From Our Friends at Living Lies Weblog


URGENT REQUEST! California Court attempting to Bury Decision!!! Don’t allow Guliex v. PennyMac to go unpublished! Act Today!
7h ago

California Fifth Court of AppealsGuilexguilex v pennymac

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for courts to skirt the rules in order to protect the banks if they can get away with it. It is up to California attorneys and homeowners nationwide to contact California’s Fifth District Appellate court and request that the Guliex case be published. YOU almost didn’t have this opportunity because it appears the court attempted to end the submission window six-days early !

We need all HOMEOWNERS and FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE to HELP get this case published!

Homeowners, PLEASE write the Court at the address below TODAY (or use the template) and request that Guliex v. PennyMac be published. Attorneys and registered pro se litigants can file electronically through the court’s TrueFiling.com system.

Letters should be mailed TODAY or possibly MONDAY if you live in California to be received by the Tuesday, August 1st deadline.

Electronic filings are accepted up until Tuesday.

Originally the court had issued an order stating that no more letters requesting publication of Guliex would be accepted. Apparently after public outcry, the court clerk stated they would now accept requests to publish until Tuesday, August 1st, 2017.

On July 12th, 2017 the California Fifth Appellate Court issued an unpublished opinion in Guliex v. Pennymac Holdings, a case that may potentially benefit homeowners nationwide who are litigating illegal trustee sales and Chain of Title issues.

The Rules of the Fifth Appellate Court permit 20 days for attorneys and citizens to request publication of the case by submitting letters to the court. The court originally incorrectly listed the deadline as July 27th when the deadline should have been August 1st, 2017. Thus, the court clerk shut down requests for publication SIX days prematurely.

The Appellate court also issued the opinion that the Guliex decision, “does not establish a new rule of law, nor does it meet any of the criteria set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).”

WHAT? REALLY? The decision likely doesn’t meet the court’s publication criteria because it actually benefits the Homeowner, not the Bank for a change!! Apparently Homeowners fighting foreclosure and hostile courts must also fight judicial CENSORSHIP if they prevail, in addition to the other abuses and injustices they confront at every judicial juncture.

Unfortunately, this is one more attempt to silence victims of fraudulent foreclosure and the attorneys who defend them. The Guliex case is important because the court actually complies with the rule of law it established in its own jurisdiction.

Common sense decisions regarding wrongful foreclosure are infrequent and typically eroded or overturned. Yvanova, one of the finest decisions on the importance of standing, was decimated by the Saterbak ruling. A favorable precedent that adheres to the rule of law must be allowed to stand. We must be vigilant and our voices united.

Please write a simple letter, or copy the template below and mail it TODAY requesting that the court publish the Guliex decision. The request for publication should not exceed 2 pages.

(Hat tip to Charles Cox for composing the content of this letter). Please edit as desired.

Fifth District Court of Appeal
Request for Publication, Case No. F073142
Attn: Honorable Brad Hill, Presiding Justice
2424 Ventura Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Subject: Request for Publication

Guliex v PennyMac Holdings LLC

Court of Appeal No F073142 filed July 12, 2017

Opinion cited as 2017 Cal App Unpub Lexis 4742

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION

Dear Justices of the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal,

Pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.1120(a) et seq., I am writing to respectfully and timely request certification for publication of the Court’s entire Opinion, or in the alternative, partial publication of Parts I. et seq. and II.B., for the case captioned above.

My interest in this request relates to the engineered attacks upon home ownership by unauthorized intermediaries engaged in self-help that is California’s non-judicial foreclosure process; and the application, interpretation, clarification and addressing of the facts in this instant case by the Appellate Court and its distinguishing other holdings involving legal issues of continuing public interest as well as clarification of certain specifics related to this field of litigation as the Opinion(s) may apply to other cases more readily once published.

The Opinion meets the standard for publication as authorized by CRC, Rule 8.1105(c) which provides that an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division-whether it affirms or reverses a trial court order or judgment-should be certified for publication in the Official Reports if the opinion:

(1) Establishes a new rule of law;

(2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions;

(3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law;

(4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule;

(5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest;

(7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law;

(8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or

(9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law.

