• 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

 

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.

 

Contingent Fees or Success Fees for Mediators: Why Not? — MEDIATBANKRY

By: Donald L. Swanson I have a new LinkedIn friend, Mark Winters from the U.K., who’s developed a mediation practice within an unusual context. And he’s making it work. Since the practice arose from his own creativity and out of unusual circumstances, he’s unbounded by common norms and can do creative things. One creativity is this: […]

via Contingent Fees or Success Fees for Mediators: Why Not? — MEDIATBANKRY

Interesting article. I agree with the author that contingency fees should be allowed in mediation as long as all of the parties involved have agreed.

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

EMAIL US: INFO@LENDINGLIES.COM

Get a Consult!

PURCHASE SEMINARS HERE

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

Our Services:  https://livinglies.me/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

It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts — Deadly Clear

Sunday, February 4, 2018 – 3 PM HST (Rebroadcast from June 14, 2015 – Its Super Bowl Sunday – everybody deserves a day off now and then) Upcoming Discussion for Sunday’s THE FORECLOSURE HOUR Sundays: 3 pm (HST) / 5 pm (PST) / 8 pm (EST). Click HERE to listen. ——————————- Not very long ago lenders filing foreclosure actions […]

via It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts — Deadly Clear

Knowledge of the rules of evidence for your particular state is vital for anyone fighting foreclosure.  If only the California Supreme Court would rule that lenders must prove their “standing at inception” to foreclose, having evidence of the possession of the underlying promissory note at the time the foreclosure lawsuit was first filed.

%d bloggers like this: