Eviction CA-Style!!

My Eviction case is in "limbo" only for days. For those of you who don't know...I am mere days away from EVICTION if the new criminal judge assigned to my case does not see all the *crud* that has happened and if he does not rule according to what is the law and what is right! Rules of Evidence have been raised, which I know the criminal judge to whom this case has been assigned is familiar with.

I'll soon be calling Martin Andelman and Occupy Our Homes to arrange help for me so I don't end up evicted while this case is being decided FOR THE SECOND TIME IN THAT COURT! The Original state trial court judge/commissioner recused himself last Thursday at the hearing. New judge still deliberating over case. [That Oath of Office sure gummed up the show, didn't it? I did not intend on the judge's recusal, but only to remind him of the OATH he took and swore to uphold the Constitution, my rights as a citizen of this country, to provide equal protection under the law...AND to protect from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC"...and I believe that means an oath is sworn to protect us from even the Banks!!!]

A decision on my case is expected any day now. The first decision on this matter in this same court was wrong, yet the Appellate Division affirmed it! Then the CA Supreme Court (highest court in the State of CA) read my "Writ of Certiorari" (Writ of Cert is easier to say), which they classified as a Writ of Mandate and of Prohibition. The SC requested the file from the lower courts...yet after reading the reason for the Writ of Cert...they immediately denied it for hearing. The CA Supreme Court docket was plumb full of cases on same sex marriage. (I suppose the "Great Public Importance" of hundreds of thousands of Foreclosures and Evictions and families being rendered homeless, let alone by outright robbery, does not quite rank up there with the importance of what gender your spouse can be. If they keep it up, the same sex couples won't have homes any more than heterosexual marriages, nor of singles or of single parents, nor all the children being affected by this atrocity!)

The decision on the most recent "resurrection" of the Unlawful Detainer (eviction action) brought against me was supposed to be given on Monday Jan. 30, 2012 as a carry-over from the hearing on Thursday Jan. 26th...but here it is Friday, Feb. 3rd and still no answer. I knew the new judge had a huge bunch of stuff dropped in his lap (including violated laws and court procedure...and any court involvement has never been mentioned) that he must now look through to make a decision. He's got his work cut out for him!

I'm making statements here on FH now in the event I end up evicted. I have never yet had a "trial". The NON-judicial foreclosure in CA allows this to all be done without a court's involvement. If a homeowner continues in possession of their property, the bank (cohorts and cronies included) will have to file an UD (eviction) action.

I have been in my home for 2 years past the fraudulent foreclosure facilitated by a false default claimed in a HAMP loan modification...and 18 months AFTER the Trustee's Sale and even 13 months after the bank got the court's permission to evict me!! How can that be? 

It was not easy. CA laws re eviction and are very difficult to maneuver around/through. If anyone in CA is fighting foreclosure, I can put you in touch with some people who know how to fight this...and whom I have gotten much information to fight for my home with. I have never had an attorney. I don't plan on it either. I know I can finish up this fight on my own. Besides, attorneys are not having much better success at foreclosure-related lawsuits either. It is not for a lack of good arguments or issues raise...but the laws and the courts are not making it very easy. More often than not, a foreclosure-related case is ruled against the homeowner and in favor of a bank, trust, or loan servicer. My choice to continue Pro Se is only because I have been studying it for the past 2 years...and I have made plenty of mistakes along the way. I can make blunders Pro Se...whereas an attorney could get sanctioned, suspended or disbarred for a few things I have inadvertently done. In my court papers, I always cite the case "Haynes vs. Kerner" in the beginning paragraph... "...the court must look to the substance rather than the form" when considering a Pro Se's pleadings/court papers.

I can be contacted at:

mp3rmd729@gmail.com