furthermore, the first amended complaint failed to allege damages caused by defendants’ breach of the TPP agreement. It alleged Gauna was forced to continue to pay under the unconscionable terms of the note, lost her property and incurred legal fees and costs because of defendants’ breaches, but it did not allege that Gauna was not in default under her loan and that absent the alleged breaches by defendants, Gauna would have avoided foreclosure and the loss of the property. (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005.)

The first amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank. Accordingly, we need not address whether any such cause of action is time-barred.

IV

Gauna claims the trial court erred in ruling that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust, and that tender was required to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.

After the trial court ruled that Gauna lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust, the California Supreme Court held in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th 919, that a borrower of a home loan secured by a deed of trust who has been subjected to a nonjudicial foreclosure has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment of the note and deed of trust — e.g., that the foreclosing entity lacked authority to pursue foreclosure — even if the borrower is in default on the loan and is not a party to the challenged assignment. (Id. at pp. 924, 935, 939.) Under Yvanova, Gauna has standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust if the assignment is void but not where the assignment is voidable. (Id. at pp. 942-943.) We independently evaluate the first amended complaint to determine whether it alleges a void assignment.

A suit for wrongful foreclosure is an equitable action to set aside a foreclosure sale, or an action for damages resulting from the sale, based on the assertion that the foreclosure was improper. (Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 552, 561.) To succeed on a wrongful foreclosure cause of action, the plaintiff must show that (1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the party attacking the sale was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. (Id. at pp. 561-562.)

In a nonjudicial foreclosure, only the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust or its agent may direct the trustee to sell the property. (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(1), (6); Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 929, 935.) If a foreclosing entity claims the power to foreclose based on a void assignment, the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 929, 935.)

Here, the first amended complaint alleged (1) the lender could not exercise the power of sale because Chase Home Finance and the lender breached the note and deed of trust, (2) the nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful because the notice of default was deficient in that it inflated the arrears amount and falsely claimed that the notice was issued by CRC as trustee (when LBMC was the trustee) and that JPMorgan Chase was the beneficiary, (3) CRC was not a validly substituted trustee, and (4) Deutsche Bank was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust and thus could not enter a credit bid.

Regarding the first allegation, we have already concluded Gauna fails to state a cause of action for breach of the note and deed of trust against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank. As for the allegedly deficient notice of default, the notice contained the statements required under Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)(1) and the first amended complaint does not allege facts showing that the information in the notice caused Gauna injury. However, the first amended complaint states a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure by alleging facts showing that CRC (which Deutsche Bank substituted as the new trustee) had no authority to conduct the nonjudicial foreclosure because JPMorgan Chase, the entity from which Deutsche Bank purportedly obtained an assignment of the deed of trust, did not own a beneficial interest in the loan and deed of trust and, therefore, had no authority to assign the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank.

Defendants say the claim that the assignment is void is based on the late transfer of the note into the LBM Trust. But the first amended complaint alleged other facts which Gauna asserts rendered the assignment void. The first amended complaint alleged that the note and deed of trust were sold before WaMu became LBMC’s successor in interest. Therefore, according to the first amended complaint, JPMorgan Chase did not acquire any interest in the note and deed of trust when it purchased WaMu’s assets from the FDIC. Contrary to the assertion by counsel for JPMorgan Chase at oral argument, Gauna raised this issue in her appellate opening brief. She urges on appeal that her loan was sold before LBMC merged with WaMu and, therefore, JPMorgan Chase did not acquire her loan from the FDIC. She complains that the trial court failed to address that allegation.

The case of Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th 552, is instructive. In that case, the plaintiff executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust identifying WaMu as the lender. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 556-557.) About four years later, JPMorgan Chase, as successor in interest to WaMu, assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6. (Id. at p. 557.) The plaintiff defaulted on her loan and the trustee recorded a notice of default and trustee’s sale. (Ibid.) JPMorgan Chase then assigned the note and deed of trust to Bank of America, which foreclosed on the deed of trust. (Id. at pp. 557-558.) The plaintiff brought a wrongful foreclosure action, alleging that the assignment to Bank of America was void and Bank of America had no right to foreclose because JPMorgan Chase had previously assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank. (Id. at pp. 561-562.) The documents subject to judicial notice were consistent with the plaintiff’s allegations. (Id. at p. 563.) The court in Sciarratta held that the assignment to the foreclosing entity (Bank of America) was void and not merely voidable because having assigned all beneficial interest in the plaintiff’s note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase could not later assign the same interests to Bank of America. (Id. at p. 564.)

In this case, under the facts alleged in the first amended complaint, JPMorgan Chase could not assign the beneficial interest in the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank because it did not have any interest in the note and deed of trust to assign. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 564; Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 964, 971-974 (Barrionuevo) [the plaintiffs stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure where they alleged that the lender sold the beneficial interest in their deed of trust before the entity purporting to be the beneficiary under the deed of trust acquired the lender’s assets]; Burke v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2015, No. 13-4249SC) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61512, p. *8; Subramani v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2013, No. 13-1605SC) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156556, pp. *10-11; Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2011, No. CV10-08185 ODW FFMx) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62152, pp. *13-14.)

The judicially noticeable facts do not contradict the allegations in the first amended complaint. While the assignment of the deed of trust recites that JPMorgan Chase was the successor in interest to WaMu and WaMu was the successor in interest to LBMC, we may not take judicial notice of those asserted facts because they are subject to dispute. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375; Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1102.) The matters which we must accept as true for purposes of a demurrer show that the assignment from JPMorgan Chase to Deutsche Bank was void; thus, Deutsche Bank had no authority to substitute CRC as the trustee and CRC had no authority to conduct the nonjudicial foreclosure.

The first amended complaint adequately alleges that Gauna suffered harm as a result of the wrongful foreclosure in that it alleges that she lost the property as a result of the void assignment and sale of the property by one without power of sale. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 565-567.) A void contract is a nullity and cannot be validated by any party. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 929.) It is hard to imagine that a borrower who has lost his or her property in a sale by an entity that had no right to enforce the debt has not been prejudiced thereby. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 565-567; see Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 937-939.)

Kalnoki, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th 23 is inapposite. In contrast with the facts pleaded here, the judicially noticeable facts in Kalnoki showed that the entities which executed the substitution of trustee and assignment of the deed of trust and initiated the nonjudicial foreclosure were authorized to do so. (Id. at pp. 36-44.)

As respondents concede, tender is not required when the instrument or transaction sought to be cancelled or set aside is void. (Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal.2d 617, 621; Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 565, fn. 10; Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 818-819 (Saterbak); Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1063 [the plaintiff need not allege tender where the foreclosure sale was void because the defendants lacked a contractual basis to exercise the power of sale]; Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1100; Cheung v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 987 F.Supp.2d 972, 978; Barrionuevo, supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at pp. 969-971.)

Based on the above, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the wrongful foreclosure cause of action.

V

Gauna also contends the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to her causes of action for cancellation of instruments, slander of title and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. We will address each cause of action in turn.

A

We begin with the cause of action for cancellation of instruments. Civil Code section 3412 provides: “A written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.” To obtain cancellation, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the instrument is void or voidable and would cause serious injury if not canceled. (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 523; Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 818-819; Kroeker v. Hurlbert (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 261, 266.) Here, the cause of action for cancellation of instruments seeks to cancel the note and deed of trust, the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.

The first amended complaint alleges LBMC was not the actual lender on Gauna’s loan and provided no consideration for the note because the loan was table-funded by Doe investors. “ ‘Table-funding’ is defined as a ‘settlement at which a loan is funded by a contemporaneous advance of loan funds and an assignment of the loan to the person advancing the funds.’ [Citation.] In a table-funded loan, the originator closes the loan in its own name, but is acting as an intermediary for the true lender, which assumes the financial risk of the transaction.” (Easter v. Am. West Fin. (9th Cir. 2004) 381 F.3d 948, 955, fn. omitted.) The first amended complaint alleges the note and deed of trust are void because they did not identify the real lender and there was no consideration from LBMC. Gauna argues that because of the table-funding and securitization of her loan, the parties who provided the consideration were concealed in violation of Civil Code sections 1550 and 1558, and there was no mutual consent as required under Civil Code section 1580.

Civil Code section 1558 says the ability to identify the parties to a contract is essential to a contract’s validity. In this case, the promissory note identifies the lender and the borrower. While Gauna alleges Doe investors actually provided the funds that LBMC lent Gauna, she cites no authority that such an arrangement invalidates the contractual relationship between Gauna and LBMC under the note. (Logvinov v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011, No. C-11-04772 DMR) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 141988, pp. *8-9 [securitization does not change the relationship of the parties to the note]; Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015, No. 14-CV-03218-LHK) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8790, p. *62 [securitization does not render the plaintiff’s mortgage loans unenforceable].) In any event, the first amended complaint alleges that the true parties to the note are Gauna and the investors who owned the LBM Trust. On this record it appears it was possible to identify the alleged true lender.

Civil Code section 1550 sets forth the essential elements of a contract including consideration and consent. Civil Code section 1580 provides that consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. A reasonable inference from the facts alleged in the first amended complaint is that Gauna received $168,800 in consideration for her execution of the note and deed of trust. Courts have rejected claims that table-funding voids or invalidates a loan. (Arzamendi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018, No. 1:17-cv-01485-CJO-SKO) 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38382, p. *11; Marquez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017, No. 16-cv-03012-EMC) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38239, p. *7; Grieves v. MTC Financial Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017, No. 17-CV-01981-LHK) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116458, p. *37, fn. 1; see Silas v. Argent Mortgage Co., LLC (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2017, No. 1:17-cv-00703-LJO-JLT) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115324, p. *27; Sotanski v. HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015, No. 15-cv-01489-LHK) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106859, pp. *17-18; Ghalehtak v. FNBN I, LLC (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2016, No. 15-cv-05821-LB) 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61347, p. *9; Major v. Imortgage.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016, No. 5:15-cv-02592-CASDTBx) 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15225, pp. *9-10.)

Courts have also rejected the argument that a lender loses its interest in a note when it is securitized. (Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, supra, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8790, p. *62; Ramirez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2013, No. 1:13-CV-352 AWI GSA) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80624, p. *10 [securitization of the note does not affect the ability to foreclose]; Hague v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011, No. C11-02866 TEH) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 140122, p. *16; Logvinov v. Wells Fargo Bank, supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 141988, pp. *8-9; Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2011, No. S-11-1784 KJM KJN) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73949, pp. *9-10; Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Group (E.D. Cal 2010) 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1099; Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2009) 652 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1043.) Gauna cites no authority voiding a note or deed of trust based on table-funding or securitization.

Gauna claims on appeal that her loan was paid off. But courts have rejected claims that a borrower is relieved of his or her mortgage obligation when the lender received payment in full upon the securitization of a note. (Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62152, pp. *13-14; Hague v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 140122, p. *16; West v. Bank of America, N.A. (D. Nev. June 22, 2011, No. 2:10-CV-1966 JCM GWF) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66726, p. *5.)

Gauna also argues that the securitization of her loan introduced new parties, terms and risks to her loan contract. However, the first amended complaint does not allege, and Gauna’s appellate brief does not state, facts showing such alteration. Gauna’s conclusory statements are insufficient to plead a void or voidable contract. (New v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. (1938) 24 Cal.App.2d 681, 683 [allegation that policy is “in contravention of the laws of the State of California” and is void are mere conclusions of law]; see 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 674, p. 98 [to state an action to remove cloud over title, facts showing actual invalidity of apparently valid instrument must be specifically pleaded].) The first amended complaint failed to allege facts showing that the note and deed of trust are void or voidable.

The cause of action for cancellation of instruments also seeks to cancel the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.

The first amended complaint alleges the assignment of the deed of trust is void because (1) JPMorgan Chase had no valid interest in the note or deed of trust, (2) the interest in Gauna’s note and deed of trust was assigned to Deutsche Bank after the closing date of the LBM Trust, and (3) Colleen Irby was not an officer of JPMorgan Chase and had no authority to execute the assignment for JPMorgan Chase. The first amended complaint alleges that the notice of default, notice of trustee’s sale and trustee’s deed upon sale must be cancelled in part because CRC was not the duly authorized trustee and Deutsche was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Those allegations appear to be based on the alleged void assignment by JPMorgan Chase.

