SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )"

Thomas McDowell
6 years ago
Views:

1 Barry S. Fagan 0 Roca Chica Dr. Malibu, CA 0 Phone ( 1-10 Fax ( - pendinglawsuit@yahoo.com BARRY S. FAGAN, an individual; 1 vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, a national banking association; 0 ROCA CHICA DR., MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 0, real property, in rem, and DOES 1 to 0, INCLUSIVE. Defendants. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT Case No. SC0 JUDGE: CRAIG D KARLAN OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO WELLS FARGO BANK S DEMURRER (FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH PLAINTIFF S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF S NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION AS RECORDED ON MAY, 01 UNDER INSTRUMENT NUMBER 0 AND PLAINTIFF S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT DATED APRIL, 01 UNDER CASE SC1 DATE: October, 01 TIME: : am. DEPT: N DATE FILED: May, 01 TRIAL DATE: None set. Comes now Plaintiff Barry S. Fagan herewith serves upon Defendants and their Attorneys of record his Objection to Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK s Request for Judicial Notice of exhibits A through C on file herein.

2 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. Three of Wells Fargo Bank s requests for judicial notice are inappropriate subjects for notice under Evidence Code (c, (d (g and (h for the following reasons. The Court is not permitted to do more than take notice that a particular document may have been recorded. So even if the Court were to decide to take judicial notice of at least documents (Exhibits A B, & C because they are purported to have been recorded, the courts only take judicial notice of the recording of the document, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated in the documents. See People v. Long (0 Cal App d.. However, Wells Fargo Bank is requesting that the Court take Judicial Notice of Exhibits A, B and C not for the truth of the matter asserted therein, but rather for purposes of Notice and/or are consistent with the statutory requirements and for the legal effect of the operative language. Fontenot v Wells Fargo Bank (0 Cal. App. th.. Plaintiff s allegations as contained within the operative complaint and Plaintiff s Request for Judicial Notice specifically contests that these documents provide for any legal notice. The Plaintiff hereby avers that the Deed of Trust presented by Wells Fargo Bank in the case at bar is a fraudulent altered document fabricated and presented under oath subject to penalty of perjury with the intention and purpose of misleading the Court, the Plaintiff, and all parties affiliated with Plaintiff s case.. The complaints statement of disputed facts with exhibits makes the originally recorded deed of trust unacceptable for judicial notice as the legal effect of that document s beneficiary designation is being factually disputed with two altered versions of that very same document. Why would any court allow an entity to foreclose upon a property non-judicially, when that same entity could not do so judicially?

3 Which of the three different altered versions of the same deed of trust will this Court allow Wells Fargo Bank to use in order to record another notice of default? Triable Issues of fact have already been established in this case. There can be no reason for the altered pages of the deed of trust to Wells Fargo Bank other than to falsely perfect a claim against Plaintiff's real property.. On the basis of Wells Fargo's false statements and fraud upon the court and fraud upon the Plaintiff, NONE of the documents the defendant and their predecessors have created, produced or will propound can be relied upon. This is based on a legal doctrine called "falsus in uno, falsus in omni," or false in one, false in all, that disbars all evidence that has been given or will be brought by the defendants and their predecessors and therefore cannot be the basis for providing legal notice under any legal standard or statute. Exhibit A Deed of Trust as instrument number 0010 Under (c a deed is not an office act of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States or any state of the United States. Under (d the document is not a court record. And under (g and (h the document does not contain facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute by accurate determination through resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Their requests should be denied. Plaintiff believes that the instrument, which was recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on July, 00 as instrument no (hereinafter "Recorded Deed of Trust", is an impermissibly altered version of the aforesaid Short Form Deed of Trust executed and delivered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants and at the time Plaintiffs took the actions alleged herein, was ignorant of the falsity of the Defendant s representations and believed them to be true. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to make payments to the Defendant when they were not entitled to such money. The