I contend the Court’s well-reasoned Opinion contained therein accordingly satisfy sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as referenced above more specifically related to Sections I. sub-sections B, C, and D.

Section I.B. The Opinion clarifies that a homeowner “…has standing to challenge a foreclosure by an unauthorized entity.” Further, the Opinion clarifies that although a superior court may take judicial notice of documents that have been publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office, the “disputed or disputable” factual content of recorded documents is inadmissible hearsay. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(2, 3, 5, 6 and 8).

Section I.C. The Opinion establishes a new rule on the analysis of a chain-of-title as reflected documents publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office; as well as the analysis of each link in the chain-of-title as to whether a document can establish an unbroken or perfect link in the chain. The Opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 6 and 8).

Section I. D. The Opinion establishes a new rule by distinguishing the two illegal types of wrongful foreclosures: procedural irregularities v. unauthorized foreclosure. This is an important opinion for these cases not previously popularized by other opinions clarifying the question of whether and/or when a homeowner must allege tender and/or prejudice. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Court publish the above referenced Opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

We encourage readers to post copies of the letters mailed to the court in the comments section of this post. Just to keep the courts honest!

Thank you to California Attorney Charles Marshall, Eva Sutton and Celia Salazar for their efforts to publish this important opinion.

Morgan Stanley is paying a huge fine for a precrisis ‘magic’ trick

Morgan Stanley is paying a huge fine for a precrisis ‘magic’ trick

  • Feb. 11, 2016, 9:46 AM
  • 7,018
  • 1

RANKED: Here’s how Wall Street’s biggest players stack up against each other on the golf course

Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley is paying a huge settlement related to residential mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS, sold before the financial crisis.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Thursday announced a $3.2 billion settlement with the firm over charges it misled investors on the quality of mortgage loans it sold.

New York State will receive $550 million.

“We are pleased to have finalized these settlements involving legacy residential mortgage-backed securities matters. The Firm has previously reserved for all amounts related to these settlements,” Morgan Stanley said in a statement.

The settlement follows an investigation by the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, a joint federal-state working group formed in 2012.

“Morgan Stanley securitized and sold RMBS with underlying mortgage loans that it knew had material defects,” the Attorney General’s office said in a statement.

The statement described a 2006 email in which Morgan Stanley’s due diligence team told a colleague: “Please do not mention the ‘slightly higher risk tolerance’ in these communications. We are running under the radar and do not want to document these types of things.”

Anothe 2006 email from a due diligence team member included a list of questionable loans, seeking approval for purchase. The email read: “I assume you will want to do your ‘magic’ on this one?”

Goldman Sachs last month announced it would pay a $5 billion settlement related to RMBS sold between 2005 and 2007. That nearly wiped out fourth-quarter earnings for the firm.

The RMBS Working Group has previously settled with Bank of America for $16.7 billion, JPMorgan for $13 billion, and Citigroup for $7 billion.

Here is the news release from the New York Attorney General:

NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today joined members of the state and federal working group he co-chairs to announce a $3.2 billion settlement with Morgan Stanley over the bank’s deceptive practices leading up to the financial crisis.  The settlement includes $550 million – $400 million worth of consumer relief and $150 million in cash – that will be allocated to New York State.

The resolution requires Morgan Stanley to provide significant community-level relief to New Yorkers, including loan reductions to help residents avoid foreclosure, and funds to spur the construction of more affordable housing. Additional resources will be dedicated to helping communities transform their code enforcement systems, invest in land banks, and purchase distressed properties to keep them out of the hands of predatory investors.

The settlement was negotiated through the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a joint state and federal working group formed in 2012 to share resources and continue investigating wrongdoing in the mortgage-backed securities market prior to the financial crisis.

“Today’s agreement is another victory in our efforts to help New Yorkers rebuild in the wake of the financial devastation caused by major banks,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Today’s settlement will deliver resources to the families and communities that need them the most, while helping New Yorkers avoid foreclosure, and spurring the construction of more affordable housing units statewide.”

The settlement includes an agreed-upon statement of facts that describes how Morgan Stanley made multiple representations to RMBS investors about the quality of the mortgage loans it securitized and sold to investors, and its process for screening out questionable loans.  Contrary to those representations, Morgan Stanley securitized and sold RMBS with underlying mortgage loans that it knew had material defects.