As we have explained, the assignment of the deed of trust is void under the facts alleged because JPMorgan Chase had no interest in the note or deed of trust to assign. The first amended complaint alleges sufficient facts showing that Gauna would suffer a serious injury if the void assignment is not canceled. (Cf. Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 819-820 [no “ ‘serious injury’ ” where assignment was voidable because defective assignment did not change the borrower’s payment obligations under the note].) Tender is not required to state a cause of action for cancellation of instruments because Gauna adequately alleged that the assignment is void and not merely voidable. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th p. 568.)

In addition, because the assignment to Deutsche Bank is void under the facts alleged, Deutsche Bank had no authority to substitute CRC as the trustee under the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale, and those documents are also void under the facts alleged.

The judgment as to the cancellation of instruments cause of action must be reversed with regard to the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.

B

With regard to her cause of action for slander of title, Gauna contends the trial court erred in concluding that (a) the deed of trust, substitution of trustee, and trustee’s deed upon sale were privileged under Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (d)(1), (b) the privilege applied because CRC was the trustee under the deed of trust, (c) Gauna must allege malice, and (d) loss of title and investment in the property was not a direct pecuniary loss.

“Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” ’ [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. [Citations.] If the publication is reasonably understood to cast doubt upon the existence or extent of another’s interest in land, it is disparaging to the latter’s title. [Citation.] The main thrust of the cause of action is protection from injury to the salability of property [citations], which is ordinarily indicated by the loss of a particular sale, impaired marketability or depreciation in value [citations].” (Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1030.) The pecuniary loss element is also satisfied by attorney’s fees and costs necessary to clear title. (Id. at pp. 1030-1031.)

The slander of title cause of action in the first amended complaint is based on the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. Gauna fails to show how the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee disparaged her title to the property. The first amended complaint does not state a slander of title cause of action based on the recording of those documents.

However, the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale constitute publications for purposes of a slander of title cause of action. (Ghuman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2013) 989 F.Supp.2d 994, 1000 (Ghuman).) The first amended complaint alleged those documents contained false statements of material fact and their recording impaired Gauna’s title to the property. The alleged falsity was that CRC was authorized to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure under the deed of trust.

Nevertheless, the recording of a notice of default, a notice of sale, and a trustee’s deed upon sale is protected by a qualified privilege. (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (d)(1), (2); Schep v. Capital One, N.A. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1336; Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.) The privilege protects communications made without malice. (Kachlon, at p. 336.) Malice means the defendant was “ ‘ “motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff” ’ ” or “ ‘ “lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication and therefore acted in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Implied malice is sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege. (Contra Costa County Title Co. v. Waloff (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 59, 66.)

The first amended complaint alleged JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank knew the recorded documents contained false representations and intended the recorded documents “to have a specific legal effect based on those false representations.” We understand the allegation to mean that JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank intended to use the recorded documents to foreclose on the property even though they knew they did not have a right to foreclose because JPMorgan Chase never acquired an interest in the note and deed of trust. The first amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to plead malice. (Ghuman, supra, 989 F.Supp.2d at p. 1000 [allegation that the defendants’ recording of documents was “ ‘knowingly wrongful’ ” was sufficient to defeat the privilege]; Barrionuevo, supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at p. 975 [allegations that the defendants published a notice of trustee’s sale with “ ‘malice and a reckless disregard for the truth’ ” and the publications were false were sufficient to withstand challenge to the pleading]; Davis v. Wood (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 788, 794-795 [allegation that the defendants recorded documents maliciously and with knowledge that their claims were wholly false was sufficient to negative any privilege].)

Gauna alleged the recording of the challenged documents diminished the marketability of her title to the property and caused her to lose her investment in the property through an improper foreclosure. That is sufficient to allege the “ ‘direct pecuniary loss’ ” element of a slander of title cause of action. (Barrionuevo, supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at p. 975.)

Based on the above, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the slander of title cause of action as to the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. But Gauna fails to demonstrate error as to the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee.

C

Turning to the cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., the trial court concluded Gauna failed to show standing because her factual allegations did not demonstrate an economic injury caused by the defendants’ conduct. We agree.

Gauna’s Business and Professions Code cause of action is based on the following alleged acts: Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to accept Gauna’s loan payments, refused to execute the loan modification agreement, and caused to be recorded a notice of default that did not account for all monies paid and inflated the arrears; CRC falsely claimed to be the trustee; and Deutsche Bank accepted late assignments into the LBM Trust.

Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. prohibits and provides civil remedies for any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Actions for relief by a private plaintiff are limited to those who have been injured in fact and lost money or property as a result of an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) The plaintiff must plead general facts showing an economic injury which was caused by the defendant’s unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322, 327.)

When a Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. claim is derivative of other substantive causes of action, the claim “stand[s] or fall[s] depending on the fate of the antecedent substantive causes of action.” (Krantz v. BT Visual Images (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 164, 178.) Regarding the alleged refusal to accept Gauna’s loan payments, the first amended complaint fails to state a breach of contract cause of action against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank and Gauna fails to demonstrate how the refusal to accept loan payments constitutes an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice by any defendant. As for the allegation that Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the loan modification agreement, as we have explained, Gauna rejected the offer of a modification and she cites no authority mandating acceptance of her counteroffer. Because her claims are not supported by legal analysis and citation to authority, they are forfeited. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.) The first amended complaint does not state facts showing an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice based on those allegations.

With regard to the other bases for the Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. cause of action, the first amended complaint does not allege facts showing a causal connection between the alleged wrongful act and the alleged injury. A plaintiff fails to plead a causal connection between the alleged injury and the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice if he or she would have suffered the same harm regardless of the defendant’s act or practice. (Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 522 (Jenkins), disapproved on another ground in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 939, fn. 13; Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1099 (Daro).)

Gauna represented that she was unable to pay her regular monthly loan payments. She began making modified loan payments in May 2009. The first amended complaint alleges the notice of default overstated the amount of arrears by over $13,422, but it does not allege Gauna would not otherwise have defaulted on the note. The order sustaining the demurrer was proper because the first amended complaint failed to allege that Gauna would not have been injured absent defendants’ wrongful acts. (Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 614; Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 523; Daro, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1099; Diunugala v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal. 2015) 81 F.Supp.3d 969, 992.)

Gauna identifies additional alleged acts or omissions in her appellant’s opening brief that she claims constituted violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., but her assertion is forfeited because she fails to provide legal argument and citation to authority in support. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.) “ ‘The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.’ ” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.)

VI

Gauna claims the trial court erred in denying her leave to amend. We consider whether the challenged pleading might state a cause of action if the appellant were permitted to amend. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) If the complaint could be amended to state a cause of action, the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend and we will reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we will affirm. (Ibid.) The appellant bears the burden of showing a reasonable possibility that a defect can be cured by amendment. (Ibid.)

The allegations in the first amended complaint are substantially the same as those in the original complaint. Gauna fails to demonstrate that she can amend her first amended complaint to state a cause of action for fraud and deceit, breach of contract and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Gauna’s appellant’s opening brief “seeks the right to add claims for Promissory Estoppel, Intentional Misrepresentations, Negligence, and Tortious Interference.” We need not consider her request because it is not supported by legal analysis and citation to authority. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.)

VII

Gauna further contends the trial court erred in hearing defendants’ demurrer before her discovery motions. She filed motions to compel further discovery responses and for monetary sanctions against defendants after the trial court sustained the demurrer to the original complaint. The discovery motions were set to be heard after the deadline for Gauna to file a first amended complaint. But the parties stipulated to continue the hearing on the discovery motions as they attempted to resolve the issues raised in the motions. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the action when Gauna failed to file an amended complaint, and it took all hearing dates off its calendar. The trial court subsequently vacated the judgment of dismissal.

In the meantime, defendants notified the trial court they would demur to the first amended complaint and asked that Gauna’s discovery motions not be re-calendared until after the trial court heard the demurrer. Gauna asked that her discovery motions be re-calendared. The trial court directed the court clerk to file Gauna’s first amended complaint and set a hearing on her discovery motions for September 26, 2014. But defendants filed their demurrer to the first amended complaint and the hearing on the demurrer was set before the hearing on the discovery motions. After sustaining the demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, the trial court dropped the hearing on the discovery motions as moot.

We review the trial court’s scheduling decisions for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130; see Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974, 1004.) Here, the record does not show that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the order in which it would hear the parties’ motions. There is no reporter’s transcript or other document indicating the trial court’s reasons for scheduling the hearing dates. Gauna fails to demonstrate error. (Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1228-1229; Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed regarding the wrongful foreclosure cause of action. It is also reversed regarding the cancellation of instruments cause of action as it pertains to the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. In addition, the judgment is reversed regarding the slander of title cause of action as it pertains to the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. Gauna shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(3).)

/S/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/S/

DUARTE, J.

Advertisements

Have We Ever Been Told the Truth About ANYTHING?


It literally has gotten to where, I don’t believe anything, said at any time, by anyone, other than a handful of people. People that also have been lied to during their whole lives.


It is amazing, everything we thought we knew is wrong. The inventions of geniuses has been kept secret; people murdered and their patents stolen just to keep us in the dark. Screw the state of the planet, we want to continue making money on oil, and all energy.

What a crock of shit! And what do we do? Like a bunch of gullible cattle just accept everything, when deep down inside, most of us know it has all been a lie.

(Carbon Tax. Carbon Tax. Carbon Tax)


Carbon tax? Get fucking real! The taxes we pay go to the Federal Reserve. There is nothing Federal about the Federal Reserve, it is just one more great big fucking lie, to make us continue being the good little slaves that we are. I don’t know about you, but between the fucking crooked courts, with their crooked fucking judges finding in favor of the fucking crooks, I have had enough!

ELKINS v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 364 U.S. 206?? No. 126.
Argued March 28-29, 1960.   Decided June 27, 1960.
In a government of laws,” said Mr. Justice Brandeis, “existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” 277 U.S., at 485 . (Dissenting opinion.).

It is really hard to pinpoint just when the onslaught of lies began, and even escalated. Apparently thousands of years ago. You know, scientists cannot even agree upon the age of the earth. The scientists are some of the biggest liars too.
UFOs don’t exist, there are no aliens, we landed on the moon, global warming (they’re going to have a hard time explaining global warming when it’s the ice age coming, not global warming. Then on top of that, they have everyone going around believing that it is our fault. OUR FAULT???
See: “Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents” “he confessed that he had lied to obtain internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a group that questions to what extent climate change is caused by humans” .
How can it be our fault, when they were the ones keeping us using fossil fuels. They have known for at least, yes, at least, fifty years, that we could have been using clean FREE Energy! But, can you imagine what it would be like for everyone on earth to have clean, free energy? My God! Everyone would be much more equal to one another, wouldn’t they?



“Inventor of ‘Free Energy’ Electrical Generator: ‘I’ve Been Poisoned Several Times’”. Look what they did to Tesla, and any other genius that wanted to share what they had learned, with us? They have been discredited, killed, and some very recently killed.
Why has Elon Musk repeatedly been plagued with fires at his Tesla shop?

Like Obama going to Africa and telling them that they can’t have A/C and no every household needs a car. Who the fuck is he? Going to Africa, while he was the US President telling the Africans that crock of shit, while knowing that free energy was capable, and in fact, clean and free.

But you know, if we had free, clean energy, we would all be using it, and the lies about needing oil, together with the utility companies forcing bills to keep warm, bills to keep cool, bills to use the computer, we pay for everything we do. Why? Because the lies and secrecy have kept us in the dark ages.
Listen to Dr. Steven Greer sometimes. He is brilliant, and he has been trying to force disclosure for 25-30 years.


Do you know what the excuse for not doing full disclosure now is? It is because people will get so mad, that there will be meltdown. All of these people that have been foreclosed upon, all of these people that pay extremely high power bills, gas bills, all of these people that are being taxed out the ass, all these nuclear power plants that we are paying for, and will never benefit from, unless you find cancer at younger ages beneficial…


What is wrong with the people? How can we go to work every day, knowing we are living a lie, while our children and grandchildren are at school where their young developing minds are being twisted with sick gender bullshit by people running a sick experiment on all of us? And half of the US is so worried that Hillary didn’t get elected and Trump did. SO FUCKING WHAT!!! The Clintons are bigger crooks than most everyone in the US combined!
The same idiots, are so sick, they have had to be given a diagnosis of Trump Derangement Syndrome. So you get the sickos with Trump Derangement Syndrome, together with the Antifa, and the fascists and the communists in this country, and before long, I hate it, but before long, unless the sleeping half awakens soon, we will be just like Venezuela, where they are so hungry, they have eaten all of the animals out of the zoos, they have eaten their pets, and the pets of their neighbors. Last I heard, they were eating all of the grass growing on the ground. And these people want socialism???? Where the fuck did we get these people from.
You know what I saw a day or two ago? I saw where in the Court’s instructions, and the Court’s rules, you are no longer allowed to refer to the gender of a person. People are no longer male, or female, they are whatever the hell they claim they are that day. A dog, a mule, a building, an airplane…
What the fuck people!?! Get over the bullshit!

I could go on all day with the things we have been lied to about. Take my word for it. Everything we’ve ever been told, history, current, whenever, it has all been a lie…

Revealing the True State of the Nation

SOTN: Alternative News & Commentary
Revealing the True State of the Nation
https://s25.postimg.cc/oqocvxsgv/Trump-media.jpghttp://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=90049

← Facebook Using A.I. in Highly Dubious Ways
Why is Obama shadowing Trump with another overseas tour of same nations? →
Trump has only ONE response to the ongoing soft coup being run by rogue elements within the U.S. Intelligence Community
Posted on November 29, 2017 by State of the Nation
Share

A Military Response

State of the Nation
“President Trump is facing a full-blown coup d’état, sooner or later.
The treasonous co-conspirators are setting up the country so as to
spring into action on several fronts. When they execute the final
putsch will be determined more by sheer desperation than anything
else. They really don’t want to overthrow Trump violently, but will
eventually feel the absolute necessity to do so. This will be their only
way to stay out of prison. Here’s the real problem for the POTUS:
He can only trigger a military solution when all of his ducks are in a
row. Should Trump act prematurely, his success will be put in jeopardy.
Should he act too late, his administration will be in grave danger.”

— Former U.S. Military Officer and Intelligence Analyst

For those who are unaware, the Trump administration has been the target of a slow motion coup d’état sometimes referred to as the Purple Revolution.

BEWARE: The Purple Revolution Comes To America…
…Courtesy of George Soros, the Clinton Crime Family, and the Obama Administration

Most of the leaders of this stealthy insurrection are unknown and working deep within the U.S. Intelligence Community. Others, such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Hayden, as well as former CIA Deputy Director and Acting Director Michael Morell are highly visible leaders of the coup faction.

However, it is the countless agents of Deep State who populate the Zio-Anglo-American Intelligence Community that pose the real problem. In this regard, it’s virtually impossible to determine who is really serving the POTUS, and who is working against him. Because the U.S. intelligence agencies have been systematically ponerized since day one by the C.I.A., who and what is not effectively owned and operated by The Company, as it’s known by spooks everywhere.

The C.I.A. Literally Controls EVERYTHING … Even Deep State

Inasmuch as the C.I.A. completely controls the Mainstream Media (MSM), they have conscripted all of the largest news outlets to attack Trump 24/7. Likewise, the C.I.A. has enlisted the aid of every major globalist organization in the world to take down Trump. You name them: the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. The Committee of 300, The Royal Institute of International Affairs and the United Nations. The reality is that the full weight of the all-powerful Round Table is stacked heavily against the Trump Administration.
What’s the point?

Add to the truncated list of power-players above all the secret societies and think tanks, NGOs (esp. Soros-funded) and Fortune 500 Companies, and the challenges become even more formidable. Particularly when you consider the pervasive influence of Silicon Valley and Hollywood that is squarely aimed against him, does Trump’s predicament come into sharp relief.

The salient point is that the entire System has assumed an extremely aggressive posture toward the POTUS. Hence, Trump is compelled to formulate a counter-coup game plan that is infallible. He has absolutely NO wiggle room between his rock and hard place. And, there is no precedent for him to consider for comparison’s sake. History provides absolutely no parallel to Trump’s plight in 2017/2018 on planet Earth. (The Internet has created a whole new universe known as cyberspace where this war is really being fought.)

What Team Trump does have is Sun Tzu’s classic — The Art of War — to consult. There’s no question that The Donald is regularly applying some of the most effective strategies and tactics imparted by that ancient Chinese military treatise. For example:
‘If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him.’
— Looks like the Trump playbook has borrowed from Sun Tzu

However, in order to decisively take down the Deep State and terminate the Central Intelligence Agency, Trump will have to think through every single part of what will have to be a perfectly controlled demolition. This can only be achieved by utilizing all 5 branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Why have there been no arrests?

Many throughout the truth movement (and especially the Trump movement) have questioned the lack of arrests of known traitors. Everyone now knows who has committed acts of naked treason against the American Republic. And, yet, no one has been taken into custody or even indicted. Many are also aware of the horrific crimes being committed regularly against our children by the same bad actors. And in Washington, DC, no less!

PIZZAGATE: A Special Report on the Washington, D.C. Pedophilia Scandal

Any such move – mass arrest of the traitors – can only be conducted when “everything is in good order” since it will immediately precipitate a severe reaction from Deep State. Their (TPTB) predictable and overwhelming self-protective response could range from anything to anything. Yeah, that’s just how volatile and precarious this situation has become, and it’s rapidly intensifying by the week.

The practical reality is that the longer that Trump is in the Oval Office, the more time he has to acquire the necessary intelligence on every single conspirator who is participating in the Purple Revolution, past and present. With this vital data, he is able to simultaneously arrest all the plotters and decision-makers, as well as the numerous insurrectionists on the ground and their mid-level handlers.
Extreme polarity precludes a political solution

The entire Democratic Party (especially the DNC); the Soroses, Clintons, Obamas, Bidens and Podestas; the sultans of Silicon Valley; the Hollywood moguls; the East Coast intelligentsia; the MSM organs of propaganda; as well as many rogue elements in the C.I.A. basically pushed this situation beyond the point of no return. All of these collaborators have worked assiduously to cultivate an environment of “Us versus Them”— nationwide.

