Works Rights Compliance Alliance
California Sets Precedent: No More Hiding Behind Bogus PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Set: Employers Can’t Outsource Accountability – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Draws the Line: Fraudulent PEO Coverage Doesn’t Cut It – Workers Rights Compliance, New Legal Benchmark: PEO Schemes Won’t Shield Employers – Workers Rights Compliance, Garcias Pallets Case Becomes First-Ever DLSE Precedent – Workers Rights Compliance, Historic First: California Labor Commissioner Issues Precedent Ruling on PEO Fraud – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Makes It Official—No Valid Workers’ Comp, No Excuses – Workers Rights Compliance, Real Coverage for Real Workers: Fraud Won’t Fly in California – Workers Rights Compliance, Workers Deserve Real Protection—Bogus Insurance Doesn’t Count – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Protects Workers from Fake Insurance Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, 50+ Workers, No Coverage—California Says Never Again – Workers Rights Compliance, Labor Law Victory: Worker Safety Over Corporate Shell Games – Workers Rights Compliance, $1.3M Lesson: Ignorance of the Law Is No Defense – Workers Rights Compliance, Certificates Can Lie—Employers Are Still on the Hook – Workers Rights Compliance, Fraudulent Coverage = Real Fines – Workers Rights Compliance, The Bill Comes Due: $1.3M in Fines for Workers' Comp Evasion – Workers Rights Compliance, Subcontracting Liability Doesn’t Mean Subcontracting Responsibility – Workers Rights Compliance, A Win for Honest PEOs, a Loss for Cheaters – Workers Rights Compliance, Leveling the Field: Fraudulent Operators Face Real Consequences – Workers Rights Compliance, PEO Accountability Is Here—Honest Brokers Applaud – Workers Rights Compliance, No More Free Ride for Fraudulent PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Justice for Legitimate Employers—Fraudsters Pay the Price – Workers Rights Compliance, From CompOne to CompassPilot—The Shell Game Ends Here – Workers Rights Compliance, How a Bogus Insurance Scheme Cost One Company $1.3 Million – Workers Rights Compliance, Unmasking the PEO Scam: California Cracks Down – Workers Rights Compliance, One Employer, Three PEOs, Zero Coverage—The Precedent Tells All – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Precedent Highlights Deep Industry Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, Fake Insurance Certificates Are Not a Defense—They’re a Liability – Workers Rights Compliance, Employers: Verify Your Workers’ Comp Coverage—Before the State Does – Workers Rights Compliance, Don’t Get Burned—Understand Joint Employer Liability Today – Workers Rights Compliance, Legit PEO? Or Just a New Name for the Same Old Scam? – Workers Rights Compliance, Your PEO’s Certificate Might Be Fake—Know the Signs – Workers Rights Compliance, Before You Contract Labor, Read This Precedent Decision – Workers Rights Compliance.
Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.5, Post Trustee’s Sale –
There is no private right of action under Section 2923.5 once the
trustee’s sale has occurred. The “only remedy available under the
Section is a postponement of the sale before it happens.” Mabry v.
Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 235 (2010).
Works Rights Compliance Alliance 
Standing and Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime even post foreclosure / sale. A lack of standing or jurisdiction to conduct the foreclosure / sale invalidates the foreclosure / sale. Site omitted….
So if a sale occurred and was not properly supported by the legally sufficient documents can it be over turned?
@John, I don’t know if you’re in California, but if so (or any other nonjudicial foreclosure jurisdiction) you may want to revisit that thought and see if it is applicable.
Standing and jurisdiction as you are using those terms would only apply to judicial actions. Since nonjudicial foreclosure is not that, then those matters would be inappropriate.
@Mario, sales will only be over turned if there’s fraud involved. Outside of this I’m unaware of any other remedy to do so. This is due to the applicable statute deeming recitals in a trustee’s deed as conclusive. Many people through that word around (fraud), but don’t look into the legal elements necessary for a successful claim.
@Angle
I am in a non-judicial foreclosure state. We were a judicial foreclosure state until the banks paid a certain attorney and lobbied all the crooks in our government to change the law. We also had a 1 year redemption period. I am working now with others to bring this awareness to the people and vote to have it changed.
Please take a look at this Mortgage Fraud Seminar put on by the Texas Office of the Attorney General, June 15, 2009. Securitization: The Big Picture. In there you will find a reference to the Federal Register, Friday, January 7, 2005, Part II, Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 210, 228, et. al. Asset-Backed Securities; Final Rule.
The agency is the Securities and Exchange Commission and are their comments.
There is a lot that is revealed that most on this blog are not even aware of as most do not deal in Securities mostly based upon their income.
Example: Page 1508, “Asset-backed securities are securities that are backed by a discrete pool of self-liquidating financial assets. Asset-backed securitization is a financing technique in which financial assets, in many cases themselves less liquid, are pooled and converted into instruments that may be offered and sold in the capital markets.
IN a basic securitization structure, an entity, often a financial institution and commonly known as a “sponsor,” originates or otherwise acquires a pool of financial assets, such as mortgage loans, either directly or through an affiliate…..
What I see, as well as others, is that the S&E Commission failed to make any rules as to what the heck they were attempting to do with the Note when it was CONVERTED into certificates or bonds. Oops!
Look up the word “converted” in any law dictionary. There simply is no enforceability of the Note as it does not exist after being converted. I cannot find where the newly created Certificate or Bond is subject to the TIL or FDCPA. It is subjected to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1937. If the Note that was converted was not delivered to the Trust and has the proper endorsements, the SE considers this a void transaction and an unregistered instrument. Any attempt to bring into a court of law (equity) the Note would be prima facia evidence of fraud.
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/LevitinAuthor.html
I have yet to have any attorney prove me wrong in my research. Most attorneys are going up against Judges who have not done one bit of research on their own, mostly because of their work / case loads.
Just my opinion….
Oh, just one more thought here, if the Note does not exist or is unenforceable, the Mortgage/DOT fails also. No promise to pay, no security.
john