"COURT-PERMITTED ROBBERY" 6:00 am March 8, 2012

Hi ALL,

Eviction of the property and home of a homeowner who was illegally foreclosed upon (which is essentially "COURT-PERMITTED or LAWFUL ROBBERY") took place today at 6 am, March 8, 2012 by the California Kern County Sheriff Department, Civil Dept in charge of evictions.

I did EVERYTHING I could to stop foreclosure and eviction. I even researched and incorporated information from MANY EXPERTS nationwide...so it was not ONLY because I was Pro Se or self-represented that I was unsuccessful. I believe it was not going to help the banks' plans if I was allowed to win. They violated my rights across the board, as expected.

CA is NON-JUDICIAL (no court action necessary in order to foreclose)...as are the majority of states in the US. Court action by the foreclosing party to gain possession of property in CA is called "Unlawful Detainer" for the purpose of evicting homeowners who remain in possession of the property (their fraudulently conveyed property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW) even after conveyance of title to a new "owner" (either lawful purchase OR fraudulent conveyance). Evictions in CA (other states are probably similar) and are for tenants, NOT intended for use in cases with homeowners or "purchasers of a life estate", and when there are Issues of TITLE, DUE PROCESS and specific allegations of FRAUD (plead with particularity)...and the Judicial Counsel states in the Judges Benchguide for Unlawful Detainer (Benchguide 31-26, G(1)(8), http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg31.pdf ), and also states the entire case MUST BE HEARD, and if not able to be heard in a small claims court, it must be remanded to a court of 'competent jurisdiction'. Either the eviction court judges are completely unaware of this Benchguide that is stated MUST be kept accessible at all times while the judge is at the bench, the judicial counsel does not care if they are ignored, or courts have complete discretion to interpret the law as they see fit and to permit violation of individual rights (acts of treason), or the US Constitution and State Constitution is unimportant to the judiciary. Maybe there are other explanations, and if so, I would like to hear the government's and courts' rendition of how this is supposed to be permissible.

In CA, foreclosed-upon homeowners are treated like former-tenants who failed to pay rent and never had any interest in their property, which is ludicrous. The CA Judicial Counsel (pursuant to stare decisis CA Appellate and Supreme Court decisions) states that THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED! So what is the problem??? I raised this issue in my court pleadings in 5 different CA courts, from the lowest court possible (civil limited/small claims...evictions following foreclosures are classified as 'small claims' under $10k due to the low $ amount claimed by the bank or loan servicer and no deficiency judgement) all the way to the CA Supreme Court (highest court in the state)...and even in Federal Bankruptcy Court. I have not been able to get my head above water (with both an Appeal and BK going on simultaneously, doing both Pro Se) to move forward with Federal court action to collaterally attack the foreclosure, but since I now won't be trying to keep my home, I will have more time to do so. It is NO LONGER about Foreclosure or Eviction for me...but about Constitutional Rights, which is more basic and carries much more weight...or should carry more weight. We shall see.

Notification of the federal governmental agencies that have been claiming to work with me on my case to ensure my rights are protected is now necessary. Either those agencies did their best, but were ineffective...OR my rights were completely ignored, with nothing being done by those agencies to prevent any of this. I want to hear their version of the story. 

I was attacked by opposing counsel as having "conspiracy theories" regarding MERS and of securitization of mortgage loans...when I never mentioned either of those in my court pleadings! THEY DID! But, it is presumed in court that an unrebutted allegation is true, much as an unrebutted affidavit is presumed to be true and is part of the court record as evidence. I have been threatened with "Vexatious Litigant" suits by the attorneys opposing me for the past 2 years. My DEFENSIVE position cannot be construed as "frivolous litigation" as I am the victim here! I am not trying to prevent a "rightful purchaser or owner" of the property from taking possession of their "rightfully obtained" property with "duly perfected title"...but my position is to prevent the UNLAWFUL thievery of MY PROPERTY! The position the law firm took of 'frivolous litigation' makes about as much sense as a person calling 911 to report a robbery in progress at their home, and law enforcement arriving at their home and arresting the homeowner who is being robbed, arresting and booking s/he with "obstructing" a LAWFUL ROBBERY!!! How ridiculous!!!

It is not my intention to discourage anyone fighting foreclosure fraud. I only intend to be open and let others know exactly what is happening in "real time" in my situation, as a self-represented homeowner in my 2-year battle against foreclosure that was a "set-up" stemming from the HAMP program and modification of the HELOC (home equity line of credit) on my 100% unencumbered property! I was not upside-down on my loan. Not only did I lose my home, I lost ALL MY EQUITY. 

There are terrible crimes being committed against American citizens en mass...or if not actively committing crimes, the responsible parties are committing crimes of "omission" by NOT doing what is necessary to prevent or protect against such, thus having the affect of ALLOWING the crimes to be committed.  That is perilously close if not equivalent to "aiding and abetting". How far up the ladder does the problem go? We shall see.

I will post more when I am able. I am now able to say much of what I withheld before as I waited to see if the loan servicer, their attorneys, and the courts would violate my rights or not. As of today at 6:00 am, my rights have been officially violated. I am not surprised. I expected it. Now they will have to answer for what they have done. 

So for now..."That's all I have to say 'bout that." - (Forrest Gump).

~Millie~