GOD sent the Coronavirus because victims and citizens were being robbed under Trump and his Administration and it was covered up so Wall Street could profit. They made it appear as if there was no recession when it was a Disaster far worse than the (2008) mortgage crisis between (2017-2020). 

On top of the new mortgage crisis between (2017-2020) Trump placed TARIFF’S on USA stating China was paying for the Tariffs, when that was not true, United States, its Citizens and Businesses were being forced to pay the Tariff’s. In Addition to this Citizens Lost their jobs and this to was covered up. 

Inflation skyrocketed under Trump and his Administration and this was covered up. GOD uncovered the truth by sending a Plague name the Coronavirus which appears to have lead to a Global Epidemic. What occurred was, Wall Street and investors were profiting and victims and citizens were being harmed and it was covered up, until now! Those that ignored the Coronavirus will spread the Coronavirus, this is why the United States Government and Local Government must place curfews and more to pinpoint who has the Coronavirus. Citizens are in need for Emergency Relief effective immediately any way the government can get it to citizens nationwide. Public Safety and Public Health Is First!  The Coronavirus Plague was sent by GOD to get everyone’s attention that is why it was released into the universe Worldwide! 

https://campaignnewspaper.website              https://cdc.gov            https://whitehouse.gov

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ("the Act" or "Section 1988"), courts have the discretion to award the  prevailing parties to litigation reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of  the costs. This practice is known as "fee-shifting." In this case, the Supreme Court will address two fee-shifting questions that have split the federal circuit courts. The first is under what circumstances a prevailing defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim may seek relief under the fee-shifting provision of  Section 1988. The second is how to calculate those fees where the facts  of an eligible, nonfrivolous claim are intertwined with the facts of a  separate ineligible claim. 

Applicable to nearly every paper filed in federal court, Rule 11 provides that by presenting a filing, an attorney certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, that the filing: (1) "is not being presented for any improper purpose," (2) contains factual contentions that have evidentiary support (or, if specifically identified, are likely to have evidentiary support upon further investigation), and (3) contains claims and contentions that "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument" for the law's extension, modification, or reversal. RICO ACT...

Jeff Sessions Corrupted Judges, Law Firms, Lawyers, Their Affiliate Firms and Lawyers Didn't Tell The Victims Ally Financial Corporation Had Placed Its Servicing Unit Into Bankruptcy In New York, Which Included GMAC Mortgage LLC, RESCAP and More. In This Particular Case Corla Jackson Found Out (May 31, 2012) via Court Order That Stayed Both Complaints, In The United States District Court For The Southern Of Alabama, Case 12-00111) Under Judge Kristi Dubose, Who Corrupted The Complaint For Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.  They didn't Tell Corla Jackson RESCAP Had Been Sold and Closed February 15, 2013. 

Read More      Read More      Read More      Read More      Read More     Read More 

An  Alabama Law Firm-(Sirote & Permutt P.C) White Lawyer Illegally Took Corla Jackson's  Name Off Her Property In 2005 Through Her Credit So No One Could See How She Was Being Robbed, Then They Began Processing All Her  Insurance Claims In  Her Name, Under The Name GMAC Mortgage aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Embezzling Her Money To  A New Account Loan Number That They Created To Themselves Without A Recorded Release Of Her Original Note-Deed Of Trust and Without Recording Conveying Their New Mortgage To Corla Jackson.  Once This Was Done, Then They Faked A Wrongful Foreclosure Under Her Credit (Since April 2005 Without Lack Of Standing)! Because This, It Forced Corla Jackson Into Her Initial Bankruptcy Case (05-13142).

Sirote & Permutt P.C., Is The Affiliate Firm Of (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings). The Stolen Mortgages Was  Flipped Through (Jauregui & Lindsey).  It Appears The Addresses Is Link To The Insured Covered Loss Claims From The Disaster Claims, The Wrongful Foreclosure and More.  The End Results Were They Were Filtering The Stolen Homes To DEUTSCHE BANK and Later Came Back After They Got Busted Under, OCWEN-ALTISOURCE-HLSS Without Paying Victims Using Deceptive Practices, They Kept The Money That Belong To Victims and They Unlawfully Took The Victims Homes and More Again Between (2017-2020) Guaranteed !

Read More: http://www.windvswater.info

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior, typically, for life.

The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.

Did Unqualified Law Clerks Do Their Research and Due Diligence or Did They Violate The United States Constitution Corruptiong Victims Cases and Complaints Blocking Them From Being Heard Willfully? 

Each Justice is permitted to have between three and four law clerks per Court term. These are individuals who, fairly recently, graduated from law school. Often, they have served a year or more as a law clerk for a federal judge. Among other things, they do legal research that assists Justices in deciding what cases to accept; help to prepare questions that the Justice may ask during oral arguments; and assist with the drafting of opinions. While it is the prerogative of every Justice to read each petition for certiorari himself/herself, many participate in what is informally known as the "cert pool." As petitions for certiorari come in on a weekly basis, they are divided among the participating Justices. The participating Justices divide their petitions among their law clerks. The law clerks, in turn, read the petitions assigned to them, write a brief memorandum about the case, and make a recommendation as to whether the case should be accepted or not. The Justice provides these Memoranda and recommendations to the other Justices at a Justices' Conference.

COURT EXCEEDS ITS JURISDICTION

A court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).).  Judge Bjork did not follow prescribed procedure, and exceeded his jurisdiction to issue an excessive bail on the Defendant, on an unproven misdemeanor. Nor did he have the jurisdiction to incarcerate the Defendant, on a void order and, without due process to be heard; she was not even informed in this court  of her “crime.”  The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)   "A court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, supra,  453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).).

A judgment is void on its face if the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief that it had no power to grant. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a trial court by the consent of the parties.” (Summers v. Superior Court (1959), supra, ; Roberts v. Roberts (1966) supra, ) Thus, the fact that a judgment is entered pursuant to stipulation does not insulate the judgment from attack on the ground that it is void. In People v. One 1941 Chrysler Sedan (1947) 81 Cal. App. 2d 18, 21-22 [183 P.2d 368] 
                                          

To Ascertain The TruthA Judge Must Allow for Due Process
If the Defendant had of been allowed due process to be heard on June 9, 2007, she would have brought to the attention of the court that she was lawfully in court to have a void restraining order validated -- when she was unlawfully seized --  that restraining orders were provably already void for lack of due process -- and she could not be charged, or punished with violation of a void order. Mitchell v. Superior Court (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 759, 764, citing Fortenbury v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 405, 408-09; see In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 137, 147  Investigator Twiss and Judge Bjork were guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud on the court, elder abuse, denial of due process, and malice in the their actions against the Defendant. 

A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and, is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. ( e.g. a future preliminary hearing where more charges were filed against the Defendant.)   “Even the most rudimentary of due process procedures gives the opportunity to be heard . . . to anyone directly affected by [an] official’s action.” ( Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1108. .   The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.  

Judge Bjork refused to hear what the Defendant had to say.  “Defendants who  have been treated with unfairness, bias and the appearance of prejudice by this Court ,and the opposing counsel, leaves open the question of how anuninterested, lay person, would question the partiality and neutrality of this Court.“…our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). 

This court had a duty to ensure fairness. This Court failed, or refused to ensure that fairness. Marshall v. Jerrico, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 446 U.S. 238  “ Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 - Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp., 892 (D.S.C. 1985).       Where Due Process is denied, the case is void , Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 S Ct.1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2D 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2D 289 (1956) Hallberg v. Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill. 25 (1936)

FRAUD ON THE COURT!
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court [JUDGES ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT)] so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.
 The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." THE JUDGMENT IS VOID!

CONSEQUENCES FOR A JUDGE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW
When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in hisperson to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."[Emphasis supplied in original]. Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, they are warring on the constitution, i.e., the judge is engaged inan act or acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980 ); Cohens v. Virgina 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264 (1921.   See: Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,78 S.Ct. (1401 1958.     Therefore, without authority or jurisdiction, a judge loses absolute immunity and is subject to a law suit. (See: DEMAND LETTER, [Exhibit 2])

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
There needed to be experienced counsel from both sides and given the opportunity to discuss with a judicial officer the just resolution of the Defendant’s case. The truth of these void orders then would have been brought to light. The orders against her were easily proven void, and she could have easily helped to prepare a defense to prove that. . Instead, she was denied that ability, and suffered infliction of punishment prior to conviction. No one can be punished for disobedience of a void order. Mitchell v. Superior Court (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 759, 764, citing Fortenbury v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 405, 408-09; see In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 137, 147 (order in excess of jurisdiction).

MOST of the false, perjured accusations brought against the Defendant by the District Attorney were never prosecuted – they could not make their case.   Too often a person is jailed without any true investigation, even though ALL attorneys are held to the duty of “due diligence” All attorneys are held to the duty of “due diligence”  Butler v State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company  v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049, “
 

DUE DILIGENCE and FRIVOLOUS CASES:

Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200 Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 --  Business and Profession Code Section 6068 - Attorney's Duty to Investigate Case -- Butler v State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company  v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049  The Defendant was stigmatized simply by being charged, and then not being able to testify or defend herself in the kangaroo-court  setting such as what happened with JudgeBjork, then again at the Preliminary Hearing, and then again with Judge Douglas only added to the impression that her silence was an indicator of guilt. Presumption of innocence, and reasonable doubt were totally ignored in these court room settings. Interestingly, the court has held that it violates due process to use a defendant's silence against him, yet that is exactly what happens in this unjust process. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)

Jeff Sessions Corrupted Judges, Law Firms, Lawyers, Their Affiliate Firms and Lawyers Didn't Tell The Victims Ally Financial Corporation Had Placed Its Servicing Unit Into Bankruptcy In New York, Which Included GMAC Mortgage LLC, RESCAP and More. In This Particular Case Corla Jackson Found Out (May 31, 2012) via Court Order That Stayed Both Complaints, In The United States District Court For The Southern Of Alabama, Case 12-00111) Under Judge Kristi Dubose, Who Corrupted The Complaint For Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.  They didn't Tell Corla Jackson RESCAP Had Been Sold and Closed February 15, 2013. 

Read More         Read More         Read More 

In California, the tort of wrongful foreclosure requires: (1) a legally owed duty to the Plaintiff by the foreclosing party (2) a breach of that duty (3) a causal connection between the breach of that duty and the injury the Plaintiff sustained, and (4) damages. California courts have further clarified this cause of action by stating: “We are inclined however, to believe that with respect to real property the Murphy case was articulating a rule that has been applied in other jurisdictions. That rule is that a trustee or mortgagee may be liable to the trustor or mortgagor for damages sustained where there has been an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed of trust. Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7, 89 Cal. Rptr. 323, 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) The court in Munger appears to be saying that if the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive then that foreclosure was wrongful and the party foreclosed on may be entitled to damages. According to California statutory and case law several types of damages are available to victims of wrongful foreclosures.

First, damages are measured by the value of the property at the time of the sale in excess of the mortgage lien against the property (i.e the equity in the property). Second, damages are available in the amount that is sufficient to compensate for all detriment proximately caused by the wrongful conduct. California Civil Code Section 3333. Third, the borrower may be able to obtain damages for emotional distress in a wrongful foreclosure action and if the borrower can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the servicer/trustee was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice punitive damages may be awarded. Where there is a wrongful foreclosure, the borrower may seek punitive damages. In Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 345 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 554] the Court in acknowledging the right to seek punitive damages said:

The jury concluded that the nonjudicial foreclosures instituted by the Kachlons were wrongful, and that in pursuing the foreclosure proceedings Mordechai acted “intentionally, fraudulently and in conscious and callous disregard for the rights of the Markowitzes.” These findings are tantamount to the finding of malice….” (emphasis added).

As such, it is clear in California, if the borrower can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the servicer or trustee was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct, punitive damages may be awarded.

However, an action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor (borrower) can establish that at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor’s or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale. See Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal.App.3d 1, 89 Cal.Rptr. 323 (Cal.App.1970). This seems to be an obstacle for many homeowners during this financial crisis. Many borrowers are behind on their payments and have fallen victim to predatory lending schemes or have stopped paying based on instructions from their lenders trying to qualify for loan. But does default always mean the mere fact that you have fallen behind on your payments? This is an interesting issue we have discussed in other blogs the so-called “presentment” defense under the UCC.

First, for a mortgage to be in default, the borrower, or maker of the promissory note, must have dishonored the note. Under UCC §3-502 a promissory note is not dishonored until the maker refuses to pay it when presentment thereof is made. 

“Presentment” is defined by the UCC as “a demand to pay the instrument made by a person entitled to enforce an instrument.” The UCC also requires that “Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must 1) exhibit the instrument” [emphasis added] (UCC 3-501(B)(2)(a))Until the proper presentment is made the UCC requires that the “obligation is suspended to the same extent the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the instrument were taken, and the following rules apply: …2) In the case of a note, suspension of the obligation continues until dishonor of the note or until it is paid.” (UCC 3-310(b) & A.R.S. 47-3310(b)) Therefore, the borrower is not in default until the lender can exhibit the instrument, proving dishonor. Default is not simply missing payments. It also includes refusal to pay after presentment has been made. Default must also include an exhibit of the instrument. Thus, the lender in a wrongful foreclosure suit cannot claim the borrower is in default unless they can produce the original note and deed of trust.

If true, this would produce additional problems for the lender/creditor. In fact, I recently reviewed one loan that has a UCC PRESENTMENT WAIVER (evidencing that this is an issue that at least one lender – in that case a reverse mortgage) has considered and apparently given credence to. According to California case law, the so-called lender would lose the right to foreclose on the security (real estate) if the obligation is unenforceable. Savings Bank v. Asbury (1897) 117 C 96, 48 P 1081; Trowbridge v. Love (1943) 58 CA 2d 746. As the theory goes, if the lender trying to foreclose on a property cannot prove default by producing the original note and deed of trust then they may not have the right to foreclose at all. IN FACT, IN SOME DEEDS OF TRUST (LIKE THIS ONE FOR A REVERSE MORTGAGE) THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLAUSE ASKING THAT THE BORROWER WAIVE THEIR “RIGHT” OF PRESENTMENT.

In fact, a recent Massachusetts court ruling invalidated two foreclosure sales based on a failure to prove proper documentation (unbroken chain of mortgage from the originator to the trust) proving the “lender” (the securitized loan trust) had the legal right to foreclose. See Ibanez v. U.S. Bank a recent landmark case from the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

In summary, where the Defendants fail to follow statutory law (ex. where you have notary fraud in the chain of title NOTICE OF DEFAULT, NOTICE OF SALE, ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST, OR SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE – and where the notary refuses to produce their notary transaction logs for a given transaction following a written request for such proof of valid signatures, etc.) this type of fraud can be argued to violate the duties set by the California foreclosure laws such as Civil Code Section 2924, 2934, and 2932.5 which require duly recorded documents be notarized and recorded with the County Recorder. Where you have false and forged signatures by robo-signers, and a notary that does not verify a signing parties credentials, or signatures, and cannot produce a notary log, there may be a legal argument to be made that the resulting foreclosure sale was “fruit of the poisonous tree” as I like to say, and argue the sale was tainted with fraud, oppression, and breach of duties.

Last if the beneficiary or their assignee recaptures title [buys back aka repossesses]  at the foreclosure sale in California, you have 90 days to sue for “irregularities in the proceeding.

PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson, v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

No. 2100490.Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.Decided January 20, 2012.

On appeal, the Pattersons assert, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining that the foreclosure was valid. While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending, this court delivered its decision in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC. BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’s house, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. 

BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. 

After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid. We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action. We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. 

Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.In the case now before us, GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings. 

Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings, and, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed upon which GMAC based it ejectment claim are invalid. Moreover, under our holding in Sturdivant, because GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house, it lacked standing to bring its ejectment action against the Pattersons. Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing. Bryan, J., dissents, with writing.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result.