We the Plaintiffs

Preserving our rights to home ownership

Steps to Recovery Rehabilitation & Restitution
Understanding the CA UD Fight

LOGIC TRAIN ARRIVING. Because warranty deeds create abstracts on title which can never be perfected, that means that If title can never be perfected only the actual original Pass through Grantor/Owner can claim it back under TILA rescission because TOLLING IS IN FACT- MATTER OF LAW ESTOPPED.

Meaning that because these federalized industry genius' turned you into a creditor backing their collateral via a promise to pay a rent back through a pass through grantor trust, this is a
CONFLICT OF LAW TOLLING AND ESTOPPEL BY LACHE UNDER IRS Rules Section 1121 when failure to disclose cause a loss of right to reinstate and at time of filing the tax payer return includes errors, is incomplete, or needs further review during a period for right of reinstatement . In layman terms it means these contracts are all made void per operation of law the moment someone puts in writing “I rescind” under TILA because no one disclosed to you the underlaying intent of the contract.



cal civ code 2941.9 (d)
(d) Any action taken pursuant to the authority granted in this section is not effective unless all the parties agreeing to the action sign, under penalty of perjury, a separate written document entitled Majority Action Affidavit stating the following:
(1) The action has been authorized pursuant to this section.
(2) None of the undersigned is a licensed real estate broker or an affiliate of the broker that is the issuer or servicer of the obligation secured by the deed of trust.
(3) The undersigned together hold more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction.
(4) Notice of the action was sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested, to each holder of an interest in the obligation secured by the deed of trust who has not joined in the execution of the substitution or this document.

Majority Action Affidavit 2941.9


Case-Mantioning-Majority Action-AFFIDAVIT

"Any action taken" "is not effective" unless all parties "sign, under penalty of perjury" a "MAJORITY ACTION AFFIDAVIT" of more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction-Translated to laymen terms it means they cannot issue a NOD or NTS without this - let allow throw you into UD without a lease agreement which is why I stated the following on the record, which in turn makes what they adjudicated upon a VOID judgement. In turn makes the judge an accomplice to tax avoidance. This particular judge denounced her oath when asked to uphold it by saying "I do not have to do that".
"I Declare for and on the record that everything up to this point has been without my consent, over my objections, and AGAINST MY WILL, and unless there is a living litigant here today, able swear under penalty of perjury that I have caused them an INJURY, I expect this case dismissed without prejudice.

Judge I need you to swear or affirm that what you said is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I declare for and on the record

Objection hearsay inadmissible move to strike.

I appeal and resubmit.there is
Objection hearsay inadmissible move to strike.

Do you know for a fact the statement you made is true? Pen. Code §125. An unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which one knows to be false.

Do you have a lease agreement on the record? CCP 1166

Judge, if you continue with this bogus case, it is with your FULL UNDERSTANDING that I will accept it as a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, that the plaintiff does not have to have a valid claim, and will appeal that judgment"



Case-Mantioning-Majority Action-AFFIDAVIT

Which these are the same objections Kamila Harris used for HBOR
PENAL CODE Section 96.5 (a) Every judicial of cer, court commissioner, or referee who commits any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice, is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.(b) Nothing in this section prohibits prosecution under paragraph(5)of subdivision (a) of Section 182 of the Penal Code or any other law.PEN_96.5.
I was denied the ability to request these -
DISC-015 REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE— Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 96, 97 Judicial Council of California [Rev. January 1, 2007] form DISC-015

DISC-003/UD-106 FORM INTERROGATORIES—UNLAWFUL DETAINER Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010-2030.410

So one you report that there is a Federal Substitution of a tax avoidance issue on your property this immediately becomes a Federal IRS issue where the Sheriff has a duty to investigate as State Courts hold no jurisdiction in such matters. If they fail in their duty to maintain the peace and proceed to serve you a State issued "Civil Matter" Writ of Possession they are in breach of the peace because they held a duty to investigate ALL criminal matters…


The law is specific, it states ANY breach of the Peace- as unlawful detainers are tenant landlord disputes and according the the Judges Benchguide to Unlawful Detainers - Property owners cannot even be triad at these courts, let alone have a writ of possession issued… Means you cannot lead a jury by telling them how to answer the questions which do not pertain to you.