In the statement of facts, Morgan Stanley acknowledged that it increased the acceptable risk levels for loans in its securitized pools.  This allowed Morgan Stanley to purchase various loans with loan-to-value (LTV) ratios over 100%, i.e. loans that were “underwater.” In a May 31, 2006 email, the head of Morgan Stanley’s team tasked with doing due diligence on the value of properties underlying the mortgage loans asked a colleague, “please do not mention the ‘slightly higher risk tolerance’ in these communications. We are running under the radar and do not want to document these types of things.”

In another email on November 21, 2006, a member of the Morgan Stanley due diligence team forwarded a list of questionable loans, seeking review and approval to purchase them and adding “I assume you will want to do your ‘magic’ on this one?” In another similar instance from July 2006, the head of Morgan Stanley’s valuation due diligence cleared dozens of risky loans for purchase after less than one minute of review per loan file.

In the settlement, Morgan Stanley also acknowledged that it securitized certain loans that neither complied with underwriting guidelines nor had adequate compensating factors. Morgan Stanley also purchased and securitized many loans which its credit and compliance team recommended not be purchased, after its finance team decided that the loans had “acceptable risk.”  Morgan Stanley also allowed loans that it knew were risky to be purchased and securitized without a loan file review for credit and compliance.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the formation of the RMBS Working Group. The collaboration brought together the Department of Justice, other federal entities, and several state law enforcement officials – co-chaired by Attorney General Schneiderman – to investigate those responsible for misconduct contributing to the financial crisis through the pooling of loans and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities.

Under the settlement, Morgan Stanley will be required to provide a minimum of $400 million in creditable consumer relief directly to struggling families and communities across the state. The settlement includes a menu of options for consumer relief to be provided, and different categories of relief are credited at different rates toward the bank’s $400 million obligation. Creditable dollars will go toward the creation and preservation of affordable rental housing, land banks, code enforcement, communities purchasing distressed properties, and principal reductions for homeowners.

“Mayors across the state have been dealing with the impact of the financial crisis for years now. The settlement funds will have a huge impact, helping homeowners who continue to struggle and are in need of mortgage relief” said Tom Roach mayor of the city of White Plains and Vice President of the New York Conference of Mayors. “Applying the settlement proceeds to fund land banks, affordable housing and enhanced code enforcement will have a direct impact on the quality of life of those most affected by the financial meltdown and be of great assistance to our municipalities.”

“The Center for NYC Neighborhoods applauds Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for standing with New Yorkers at risk of foreclosure. This settlement will help to ensure that our neighbors’ homes do not fall into the hands of predatory investors. With innovative programs like these, we can finally put the housing crisis behind us and work toward a stronger, more affordable New York,” said Christie Peale, Executive Director of the Center for NYC Neighborhoods.

“Attorney General Schneiderman’s use of these settlement dollars to investment in communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis,  has significantly accelerated the recovery efforts of cities across New York who are still struggling to move past this crisis. Without these critical funds, our organization would not be able to make such broad revitalization impacts on such a short timeline,” said Madeline Fletcher, Executive Director of Newburgh Land Bank.

This matter was led by Senior Enforcement Counsel for Economic Justice Steven Glassman and Assistant Attorney General Tanya Trakht. The Division of Economic Justice is led by Karla G. Sanchez.

Are You In Denial About 911 Being An Inside Job? Watch For Truth!

New 9/11 Video Ends Debate! WTC7 Sound Evidence For Explosions Should Put Final Stake In New World Order’s Heart!

Monday, September 22, 2014 5:35

(Before It’s News)

This video just released by ae911truth should once and for all end the debate over whether or not the US government lied to the American people on 9/11 and should be the final stake in the heart of a government body that is unfit to lead the American people, much less the entire world via their ‘New World Order’.

Hearing testimony directly from government officials that clearly contradicts the reality we are shown in this brand new video, the only thing left for the American people is the widespread lockup of ALL the criminals within the now defunct US government and those who assisted them around the world in pulling off this destruction and cover-up.

Sign Up Here For Newsletter For All Of Susan Duclos’ And Live Free Or Die’s Before It’s News And All News PipeLine Stories!

Published on Sep 22, 2014