By perfecting the dark arts of identity politics and the cult of personality (e.g. Obama and Hillary), they succeeded in dividing the body politic as never before. The myriad social justice warriors have likewise exploited the vulnerable demographics to the point where the various wedge issues forever divide the American people. As a result, there appears to be no common ground to stand on anymore and, therefore, no space for reconciliation.
Civil war must be avoided

The grim reality is that the nation now finds itself in the midst of a civil war. Very few are aware of the gravity of the current state of affairs, but that’s where we really are. The cold phase always pre-dates the hot one. Nonetheless, if bold measures are not taken with all deliberate speed when necessary, there will soon come a time when the hot phase will rear its ugly head. The truth be told, the Las Vegas mass shooting was actually a stealth attack on the patriot movement by the Left. Country & Western music festivals are basically congregations for the Right. Those Route 91 HARVEST concert-goers were ambushed in cold blood.

For the good of the Republic, President Trump will be compelled to take action against the many traitors throughout the U.S. Federal Government, state governments and municipal governments. Whenever the barbarians are already inside the gate as they are now, there is only one alternative; they must be exposed and prosecuted for their crimes against the American people. Toward that end, Trump will be required to shut down the existing MSM (and take them over) among implementing several other radical initiatives which deny support (both material and moral) to the seditious criminal activity of these Bolsheviks.

There is no other way to tame a Bolshevik than to bust them upside the head with a four by four. That’s the only language they understand, as Black Lives Matter and AntiFa have clearly demonstrated. The liberals have become ultra-liberal, the lefties have transformed into left-wing extremists, and progressives have morphed into hyper-progressivism so that there is no more middle ground—anywhere.

Cultural Marxism must be defeated

Those blue states that have Democrat-dominated statehouses, and big cities with Democratic mayors and city councils, provide graphic examples of where things have gone. When the once great state of California has gone to hell in a handbasket, you know the writing is on the wall for the United States of America…unless the inexorable advancement of Cultural Marxism is short-circuited post haste. Only the POTUS can do that in the manner required.

Many have now come to their senses and understood that the USA is in serious trouble. The US government is totally dysfunctional, Corporate America is poised to experience a replay of the recent Great Recession, and civil society collapses by the day. All of these developments are directly due to the unrelenting promotion of Cultural Marxism by the power elite. They know that their place at the very top is secure when American society has sufficiently eroded, order has been replaced by chaos, and the economy is unstable.

Trump’s most difficult challenge will be to ferret out those in positions of authority and influence who laud the nation’s incremental metamorphosis into a modern-day “Sodom and Gomorrah”. This extremely thorny and knotty obstacle alone appears to be insurmountable. And it just may be. Nevertheless, the only way through this period is to effectuate a sweeping change in leadership across the board. Only in this way can the Cultural Marxists be permanently removed from power.

The following article provides important background, the understanding of which is integral to reversing this perilous trend. How Cultural Marxism was used to create an American “Sodom and Gomorrah”

Special Note:
There is only one way that President Trump can push the button on a military solution. There must be a critical mass of law-abiding patriots who stand solidly behind him. Whereas the agents of Deep State still control and/or influence much of the national security apparatus, levers of government and judicial machinery after 8 years of Obama stacking the deck, the Right controls the land. The rural country of America is as red as Georgia red clay, so the food supply and its transportation (Trump truckers) are exclusively controlled by the Right. They also comprise a great majority of military, ex-military and militiamen, as well as the police and sheriffs most of whom are also gun owners and hunters. The crucial point is that, as Commander-in-Chief, Trump not only commands the Armed Forces directly, he also exerts much influence on those patriots who will show up for battle should it ever come to that. The C.I.A. apparently underestimated, to a great degree, just how much leverage the POTUS really has, specifically a populist president who is also a real nationalist. As they say in the Deep South, whoever has the biggest dog, wins the fight. And there ain’t a bigger DOG inside the Beltway than Donald J. Trump.
Pizzagate & Pedogate

Trump has two trump cards that he’s holding close to the vest.

Each of them provides the one-two punch necessary to take down the NWO globalist cabal, both at home and abroad.

Pizzagate will take down the Washington political establishment, corrupt Democrats and Republicans alike. Pedogate will overthrow the exceedingly powerful forces that are projected from London and Rome, Brussels and Paris, Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The almighty Black Nobility, in particular, will be weakened sufficiently so that Operation Gladio can be rendered ineffectual.

Once this all-pervasive control mechanism — Pedogate — is completely dismantled, Presidents Trump and Putin will be able to jointly pursue the common goals they so desire. However, it is D.C.’s own Pizzagate that will give Trump the leverage required to demolish Deep State and “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds”. PEDOGATE: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened for Deep State and the C.I.A.

Perhaps the only legal context in which both Pizzagate and Pedogate can be prosecuted is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That’s because the Criminal Justice System, and particularly the judiciary, are mainly made up of dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. Hence, the absolute necessity for military tribunals to be formed to handle the imperative prosecutions that will incarcerate the prime movers of the Purple Revolution. Subsequently, a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission can be established to judiciously process the multi-decade crime spree perpetrated by the wealthy and political elites on We the People.

KEY POINT: Perhaps the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was really built for the many high-level American officials and politicians who have betrayed their country over decades. This is why the only solution for Team Trump is a military one. Those leaders, who have been relentlessly controlled and manipulated by way of Pizzagate and Pedogate, can only be incarcerated in tightly guarded military prison; otherwise, they will be murdered with great haste. The true perps behind the Pedogate control mechanism will stop at nothing to destroy the evidence, and especially to eliminate the witnesses. After all, the Clintons and Obamas, Bushes and Bidens are merely low-level and expendable pawns in a very dangerous and deadly game.
Conclusion

President John F. Kennedy said it best:

State of the Nation
November 29, 2017

Editor’s Note

PEOPLE OF AMERICA: In the absence of a profound and fundamental transformation of American society, the USA will continue its descent into the abyss of Cultural Marxism. The cultural elites are hellbent on preserving their hard-fought “Sodom and Gomorrah”. They will not give up their utter depravity easily and will clutch it until their dying breath. Therefore, everyone is highly encouraged to do their part to resist the moral depredations which flow from Cultural Marxism—an inherently flawed and degrading philosophy of living. All that has to be done is to starve the BEAST. If you don’t feed it, it will die.
“When one has nothing else to lose,
the predator becomes the prey.”

*Permission is granted for reposting this article in full with a link back to the original SOTN post.

___
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=90049

David Seaman Reports Sealed Indictments Are Now Unsealed – Arrest of the Cabal Occurring

David Seaman Reports Sealed Indictments Are Now Unsealed – Arrest of the Cabal Occurring
By Editor April 6, 2018
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/david-seaman-reports-sealed-indictments-are-now-unsealed-arrest-of-the-cabal-occurring/

<a href="http://” target=”_blank”>Video

In this video David Seaman discusses the imminent takedown of everything and everyone he’s been talking about for the past year-and-a-half. This includes the royal family, celebrities, politicians Etc, you’re talking over 20,000 sealed indictments. Apparently David has seen the indictments and the unsealing of those indictments has already begun.

This is an exciting time to be alive if all of this comes to fruition which David says in the video is happening immediately as of right now!. The #Rothschilds, the #Rockefellers, the #clintons, the #podesta‘s, the #Obamas, #GeorgeSoros, Etc all must be sh*tting their pants now. It is payback time in a stupendous way. this time in our lives is something that we will all remember forever. This is going to be a life-changing and more importantly a world changing event.

Please download this video and repost it everywhere, they can stop 1000s of us. Silly pedophiles cannot stop the will of the people!!

Like David says “dummies in a cult” and that’s exactly what they are, pathetic fools who worship satan… What sad losers they truly are. #QAnon #Clinton #JohnPodesta #GeorgeSoros

From: ERADICATE: BLOTTING OUT GOD IN AMERICA

Author: David Fiorazo
Radical Take Down of America: Has The Left Won?

Radical Take Down of America: Has The Left Won?
Posted: March 4, 2017 by David Fiorazo in American History, Church, David’s Blog, Government Corruption, President Obama, Saul Alinsky

Tags: American history, Barack Obama, Christianity, Cloward-Piven, Economics, Education, entertainment, Environmentalism, Globalism, government, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, liberalism, Marxism, progressive, religious freedom, Saul Alinsky, Socialism, welfare 0
chipped-flag-on-brick-wall-300×200

The United States of America has been under attack – from within. Two things make this fact even worse: many people are oblivious, and the larger problem is others just don’t seem to care.

It is important we understand how we got to this point of corruption and crisis as a nation, determine who is responsible, and decide what we can do about it. You may know much of this information, but many of your friends do not; please share it.

In order to examine the spiritual, financial, and political condition of the United States of America, the epic prize globalists wish to conquer, it’s vital we acknowledge some brief history.

Pilgrims and patriots came to these shores to escape religious persecution, government intrusion, and to establish a God-fearing settlement that would flourish on faith and freedom. This great Republic was originally founded upon biblical teachings, Moral Law, and the Declaration of Independence. We know, however, this is not the same country it was one or two hundred years ago.

We now know – and many of these are interchangeable – atheists, communists, liberals, humanists, Marxists, progressives, and socialists have infiltrated our government and undermined the order and very foundation of our nation. They have infected our courts, the education system, our corporations, the entertainment industry, and unfortunately, many of our churches. (Read about the Emergent Church.)

Most of us would like to see this nation return to one in which people once again honor the Lord first, respect the Constitution, the Flag, and allow others to live their lives based on Judeo-Christian principles. But this may be wishful thinking because political correctness will no longer coexist with religious freedom.

For concerned Christians, there is a stark reality looking us square in the eyes: God’s Word (Bible prophecy) reveals some sobering truths about the future of our nation and this world. Things will become even darker, more chaotic, and people’s hearts will grow cold. The Bible tells us evil will appear to prevail in the days leading up to the Lord’s return, and nations will not only come against Israel, they will stand in defiance of God our Creator and King.

The question is how much time do we have in the United States of America? Obviously, no one can answer this specifically. Could we have a great spiritual revival and awakening in our nation? It is possible, but not probable. Have we become such stiff-necked, lukewarm, self-serving people we have already sealed our own fate? Perhaps.

The other day, our guest on Stand Up for the Truth, Julaine Appling said, “Law is always downstream of culture.”

It is true our culture drives politics and legislation in America. Just look at the powerful LGBT lobby teaming up with Hollywood and the liberal media! But what happened to the influence of the church? Christianity used to drive culture, but today, more and more churches, leaders, and denominations have become silent or have conformed to the world.

Anti-Christian, anti-American agendas are being carried out across the country with little concern or resistance.

Two evil, influential political philosophies have shaped the direction of our nation over the past 50-plus years, and we see devastating effects on Americans who are (for the most part) unknowingly embracing them.

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”
The Cloward-Piven Strategy
These two progressive, Marxist philosophies and their implemented agendas have been used together to bring our nation to the precipice of economic and moral destruction. First, a quote from: Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

“In the beginning the organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems.” Saul D. Alinsky,
The Obama administration sure took that principle to heart.
…Chicago-born Saul David Alinsky (1909 – 1972) was an American community organizer who dropped out of graduate school at the University of Chicago to work as a criminologist. He was drawn to the world of gangsters and was a confidant of the Al Capone mob. Alinsky became a “student” of enforcer Frank Nitti, who took over the mob when Capone was sent to prison. An Alinski radical has one main goal – power.

His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.” In 1971, the hard Left, progressive community organizer wrote a playbook of subversive tactics to empower an upcoming generation of change agents. A few notable adherents to the Alinsky method are: Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Van Jones, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jim Wallis, and former President Barack Obama.

Expert organizer, President Obama, didn’t miss a beat when he left office and according to reports is scheming to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency. His army of agitators numbering in the tens of thousands will take orders from Obama’s command post in his new Washington home less than two miles from the White House. Not content to move on like other ex-presidents, Obama is actively working to fight against Republicans.