Which also violate the Civility Oaths for attorneys whom are engaging in blatant bribes in exchange for testimony.


Claim Forms
There are several Claim Forms to be filled out. The hard part is filing a police report for grand theft as now the Police department is not allowing you to do this, so if you cannot you will need to report that to the sheriff as well so be sure to get the name of the officer who refused to submit the complaint.


Your county might not have one specific, but can just cross out, cant deny you cause of it.


Attach the No Duty Code to protect paperwork because without an indemnity bond the Sheriff is just as liable to you for the damages you incur


injunctions WILL BE NEEDED against the sheriff to prevent them from enforcing any writs : to the clerk to prevent unverified docs from the plaintiff filed AND

to the judge, to prevent any further perversion of justice, prosecuting from the bench,


this the cause of action "injunction" example


this is a "MOTION injunction" example

Now because this Judge has this REO side Civil RICO GIG going on, the claim forms need to be gathered and the wire fraud needs to be shown hitting Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and Los Angeles County. This will be discussed as to move to a Writ of Prohibition against the League of Charters. In turn this should allow us safe access to these audits, which should be expanded to include the tax returns under a

If there is income that is showing that needs to be accounted for, then lets get some good CPA's and request IRS audits for accountability which can be reported
to the IRS if it exceeds $2M or the "individual" holds an income of $200k or more per year… this is the form to report it on.
The Courts themselves can be reported upon
Form 14242 from the IRS as "promoters of abusive tax schemes:" https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f14242.pdf
remember we can file the 5949 concurrently.when the
f3949a is filed

What is needed is a complete overhaul of Title 31 USC 5330 or CFR 103.41 Title 18 USC 1960(a) & 5330 of Title 31 Chapter X United States because at the end of the day, all of this, is structured money laundering of our birth bonds…. (What SigTarp looks the other way upon) IRS Form 1099-OID is a form to which you can pay a discounted price, this is your right to reinstate.
or purchase buy back against your COLB which was traded long before you were born. We hold beneficial interests in our Birth Bonds to which the Federalized Banking industry used our signature against to borrow money from investors upon.

31 CFR 1029.210 - Anti-money laundering programs for loan or finance companies.

From here we can start working on the Qui Tam to pull these REMICS into a forced 303 BK.

Those whom are in BK or BK appeals - here is some additional research for you…



void- ccc 2941.9


Then you should file a F 9013-1.1.HEARING.NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION FOR:
Sanction Pursuant to Fed R Bankr P 9011 along with


Sample - Motion for Sanctions


Also we need this info for future claims and complaints










New Inventory Motion For Sanctions 8-12-17 (2)-2


FACT: A Trustee foreclosing in a judicial state is recovering the title to property that "ITS FREEHOLD USE" was conveyed to it at the time of the loan origination. Indeed a lender shall by insulated from loss in the event of a default.

In each judicial state that trustee named in the deed of trust is barred from any assignment where it was named in the deed or security ARGUMENT: Specifically, Trust beneficiaries include Transferor and Transferee as BORROWER not one in the same with a mortgages Borrower.

Arguing the Trustee (non fiduciary) released its lien on title upon its conveyance by "Lender/Originator" to assignee a FIDUCIARY who is a Beneficiary for prorated share of equity.

In this event the title was GRANTED and CONVEYED UNENCUMBERED upon executing its right to lien strip.

CONFLICT OF LAW: TOLLING AND ESTOPPLE BY LACHE UNDER IRS Rules Section 1121 when failure to disclose cause a loss of right to reinstate and at time of filing the tax payer return includes errors, is incomplete, or needs further review during a period for right of reinstatement .

A Reverse Purchase and Sale leaseback resulting in claims for interest in antecedent debt emerges under a ,LOAN PURCH & SALE ; GUARANTY AGREEMENT . ... Pari -passu Intercreditor Agreements are where a Credit Party and a third party Bank ... the Obligations shall result in a pro tanto reduction of the amount of any Indebtedness ... if not disclosed will have occupants from Riverside CA to Texas and on through NY and Florida failing to state a claim in a foreclosure defense.

The occupant /owner is a tenant under a leasehold estate's freehold use for the estate as a bonding mechanism for a security certificates against the collateral obtained which in turn was used as a tandem net advance to pay off the disclosed mortgage in turn creating an in-balance of equity deposited into a Pass through Grantor trust which inadvertantly turns the occupant/ owner int the Grantor. Which in turn means the assigned "beneficiary" whom BORROWED the money in the first place, (not the consumer borrower) is a third party fiduciary.

