IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREEM SALESSI Defendant & Appellant,

vs.

"WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB ... " [Outlawed Shell Member of WACHOVIA BANK, a Convicted Drug Cartel as of 3/16/201 0]; Plaintiffs & Respondents.

After a Decision by the court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division Three Case# G047834

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Kareem Salessi, Defendant/ Appellant, 30262 Crown Valley Pkwy, B-174 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 Tel: (949) 783 0165

- 0 -

_______________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREEM SALESSI Defendant & Appellant,

vs.

“WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB…” [Outlawed Shell Member of WACHOVIA BANK, a Convicted Drug Cartel as of 3/16/2010]; Plaintiffs & Respondents.

After a Decision by the court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division Three Case # G047834

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Kareem Salessi, Defendant/Appellant, 30262 Crown Valley Pkwy, B-174 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 Tel: (949) 783 0165

- 1 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Page#

TABLE OF CASES 2 TABLE OF STATUTES, RULES & OTHER AUTHORITES 3 Previous Related Supreme Court Cases: 4 INTRODUCTION 4 ADOPTION OF OTHER CASES INTO THIS PETITION 5 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 6 REASONS TO GRANT REVIEW 7 REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST 8 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 9

LEGAL DISCUSSION 14

THE “INJURY-IN-FACT” STANDING ISSUE: 17

B. The Importance of Being a Person Entitled to Enforce a Note” 18 Second Question Presented for Review: 19

CONCLUSION… 22

CERTIFICATES OF: WORD COUNT; INTERESTED ENTITYES; CASES 23

- 2 -

TABLE OF CASES: Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 860 (2001) 7, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.496 U.S. 384 (1990), 110 S.Ct. 2447. 7, People v. Gudger (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 310, 316, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 510. 7, Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561 7, 15, NAACP v. Alabama (1964) 377 U.S. 288 7, FULLER v. FIRST FRANKLIN…. (2013), 216 Cal.App.4th 955, 10 Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1192 10 Regents of University of Ca v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 509, 10 Boatwright, supra, 124 Cal.App.3d 10 People v. $497,590 U.S. Currency (1997), 58 Cal.App.4th 145 14 In re Alberto R. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1309 15 City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) 466 U.S. 789 15 RIVERISLAND COLD STORAGE, INC., v. FRESNO–MADERA PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169, 291 P.3d 316 17 Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass, 4 Cal.2d 258, 17 In re DEAMICIS, Debtor, 454 B.R. 756 (2011), 17, 18 (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) 18 Drum v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 845 19 FBI: Spotlight On Malicious Insiders and Organized Crime Activity by Chris King January 2012 (TECHNICAL NOTE-CMU/SEI-2012-TN-001) 20 Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S 254 20 ARMSTRONG v. MANZO, 85 S.Ct. 1187 (1965). 21

- 3 -

TABLE OF STATUTES & RULES & OTHER AUTHORITIES:

California Rules of Court, rule 13(a)(5) 5

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 904.1, subd. (a) & 904.2 6, 19, 20,

Cal. Rules of Court §8.525. 7

21 U.S.C., § 881, subd. (a)(6) 15

2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Documentary Evidence, § 99, 100. 17

11 U.S.C.A. § 362; 18 Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7017, 11 U.S.C.A.; 18 Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 17(a)(1), 28 U.S.C.A.” 18 UCC § 30301(i) & (ii) 18

- 4 -

Previous Related Supreme Court Cases:

Petitioner’s case # S194916 (2011 WL 3560103), and case # S166021

(2008 WL 4381226), arising from the denied Writ Petition G040713 in the original

lawsuit, were the two previous occasions this petitioner visited this court,

however, as Plaintiff and Appellant. The denial of S194916 by this court led to

petitioner’s U.S. Supreme Court case # 11-1013, and its petition for rehearing,

copy of which were also served to this Supreme Court of California.1

INTRODUCTION

With this new Petition For Review (PFR), Petitioner Salessi requests review

by the Supreme Court of California of the Fourth Appellate District Court Division

Three (4th-Appellate-3), and the Orange County Superior Court’s Appellate

Division (SCAD), respective dismissals of the underlying appeals as to why the

case should not have been summarily reversed and remanded for annulment of

the underlying judgment, and writs of possession, all of which were obtained by

the proven frauds of plaintiff’s counsel in conspiracy with state government

actors, while acting illegally under color of state laws, pursuant to the petitioner’s

presentment of uncontroverted proofs of facts to both (4th-Appellate-3), and to

SCAD, of pertinent details of the conspiracy, including thefts and fabrications of

court documents under false pretenses, as the vehicle of stealing petitioner’s

home under the false color of California State Laws.

1 All the referenced materials and footnotes are incorporated herein full with this reference.

- 5 -

ADOPTION OF OTHER CASES INTO THIS PETITION:

Although this is a stand-alone, and fully functional petition for review, in

order to make available a complete picture of events surrounding this case,

petitioner resorts to the adoption of the facts, contentions, and discussions set

forth in the related cases cited below. With these adoptions petitioner Salessi

eliminates the need for elaborate recitations of the many crucial details as already

filed in the underlying cases, and instead adopts the said documents as if they

were fully integrated into this petition, with this reference. Upon availability, actual

documents can be resubmitted upon this court’s GRANT OF REVIEW.

California Rules of Court, rule 13(a)(5), provides a mechanism for joining or

adopting “by reference all or part of a brief in the same or a related appeal.” This

mechanism's primary purpose is to “expedite briefing in multiparty appeals.”

( California Rules of Court, rule 13(a), Advisory Corn. com. (2002).

Therefore, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 13(a)(5), appellant

Salessi adopts and joins, herein by reference, the entirety of Salessi's related

appellate cases, including, but not limited to Appellant/Petitioner’s United States

Supreme Court case # 11-1013, while including the entireties of its two previously

cited cases in this court, S194916 and S166021, and including the entireties of

their respective underlying cases.

- 6 -

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Two questions are herein presented for review, both as a matter of first

impression:

1- Is a legally fictional entity, already outlawed and deregistered owing

to criminal convictions, permitted to appear in California courts as a “real

party in interest” and utilize California courts to repossess real estate

whose mortgages it purchased with laundered drug money?

2- Is the non-appealability of California Superior Court Appellate

Division (SCAD) orders, and/or, judgments to a higher court

unconstitutional, on the basis of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, subd. (a)

& 904.2?

- 7 -

REASONS TO GRANT REVIEW

Review by this Court is required to settle important questions of law. Cal. Rules of

Court §8.525.

This Court reviews the Court of Appeal decision de novo. It must “necessarily be

deemed an abuse” for a lower court to select an erroneous legal rule or to apply

decisional law in a manner “that is inconsistent with the law itself’). Aguilar v. Atlantic

Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 860 (2001). Since the Appellate court failed to apply the

correct legal standard, it “necessarily abuse[d] its discretion if it based its ruling on

erroneous view of the law or on clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence”. Cooter

& Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.496 U.S. 384 (1990), 110 S.Ct. 2447. In the instant underlying

cases, all courts failed to recognize Wachovia’s non-viability, despite all evidence, and

thus failed to reverse and remand on that basis alone.

Furthermore, review by this Court is required for the blanket prohibition on

appealability of California Superior Court Appellate Division (SCAD) decisions as it is too

arbitrary, overbroad, and unconstitutional on its face. Overbreadth, as a doctrine of

constitutional law, occurs when “a statute, seeking to regulate an area of state interest,

reaches too far and punishes innocent behavior.” (People v. Gudger (1994) 29

Cal.App.4th 310, 316, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 510.) As the doctrine has been articulated by both

the United States and California Supreme Courts, “ ‘a governmental purpose to control

or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by

means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected

freedoms.’ “ (Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 853

P.2d 507, quoting NAACP v. Alabama (1964) 377 U.S. 288, 307, 84 S.Ct. 1302, 12

L.Ed.2d 325.)

- 8 -

REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST:

WACHOVIA’s unreal identity:

While petitioner Salessi is a Real Party in interest, Respondent Wachovia is not.

From the outset of the case Petitioner had proved that Respondents were not Real-

Parties-In-Interest and that they had utilized fabricated, and unregistered, fictional

names, as in here. Appellant Salessi offered substantial proofs in his support, but all

courts, including Court of Appeal, and federal courts, ignored the proofs which Salessi

repeatedly submitted. The cumulative proofs as laid out in (Dkt. 3/18/13; 7/30/13;

11/18/13; 12/2/13; 1/21/14), while citing to relevant authorities, proved that Wachovia

and all its elements were outlawed on 3/16/10, upon its confession of judgment to have

laundered half a trillion dollars of drug money, during the last decade alone. As a result

of that criminal conviction, all Wachovia names were deregistered, and the illicit pools of

drug proceeds in all forms were swiftly, and illegally, swept under the large rug of Wells

Fargo and laundered, only to resurface with a brand new Wells Fargo name, and with a

new national banking charter #1, as if it was the very first nationally chartered bank in

this country. Wachovia entities, despite having changed legal status multiple times since

their filing of their underlying UDA, the attorneys never filed a single disclosure

statement proving their client’s legal identity, because it had been illegal at all times. 2

Furthermore, according to Salessi’s uncontroverted proofs presented in the above

dockets, there never existed any Wachovia entities, such as the purported plaintiff here,

before, during, or after the filing of the underlying complaint.

2 See FOIA reply letter of the U.S. Treasury close to end of (Dkt. 7/30/13, Exhibit-13).

- 9 -

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

First Team Real Estate (First Team), a large privately owned criminal enterprise,

based in Orange County, California, listed for sale the subject property of the underlying

lawsuit to this petition, on Aloma Ave., Ca. 92677 (Aloma Property), in the summer of

2002. By making false representations of facts, fraudulent real estate agent, and his

broker (N. Roshdieh, and T. Abercrombie) represented the property to appellant Salessi

with false details, and induced Salessi to enter into a preliminary conditional Purchase

Agreement (PA) in August 2002. Shortly thereafter the PA was materially altered, and

forged, by First Team and became void. Furthermore, in October 2002, a sham escrow,

which had been fraudulently opened to begin with, was cancelled in writing by the

fraudulent sellers (Ortiz), First Team, and confirmed by Salessi.

Meantime, First Team’s escrow office Coast Cities Escrow (Coast), which had

already illegally cashed, and stolen Salessi’s good faith $5,000 check, had already

arranged with World Savings, Commonwealth Title, the sellers, and other actors to act

as the opening, and closing agent, for multiple World Savings loans in Salessi’s name in

order to steal the loan funds, in addition to Salessi’s $5,000, plus another $50,000 which

Coast induced Salessi to take to their office for safekeeping for negotiating a potentially

new escrow. Coast actor obtained that check from Salessi by fraud, and under false

pretense of holding it for opening negotiations.

Coast’s frauds, and forgeries, were so incriminatingly extensive that their full

details have not yet been disclosed by their counsel. However, on 10/5/13, during

discovery in the related federal case #01274, it became first known to Salessi that not

only Coast had forged all the loan, and grant deed, documents it also had forged at least

four fingerprints, and their associated signatures, of the purported sellers (Ortiz) and the

purported buyer (Salessi), plus an extra set of forgeries, for submission to World

Savings to arrange the wire of $400,000 to Coast to embezzle. (Dkt. 12/2/13, Exhibit-

16). Days later, on 10/12/13, Salessi promptly brought that breakthrough discovery to

- 10 -

the attention of the federal court, but was shunned whereupon that court erroneously

decided that the forgeries should have been discovered long ago, even though Salessi

explained that parties never produced any documents to him in previous litigation, where

he also appeared pro se, and that fraudulent concealment tolls statute of limitations, as

in here, and as decided recently in FULLER v. FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL

CORPORATION (2013), 216 Cal.App.4th 955, which cites to the California Supreme

Court as follows:

“…One of these is the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which tolls the statute of limitations if a defendant's deceptive conduct “has caused a claim to grow stale.” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1192, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827, 292 P.3d 871; Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 509, 533, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 257, 976 P.2d 808.) In support of this doctrine, a plaintiff must allege the supporting facts—i.e., the date of discovery, the manner of discovery, and the justification for the failure to discover the fraud earlier—with the same particularity as with a cause of action for fraud. (Boatwright, supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at pp. 900–902, 177 Cal.Rptr. 657.)3

Some weeks later, in November 2002, Salessi having already tried but failed to

retrieve his stolen mone from Coast, was fraudulently forced to take possession of the

Aloma property which he hadn’t bargained for, and without even receiving a grant deed

for it. In late 2007, the recorded grant deed naming Salessi as Grantee, was analyzed to

bear false names, and false signatures of the Ortiz sellers, evidently because it had

originally been granted to First Team earlier for around $300,000, as opposed to around

$455,000, which was the total amount of funds embezzled by Coast and its principals in

crime, by forging the loan opening, and closing documents, in order to have World

Savings wire to Coast $400,000 so that they can close a sham escrow, embezzling all

proceeds, and distributing them according to their criminal scheme.