4 aforementioned conduct of the Defendant was intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material fact known to the Defendant with the intention on the part of the Defendant of thereby depriving the Plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. /// The disparity between the Original Deed of Trust and the Recorded Deed of Trust (as provided by Defendant WELLS FARGO lies in a patently substituted handwritten page number four thereof, which contains blank space normally used for assignments. Plaintiff believes that Defendant has substituted a fabricated handwritten page number four, and has failed and refused to produce the original handwritten page number four, because the original page four does, in fact, now contain an irrevocable assignment by WELLS FARGO of all interest in and to the said Deed of Trust to undisclosed third parties, the true identity of whom or which remains unknown to Plaintiff. Said assignment would, of necessity, deprive WELLS FARGO of any right or authority to claim beneficial interest in the underlying note and deed of trust. The altering of documents is an obvious attempt to create documents for the sole purpose to mislead the trial Court and others on the proper requirements to vest the security interest along with the proper endorsement chain of the note. There is a well-settled common law rule of completeness which requires that the whole of a document be introduced in order to present a fair and balanced perception of the matter, rather than a potentially misleading excerpt, only. This common law rule is codified in California Evidence Code, which states in pertinent part, "WHERE PART OF AN ACT, DECLARATION, CONVERSATION, OR WRITING IS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE BY ONE PARTY, THE WHOLE ON THE SAME SUBJECT MAY BE INQUIRED INTO BY AN ADVERSE PARTY... WHEN A DETACHED ACT, DECLARATION, CONVERSATION, OR WRITING IS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, ANY OTHER ACT, DECLARATION, CONVERSATION, OR WRITING WHICH IS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT UNDERSTOOD MAY ALSO BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE."

5 A Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens in respect to the within action was recorded on May, 01 in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County under instrument number 0 and includes both an expert opinion and magnified versions of those altered handwritten page number s. (See Plaintiff s Request for Judicial Notice of the Notice of Pendency of Action filed concurrently herewith and on file herein as filed May, 01 Exhibit B Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust as instrument number 010. For the same reasons applying to Exhibit A explained above, (c, (d (g and (h do not apply. The Court should not deem any matters stated to be truthful and their request be denied. Exhibit C Substitution of Trustee as instrument number 00. For the same reasons applying to Exhibit A explained above, (c, (d (g and (h do not apply. The Court should not deem any matters stated to be truthful and their request be denied. Unauthorized Agent, Deceptive Business Act Before a Trustee can commence a foreclosure, they must be empowered by the true beneficiary either by a Deed Of Trust or a valid Substitution Of Trustee recorded in the County in which the trust property is situated. Plaintiff has noted that the original Trustee on the Deed Of Trust was American Securities Company. A Substitution Of Trustee (Exhibit C was signed on March 1, 0 by Cindy Gasparovic, as ATTORNEY IN FACT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TD SERVICE COMPANY. Therefore, Wells Fargo Bank through substituted trustee TD Service Company appointed oneself as Trustee without any competent documentary proof of being the lawful Beneficiary of Barry S. Fagan s note and deed of trust. ///

6 If this act stands, what s to stop anyone from appointing oneself as a substituted trustee? Given this discovery, all instruments originated, executed and recorded by T.D. Service Company, are void as they are considered fruit of the poisonous tree. CONCLUSION Wells Fargo as the alleged servicer must, in addition to establishing the rights of the true holder, identify itself as an authorized agent for the INVESTOR. If Wells Fargo Bank is compelled by this Court to comply with any of the obligations described above it will subject them (Wells Fargo to a finding of perjury. Perjury is "intrinsic" fraud on the court and provides strong support for a challenge. Jorgensen v Jorgensen, Cal.d 1, ( Plaintiff has denied that the note is evidence of any loan owed to Wells Fargo and Plaintiff denies therefore that the Deed of Trust constitutes a perfected lien against the subject property and further denies that the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust can be exercised, particularly without a trial in which evidence is presented with proper foundation through testimony of competent witnesses that Plaintiff can cross examine. Plaintiff has denied that the named payee was the lender or source of funds for any loan and therefore could not neither be the beneficiary under the deed of trust nor have any nominee as beneficiary under the deed of trust. Therefore, plaintiff strongly requests that Defendant s Request for Judicial Notice of the following; Exhibit A: Deed of Trust recorded as instrument number 0010; Exhibit B: the Notice of Default recorded as instrument number 010; and Exhibit C: the Substitution of Trustee recorded under instrument number 00, be denied as all instruments originated, executed and recorded by or authorized by the Defendant shall be considered void, for all of the above stated reasons. DATED: October, 01 By: /s/barry Fagan Barry S. Fagan, Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MEMORANDUM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION LORRIE THOMPSON ) ) v. ) NO. 3-13-0817 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS ) CORPORATION, et al. ) MEMORANDUM