• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 675,970 hits
  • Categories

Legal podcasts by Stan Burman

Legal podcasts by Stan Burman.

Legal podcasts by Stan Burman.

Legal podcasts by Stan Burman are now available on Podomatic.

There are ten legal podcasts by Stan Burman currently available:

Defenses to an unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint in California.
Demurrer to unawful detainer (eviction) complaint in California.
Three-day notice to pay rent or quit in California.
Answer to unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint in California
Motion to quash service of summons in California.
Demurrer to complaint in California.
Requests for production of documents in California.
Special interrogatories in California.
Amendment of pleadings in California.
Opposition to motion in California.

You can listen to any or all of the podcasts by clicking the link below.

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/  for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/legaldocspro

Like the Facebook page for Legaldocspro at:

https://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro/

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Cal. 3d DCA: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — You Can Cancel the Assignment, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale and Reverse the Sale. — Livinglies’s Weblog

This decision “Not for publication” takes one more step toward unravelling the false claims of securitization that resulted in millions of fake foreclosures over at least 15 years. The pure nonsense being peddled by Wall Street investment banks still remains as the underlying basis for assumptions and presumptions that are contrary to fact and contrary…

via Cal. 3d DCA: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — You Can Cancel the Assignment, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale and Reverse the Sale. — Livinglies’s Weblog

 

Why Is the Fed Paying So Much Interest to Banks? — WEB OF DEBT BLOG

“If you invest your tuppence wisely in the bank, safe and sound, Soon that tuppence safely invested in the bank will compound, “And you’ll achieve that sense of conquest as your affluence expands In the hands of the directors who invest as propriety demands.” — Mary Poppins, 1964 When Mary Poppins was made into a […]

via Why Is the Fed Paying So Much Interest to Banks? — WEB OF DEBT BLOG

That is outrageous that the Federal Reserve is paying the big banks $36 billion dollars per year in interest. The big banks are paid 2.4% for parking their reserves with the Federal Reserve while the big banks only pay about 0.10% on the average savings account.

Motion to vacate California divorce judgment for fraud and perjury

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/vacating-a-divorce-judgment-for-fraud-and-perjury-in-california/

Gary Dubin: Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA): — Livinglies’s Weblog

Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act.

Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act.

 

For ten years, Gary Dubin in Hawaii has been practicing law defending homeowners from foreclosure. He has preached his own version of how to combat foreclosure fraud. And he has practiced what he preached. I find his work enlightening and refreshing. So when I read his Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA) I decided to republish…

via Gary Dubin: Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA): — Livinglies’s Weblog

I agree with the Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act from Gary Dubin and I believe that every State in the United States should enact it into law.

 

TAKING THE MERS LIE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT …

I just finished donating $50.00 to the GoFundMe page for Dan and Darla Robinson and will share this link on all of my blogs and my other contacts in the legal field. Thanks for sharing Dave.

Clouded Titles Blog

(BREAKING NEWS) — (OP-ED) — The author of this post has learned that a GoFundMe account has been set up on behalf of Dan and Darla Robinson to take on the baby bastard child known as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (who also uses the name “MERS”) in tens of millions of mortgages and deeds of trust recorded in county land records all across the United States. 

At issue is whether or not MERS is actually a valid “beneficiary” as it claims to be under the Deed of Trust Act in the State of California.  A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to the contrary would totally upset the MERS® System’s flawed business model.  Under Restatement of Mortgages, Third § 5.4, MERS does not comport to any tenet of being a beneficiary, let alone a nominee.

As a nominee AND a beneficiary, it’s like saying that someone is claiming to…

View original post 281 more words

Update on the L.A. Measure for a City-owned Bank — A Valiant Effort!

WEB OF DEBT BLOG

The Los Angeles charter amendment to approve a city-owned bank did not pass, but it did get 42 percent of the vote, a remarkable feat considering that the dynamic young Public Bank LA advocacy group effectively only had a month to educate 4 million voters on what a public bank is and why passing the measure was a good idea. If they had had another month, the bill could well have passed.

View original post 414 more words

%d bloggers like this: