Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Santa Barbara D.A. needs a Public Integrity Division. How can a 50 yr old Collect a full pension from Goleta Ca? Random thoughts on this and that.

   Today is no different than any other of my days during these last 5 years. I sit in this cloud called my life and on a daily basis wait for the sky's to clear. Unlike normal weathermen I have the ability to change the daily forecast around me, yet for all my efforts I sit am still here . Lets be honest, surely it is big headed of me to think that all I must do is expose corruption, an that the sky's will part and the Sun will shine on my life once again.  So today while at the doctors I had a few thoughts that I will now share with you all. How come when the County Tax payers are footing the pension bill early retirement saves money.? Yet when the United States tax payers are footing the bill we increase the age till one can collect Social Security? Why do those two situations  seem to be moving in opposite directions? Ok how about this. Why can Wall street  by CDO's or insurance on the same product over and over with out owning any of the insured item. Do we have 3 car or home owners  insurance policies, of course not and do you know why? The insurance polices would all fight as to who had to pay what portion per policy. Just like they do with over lapping health coverage if you happen to be married! Some how when we foot the bill( our Government) like Credit Default Swaps (Insurance) all claims are paid, and why is that acceptable to you? We are funny people as to what we care about these days. So the next time I visit my broker I want a list of the most reckless drivers so I may by multiple policies as a investment without being vested in there car or the note. BETTER YET  HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THERE ACTIONS OR DAMAGES CAUSED. What about these wide array of foreclosures. Why would Bank of America have to freeze all there foreclosures to see if the had the correct documentation to go with the procedures? Are you trying to tell me that M.E.T. or any other foreclosure company hired would not know if the bank was out of compliance, how about a Judge, you would think he was aware right?
     Now people these are the types of law suits that are coming out because of all the illegal foreclosures like mine
and many are caused by Wall Street. So the person who held my second and had the right to foreclose
on my property did so but did so illegally in December of 05. Well than if I was to challenge his foreclosure in Civil Court based on
 procedures I would regain  my property rights back at the cost of repaying my debt too the foreclosing party.I agree
to everything up to this point. First let me tell you I was arrested for trying to save my home by the Santa Barbara police when i put the home on the market and have the sales contract to prove it. Well now two years later Mr. Urwick passed on his rights to the property for some unknown reason so a new foreclosure on 1721 Chino Street could be completed only in my name once again. This was done allegedly by a company holding the original first. We all know that first had become Mr. Urwick's responsibility a full two years earlier when the rights to my property were transferred by court to him using document 2006-0100496. Well if title policy's are in fact being issued how was the transfer and legal owner not available to the now foreclosing first? Anthony Urwick and Lawrence Mendoza seem nothing a like.
 In fact I have the letter from Mr. Urwicks attorneys Henderson & Borgeson advising me of the transfer in our Superior courts. Why than did Henderson & Borgeson not fight such a court action as a foreclosure on his property? Does that seem as odd to you as it is to me? Well it gets better for me based on this Civil Law Suit below(no it is not my case). If I prove that the second foreclosure was based on fraud I am entitled to regain title of my property and no tender or payment will be required of me to do. So than I ask why must this be a civil matter and not one for criminal courts? Why must the American people prove the law to our courts instead of using the criminal system to do so? We foot the bill for criminal courts already and this action should come at no additional cost for us to bare?

My ex-wife is displeased with me and I rarely write about her. Julie was and is the most incredible mom any two boys could have. My favorite picture of her and I is of us cutting our wedding cake. I have a grin from ear to ear and she looks like an Angel.That is not to say the devil did not come out during the divorce and that is a shame. An as luck would have it Michael Alvarado included me in a law Suit several years ago and basically acted like a schmuck. Do I hate them or wish them bad, OF COURSE NOT. In fact it bothers me to have to deal with either of them at this point in time but they both broke the law. There is no way that it can be legal for 50 year old Michael Alvarado a former Goleta water manager to be collecting a tax payer paid pension with out having been involved in law Enforcement. Julie you have brought this upon yourself with false charges and stealing from me. An anytime you and your family want my help in clearing up this matter you just let me know. How ever instead you have created a hardship for my son's and I which comes at much to high a cost. Unfortunately for my sons I will not allow anyone to have me beaten or illegally incarcerated and than act as if they had no hand in what transpired. It almost seems like you wish I would hate my own sons and that could never happen. Folks Julie and I never owned a new car for over 17 years of marriage and that was for a reason. We paid more for christen pre-school than we did rent way back in our early years. An every day you look at our son's you can see the investment was paid back to us 100 fold. Yet for all the planning you would think I had no part in my children's upbringing. Now I ask what of a person who threatens your life for 3 solid days, a coward that's who! Would you than turn the other cheek and walk away? Not me I would protect myself so that person could never bring harm to me again!

I would love to move on and and if lucky find a new relationship, the problem is every one has left me no where to go and no way to get there. So here I sit exposing corruption but what i hope we are all beginning to see is that all of us deal with corruption every day and every where.I was reading an old clipping from the L.a. Times dated 02/20/10 and in it they were talking about how the Los Angeles district attorneys office had to create a P.I.D. division for elected officials a decade earlier. THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION is needed in  SANTA BARBARA AND D.A.JOYCE DUDLEY You AND YOUR OFFICE ARE WAY BEHIND THE TIMES.

Larry "Magic" Mendoza

My next Court action should look like this;

Lawrence Mendoza et al vs Deutsche Bank National Trust et al
Case No:
Hearing Date:
Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:30

Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to identify facts or law that defeat the
presumption of the correctness of the proceedings recited in the trustee’s deed, citing
Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76. Knapp is a summary judgment case that
addresses evidentiary presumptions of a trustee’s deed. (Id. at 87.) This is a demurrer.

Defendants also argue that plaintiffs cannot challenge the foreclosure because plaintiffs
have not and cannot tender the full amount due under the note. “A valid and viable tender of
payment of the indebtedness owing is essential to an action to cancel a voidable sale under
a deed of trust.” (Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 112, 117;
Leonard v. Bank of America Nat’l & Trust & Sav. Asso. (1936) 16 Cal.App.2d 341, 343. [a
mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured].)

Once again, the uncertainty in the complaint confounds resolution of this issue. The rule of
tender applies to voidable sales, such as sales irregular in procedure or notice. (Arnolds
Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578.) The rule of tender does
not apply to void sales where, as possibly alleged here, the party foreclosing has no right
upon which to foreclose. In the case of a void transfer, the transferee has no right to the
property at all -- and in this case, potentially, no right to payment on the debt either. Thus,
equity would not require tender of the amount due to quiet title against a party without any
lawful claim of right to the property or to payment of the debt. (See Humboldt Sav. Bank v.
McCleverty (1911) 161 Cal. 285, 291 [tender not required where owner seeking to set aside
foreclosure sale not liable on secured debt].)

No comments: