• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 673,887 hits
  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Astonishing California bill would shut down free speech, require fact-checkers

Jon Rappoport's Blog

Astonishing California bill would shut down free speech, require fact-checkers

by Jon Rappoport

April 9, 2018

California used to be trumpeted as the cutting edge of American culture.

It still is, except the culture is now all about censoring free speech.

California Senator Richard Pan, who was behind the infamous 2015 law mandating vaccinations for schoolchildren (SB277), has stepped up to the plate and introduced another bill.

This one would clamp down on criticism of ANY Official Story.

The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”

It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.

SB1424 is brief. Read it:

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic…

View original post 701 more words


The Fallacy of Legitimacy: SEC Documents are not Evidence

I believe that the general rule is, at least in California, that judicial notice can only be taken of the existence of certain documents, even if they are recorded, not their authenticity.
The California Supreme Court has stated that, although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.

For example the court can only take judicial notice of recorded documents, it cannot take judicial notice of said documents if their truth or authenticity is disputed. See Skov v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 690, 696 (where bank sought judicial notice of a notice of default declaration stating compliance with Civ. Code, § 2923.5, whether the bank complied with section 2923.5 is the type of fact that is reasonably subject to dispute, and thus, not a proper subject of judicial notice.)

A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if it is reasonably beyond dispute. See Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., supra 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 114-115.

When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal. App.3d 369, 374. Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at page 374 stated: “Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.

Livinglies's Weblog

Documents filed with the SEC are not evidence of the legitimacy of a PSA.  The PSA was not filed with the SEC although the banks would like you to think so. The document, such as it is, was loaded onto the SEC website without any review or acceptance process. Anyone can load documents onto the SEC website. In fact, you can upload them yourself if you have an account.

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-6345


Get a Consult!


https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

Services include: Expert Consultative Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, and our Title and Encumbrance Analysis.

Fill out our FREE registration form at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583

In most cases the PSA loaded onto the SEC website is incomplete or unsigned. As an example, in nearly all cases there…

View original post 409 more words

Foreclosure Facts 101: Keep it Simple

This blog post is an excellent example of the KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid. Otherwise you will just waste your time with minutiae

Livinglies's Weblog

Sometimes we need a reminder of what ultimately matters when fighting wrongful foreclosure. Most foreclosures are based upon false claims of securitization, but proving it can be a challenge.

Foreclosure serves the following purposes:

  1. The purpose is to convert the asset into (1) a legal document that makes it appear as though all preceding events were valid and (2) to steal the money.
  2. Virtually all foreclosures are wrongful — i.e., they are not filed for the purpose of getting relief to the equitable owner of the debt —- the investors who thought they had legal ownership pf the paper and the debt. They are filed to steal money from investors and to make it look official.
  3. Default: The debt arose when the homeowner got the money. No question about that.
  4. The homeowner was the obligor of that debt and the party whose money was used to fund the “loan” was and…

View original post 253 more words

Propping Up a High-Price Model of Higher Education: In re Pratola — MEDIATBANKRY

By Donald L. Swanson The U.S. Government continues to prop up a high-price model of higher education, forcing students to bear the brunt of such foolishness! News reports are filled these days with student loan crisis stories. We hear how: –“the number of Americans severely behind on payments on federal student loans reached roughly 4.6 million […]

via Propping Up a High-Price Model of Higher Education: In re Pratola — MEDIATBANKRY

The fact that anyone was able to obtain student loans totaling over $500,000 for an undergraduate degree in “interdisciplinary studies” and a graduate degree in “cinema and television production” just shows that student loan lenders do not care about whether or not the “student” can repay the loan as the United States Government (taxpayers) will guarantee that the loan is repaid.  That needs to stop immediately!


Lateral Appeal in BKR to District Judge Often Overlooked — Livinglies’s Weblog

The PHH case underscores the statistics and the substance of actions brought in U.S> Bankruptcy Court. The fact is that BKR judges, once called magistrates, do not have the jurisdiction or power of ordinary District Court Judges. In addition out of the three possible venues for appeal from BKR rulings and decisions, the one that […]

via Lateral Appeal in BKR to District Judge Often Overlooked — Livinglies’s Weblog


Rescission Precision Goes to U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus — Livinglies’s Weblog

10 years ago, seeing where the foreclosure wave was going and watching court cases, I said on these pages that the only solution to these foreclosures is Mandamus. First to stop judges from applying legal PRESUMPTIONS and second to stop judges from ignoring TILA rescission. Now someone has done it and others might follow suit, […]

via Rescission Precision Goes to U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus — Livinglies’s Weblog


Investigator Bill Paatalo: Why Are The Oregon Courts Ignoring Its Own Rules Regarding The “Surrender And ‘Tender’ Of ‘Original’ Negotiable Instruments?” — Livinglies’s Weblog

Posted by Bill Paatalo on Dec 14, 2017 https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-are-the-oregon-courts-ignoring-its-own-rules-regarding-the-surrender-and-tender-of-original-negotiable-instruments/ This is the Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rule regarding the surrender of negotiable instruments before the entry of a judgment. Oregon is typically a non-judicial foreclosure state. However, the bank servicers have been increasingly choosing to go the judicial route. My sources are telling me that […]

via Investigator Bill Paatalo: Why Are The Oregon Courts Ignoring Its Own Rules Regarding The “Surrender And ‘Tender’ Of ‘Original’ Negotiable Instruments?” — Livinglies’s Weblog

The rules in California are very similar as a promissory note or other written obligation to pay money such as a negotiable instrument, if any, upon which the action is brought must be submitted to the clerk. The court clerk is required to note across the face of the writing, over his official signature, the date and fact that judgment has been rendered on such contract. See California Rule of Court 3.1806 which states that

“In all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case. ”

Rule of Court 3.1806

%d bloggers like this: