To: Charles Cox
Subject: Judicial council meeting.

>> Mr. Stewart: Thank you. Good morning, lady chairperson and California Judicial Council members. It's an honor to address you. And I thank you for allowing me to speak. As you may know, in 2009, there were over 500,000 foreclosures in California. My talk coincides with a power point slide presentation that I submitted for this talk, that all of you I understand have a copy of.

It's regarding Judicial Council Ud-100 form, intent versus use. And for all these talks, usually you give an outline of what you're going to say, then you say it and then you give a conclusion and recap what you said. So, I would open with a joke but the one that I had is kind of corny, so I'll proceed to the outline.

The -- I'm going to contrast the unlimited jurisdiction complaint versus the unlawful detainer complaint, then go to the legislative report concerning the code passed by the legislature regarding unlawful detainer actions, the Judicial Council intent as inferred by the comments on the Jd-100 form. The current use by attorneys for banks of the Ud-100 form. And then overview how judges implement the U D complaint versus the intent of the complaint and the civil rights and due process issues for homeowners who are confronted with UD complaint.

First of all the ordinary unlawful or unlimited jurisdiction complaint is to be used only after administrative remedies have been exhausted. For a party whose rights have been violated. The unlimited jurisdiction complaints have three realms of discovery prior to trial setting another full round of discovery after trial setting, but before trial. The unlimited jurisdiction complaint allows for cross complaint that must be heard prior to the hearing of the complaint and cannot be dismissed unlike the complaint. pursuant to maxums of law. The unlawful detainer does not allow for cross complaint. It does not allow for full discovery, it operates under the presumption that the plaintiff, who is filing the unlawful detainer, has standing to file the unlawful detainer, does not allow a challenge to the ownership claim of the plaintiff or the standing of the plaintiff to file and make the claim for unlawful detainer.

The legislative report for the unlawful detainer legislation makes it clear that it is intended for non-payment of rent. That indicates that it's to be applied to renters, not homeowners, who have been foreclosed upon. The Judicial Council on the UD-100 Judicial Council form states clearly on page 1, note, do not use this form for evictions after sale, and then it cites code of civil procedure section 1161-A.

Now the current use of the unlawful detainer complaint by the banks involves their deliberate misrepresentation of the owner who of this foreclosed upon as renters. And of course there is no opportunity in the unlawful detainer complaint to challenge this. 99% of foreclosures are currently done in California in fraud. So we've got a situation where you've got a fraudulent complaint filed, home owners are confronted with this on a fast track, and generally they are confused and baffled and when they ask to change the jurisdiction from the limbed jurisdiction unlawful detainer to an unlimited complaint with cross complaint as is provided generally by local rules, the judges generally refuse and further the judges do not do a SuA Sponte dismissal of the unlawful detainer for lack of standing –

>> Mr. Stewart you're up to your five minutes.

>> I can conclude.

>> Within 30 seconds, please, sir.

>> Mr. Stewart: The banks have no standing to foreclose because all the notes for the mortgages are securitized, sealed in a 30 years real estate management conduit that the banks do not open because then they will have to pay the taxes and penalties on 3.6 billion dollars of Remic notes, not just the note they are trying to get. They never become an assign on the note, they never are recorded in the public record as an assign on the note, they've separated the note from the deed of trust, so they have violated UCC 3-305-B and made the note unenforceable but the standing is never allowed to be challenged and further more the trustee fraudulently certifies under penalty of perjury that civil code 2934 and all its requirements have been satisfied when in fact the California civil code 2932.5 has been violated because the banks never have the note.

>>Mr. Stewart, I'll stop you here because I want you to know we have an idea of the substance of your complaint about the use of this form. And we appreciate you are bringing this to the attention of the judicial counsel. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

>> Thank you commissioner, chairperson.