Foreclosure on a third parties interest is a Pro Tanto matter. CASE LAW: Matter of consumer product sold as a reverse mortgage and lawful right of reversion need to restore fee title is addressed in See, e.g., Svetz v. Land Tool Co., 355 Pa.Super. 230, 513 A.2d 403, 409 (1986), appeal denied, 515 Pa. 584, 527 A.2d 544 (1987), in which this Court stated, “Strict liability was based upon a policy determination that, as between an innocent consumer and a manufacturer of a defective product, the manufacturer should bear the loss.” –

Problem- You cannot be both an owner and a renter on the estate as a renter cannot legally convey title. Conflict of law - violates property rights by attempting to bifurcate the use of the home, over the land. Lacks Congressional intent. See WINEMAN v. GASTRELL 53 F. 697 Dec 12, 1892. Warranty Deeds create Abstracts which cannot be perfected,

IRS COMPLIANCE: Substantive practices and materiality in tax payer filing requirements under GAAP /GAAS FAS 140 / SFAS 140-3 codified MORTGAGES ARE financial assets in which the transferor surrenders control over those assets is accounted for as a sale to the extent that consideration other than beneficial interests in the transferred assets is received in exchange. The transferor has surrendered control over transferred assets if and only if all of the following conditions are met:

The transferred assets have been isolated from the transferor—put presumptively beyond the reach of the transferor and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or other receivership. Each transferee (or, if the transferee is a qualifying special-purpose entity (SPE), each holder of its beneficial interests) has the right to pledge or exchange the assets (or beneficial interests) it received, and no condition both constrains the transferee (or holder) from taking advantage of its right to pledge or exchange and provides more than a trivial benefit to the transferor. The transferor does not maintain effective control over the transferred assets through either (1) an agreement that both entitles and obligates the transferor to repurchase or redeem them before their maturity or (2) the ability to unilaterally cause the holder to return specific assets, other than through a cleanup call.

OPERATIVE LAWS: SEC 10 (B) 5 TRANSFEROR and TRANSFEREE are not separate parties where the court recognizes a prior mergers acquisitions and or the agent is assigned the full right and entitlement of each party named . Therein the claims of negligence and obstruction in disclosures at sale cannot insulate the party TRANSFEROR and TRANSFEREE from “aiding and abetting” and “scheme IF they are the party making the alleged misstatements. Liability was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the judicially created private right of action for admitted securities transactions leading toclaims of fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to impose liability only on “primary” violators who were actually responsible for making the alleged misstatements in question. In Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994), and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008), the Supreme Court rejected private securities fraud lawsuits that relied on theories of “aiding and abetting” and “scheme liability,” because the defendants did not “make” the alleged misstatements.

Now because they are proclaiming 1099-A for abandonment of partnership interests upon these certificate (if certificate holders are allegedly knocking at your door 8k Kennedy Clause says they can't - but when they do). A 1099-A is issued for NON ORDINARY consideration under section 61 (a) (1) and sec 108 (i) paid post sale – it is not one in the same with interest earned by a lender and paid by a debtor.

A 1099-A is issued as attribution of income charged to the people is being done so as the household charged from a series of timed transfers and exchanges under section 1.1031 where the banks are swapping out their junk assets upon Plaintiffs alleged partnership interests or "interests on like property exchanges.

In the manner in which these REMIC were incepted, they immediately fell under 26 U.S. Code § 673 - Reversionary interests (a) General rule The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust in which he has a reversionary interest in either the corpus or the income therefrom, if, as of the inception of that portion of the trust, the value of such interest exceeds 5 percent of the value of such portion. This begs the questions of punitive tax damage that unveils the mortgages short falls and lack of standing by the 1099 issuer.

Which is why you can legally file a Form 1099-OID -
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099oid.pdf but they will throw you in jail if you do... cause "to big to fail" BS.




Zero coupon bonds are an example of an OID. This long-term debt instrument has Original Issue Discount (OID) when it is issued for a price less than its stated ...

Because they depreciated your property under a completely different tax defered SPV your right to re-instate is ZERO.

See FB Posts

REMIC explaination

Common Ground..