Having raised over $40 million in the last few years of his presidency with the help of former Obama aides and campaign workers, his network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing For Action (OFA) with 250 offices across the country, added staff, and fresh recruitment of liberal activists. Not only that, but Obama’s close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home, the nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against the Trump administration.

The Alinsky Game Plan:
Exploit the weaknesses inherent in the system, made weaker by pitting opposing forces against one another.
Oppose independent, morally strong, educated people because those individuals, especially in groups, can’t be manipulated easily.
They attempt to end-run constitutional rights with social contract and dialectic consensus methods. Engage in large scale social engineering, attempting to unfreeze a society using chaos, and to then refreeze it in a new predefined shape.
The dividing lines they polarize people on are most often racial, economic, religious and political.
Cause social instability through subversive and divisive rhetoric. One method is to control the outcome of the education system by lowering the standards of education so that it creates a dependent class.
Use their political platforms to overload a society with social spending programs and class warfare to the point that hatred and division cause social panic.
Once they’ve created a problem, they propose themselves as the answer and use wealth transfers and the trumping of rights as the method to bring about “equality.”…

THE EFFECTS:
An overpowering Federal government bureaucracy that has violated the U.S. Constitution’s principles of limited Federal government power and control.
$20 trillion in national debt. Not even counting Social Security and Pension obligations: Most estimates are the nation is almost $100 trillion in debt: A system waiting to collapse.
An American public that has become addicted to government handouts. More than half the population is on direct assistance from the government.
A laziness and narcissism with Americans where they look to government to provide instead of providing for themselves.
Massive Student Loan debt that will never be repaid because of a corrupt educational system that lured young people with lies and false illusions.
The only way to get out of this fiscal mess is a complete overhaul of the debt situation in the nation: BANKRUPTCY, which leads to a Marxist State.

THE ALINSKY DOCTRINE:
8 Steps to Topple a Nation and Create a Socialist State.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and The Cloward-Piven Strategy have been woven together by Progressive Marxist-Humanists to create a crisis so bad that the only “solution” is what they have wanted: Communism. Let’s look at the eight points where the two doctrines intersect.

Seeking Personhood: Tommy the Chimp Will Get His Day in Court – Story and Picture by Alicia Graef, October 7, 2014

TommySeeking Personhood: Tommy the Chimp Will Get His Day in Court

Story and Picture by Alicia GraefOctober 7, 20141:00 pm

Page_1_Chimp

Seeking Personhood: Tommy the Chimp Will Get His Day in Court

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) is headed back to court this week in a landmark case seeking legal personhood for a 26-year-old chimpanzee named Tommy.

Last December, the NhRP filed three groundbreaking lawsuits in New York on behalf of Tommy, and three other chimpanzees in the state that the group is seeking to have moved to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). According to the group, Tommy is currently being kept alone in a “small cement cage in a dark shed in the back of a used trailer lot.”

Even if we look at Tommy’s situation and conclude it’s wrong to keep him that way, as the group noted, “one’s awareness that Tommy’s situation is not ‘right’ is in another sense meaningless because Tommy, like any number of cognitively complex, self-aware nonhuman animals, is not a being whom the law recognizes as having any legal rights. What Tommy’s ‘owners’ are doing has been considered legal since the advent of our legal system and well before.”

The NhRP filed the lawsuits under the writ of habeus corpus, which is used to challenge imprisonment and was used in a landmark case in 1772 in which a judge ruled an American slave named James Somerset was not a piece of property. Somerset’s case didn’t end legalized slavery, but it did set the stage.

In the cases for the chimpanzees, the NhRP argued, not that they are human, but that they are entitled to live with basic rights to bodily liberty and bodily integrity – that they should have the fundamental legal right not to be imprisoned based on their intelligence, self-awareness and autonomy.

As it stands, non-human animals are seen by the law as things, or property, that have no legal rights, not as persons. The legal wall that separates human animals from non-human animals is exactly what the NhRP is trying to break down. They’ll also be pursuing cases for elephants and cetaceans in the future. According to the group:

Courts recognize that a sufficient, though not necessary condition of a fundamental right like bodily liberty is the possession of certain qualities. With over half a century of scientific evidence to support our legal arguments, and affidavits submitted in support of our lawsuit by an international group of the world’s most respected primatologists, our lawsuits set out to establish that chimpanzees possess such complex cognitive abilities as autonomy, self-determination, self-consciousness, awareness of the past, anticipation of the future, and the ability to make choices; that they display complex emotions like empathy; and that they construct diverse cultures. The possession of these characteristics is sufficient to establish personhood and the consequential fundamental right to bodily liberty.

While the courts denied the writs of habeus corpus, they left the door wide open for appeals. In Tommy’s case, Judge Joseph Sise even offered words of encouragement, stating: “Good luck with your venture. I’m sorry I can’t sign the order, but I hope you continue. As an animal lover, I appreciate your work.”

According to the NhRP, the result was not surprising because changing common law is typically left up to the higher courts.

“These were the outcomes we expected. All nonhuman animals have been legal things for centuries. That is not going to change easily,” said Steven M. Wise, NhRP’s president. “What we didn’t expect, however, were the strong words of encouragement and support from the judges and their acknowledgement of the strength of our arguments. So we are now in a good position to appeal each decision to the appropriate New York Appellate Division.”

For chimpanzees, the lawsuits themselves added to more victories on their behalf following an announcement from the National Institutes of Health that it would retire most of the government owned chimps used in research and a proposal to classify them as an endangered species – both moves that would make it more difficult or impossible to keep and exploit them.

These changes are long overdue. There’s certainly no shortage of evidence to suggest chimpanzees are far more than things and that body of evidence keeps growing. A study published last month concluded that chimpanzees who are kept as pets suffer far more than we thought. Another added evidence to the argument that they pass on knowledge to each other and have unique cultures like us. The more we learn about them, the more obvious it is that we have grossly underestimated them.

This week Tommy’s case will be heard by five judges in New York’s Supreme Court. If the NhRP wins they will make history and Tommy will be moved, but whatever the outcome of the case, it’s exciting to see this new approach be taken seriously by the courts while at the same time the mere existence of these cases is forcing us to consider questioning how we see and treat other sentient species.