In 2007, Wachovia having been nothing but a criminal drug money laundering

enterprise, and having already laundered over $1/2 trillion drug money between 2000-

2006, had evidently come under international money laundering scrutiny by INTERPOL,

3 The federal court subsequently dismissed the action on 12/16/13, which is now on appeal to the 9th Cir.

- 11 -

through Scotland Yard in London. The London money laundering was reported to the

FBI, and investigations followed. In anticipation of a blanket forfeiture of Wachovia

assets, evidently U.S. DOJ; the FDIC; Office of Thrift Supervision (OTC); rouge lawyers,

and other actors concocted the schemes to launder as much of the drug money out of

Wachovia as possible, by quickly arranging Wachovia acquisitions of substantial other

assets and entities with laundered drug money.

Two of such entities, of which Salessi is aware, are World Savings, and A.G.

Edwards, both of which were quickly acquired at highly inflated prices, with probable

arrangements of laundering the inflated values, as overpricing kickbacks, from the

sellers down the line. This criminal kick-back laundering operation was probably

completed in 2007-2008, whereupon the actors must have reaped tens of billions of

dollars. With that kind of money Wachovia principals could even buy the White House,

including any pardons the principals may have needed down the line, and including any

orders to prevent the criminal prosecutions of their principals, which prosecutions never

occurred.

Meantime, in late 2007, Salessi having obtained forensic handwriting analysis of

the forged nature of the Aloma property grant deed, and of the recorded forged loan

documents, furnished his new findings to World Savings, giving them multiple actual,

and legal, NOTICES of the inception forgeries and notifying them that Salessi was

entitled to stop paying WSB for the property mortgage he never bargained for, and the

property title he never received, and for the loans he never signed, or contracted with

World Savings. WSB assured Salessi it would investigate, however, they recorded a

“NOTICE OF DEFAULT”.

Upon subsequent NOTICES, World Savings stated that they would not foreclose

and had arranged their legal department to investigate the forgery matters. However,

having been a participant in the inception fraud, this was World Savings fraudulent and

illegal “double-tracking” scheme with which banks are known to promise

clients/borrowers something (such as loan modifications), but simultaneously take

- 12 -

adverse actions against them, such as fraudulent foreclosures as it happened in this

case.

Multiple, similar, double-tracking frauds occurred between January and May 2008,

by WSB’s assuring Salessi of having taken foreclosure off calendar completely, while

actually concocting a new criminal scheme with Fidelity’s affiliate Commonwealth Title to

enter into an arbitration agreement with Salessi to clear the Aloma Property’s forged

title, while conspiring with another branch of Fidelity’s criminal Robo-Signing forgery

operation LPS-DOCx, by the name of Fidelity National Sales & Posting (a.k.a: ASAP), to

stage a fraudulent non-judicial foreclosure to steal the house from under him, which they

did, utilizing their routine Robo-Singing scheme.

In the process of the above criminal scheme, Wachovia lawyers from the firm of

AFRCT, struck deals with Orange County Judge William Monroe, who corrupted the

underlying case to the underlying UDA, by conspiring with AFRCT, and Fidelity counsel

ab initio in open court on 7/8/08, to steal the Aloma Property on 7/15/08, in a scheme

proffered by the judge himself. Judge Monroe, as a defendant in the related federal case

admitted to his corruption in the above, but claimed to enjoy absolute judicial immunity.

The federal judge accepted that defense and dismissed him from the case. That case is

now on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, which will be asked if it is constitutional

for a corrupt judge to absolve himself of criminal conspiracy in fixing cases, with his

defense of “absolute immunity”. In his underlying related cases in this court, Salessi had

documented that California, and federal, laws absolutely forbid “absolute immunity” from

prosecution of corrupt judges, who scheme in fixing cases, and that they are also

subject to criminal prosecutions.

Judge Monroe was so passionate to rob Salessi of his house that he ordered the

sham auction (by pure Robo-Signing) of the Aloma property on the same day that he

fraudulently lifted the TRO, and in spite of the fact that he had lost jurisdiction on the

morning of 7/8/08 upon being served judicial challenges, and long before the afternoon

of that day when he conspired with AFRCT, and Fidelity counsel. The sham auction on

- 13 -

7/15/08 was, inter alia, in violation of California Civil Code {}, which expressly

prohibits even a legal auction on the day of the release of a Temporary Restraining

Order (TRO), or injunction, and was thus void as a matter of statutory law, in spite of

which legal nullity no court has yet recognized the fact of that legal nulity to this date, by

annulling the fraudulent acts that were schemed upon Salessi as the appellant/victim of

judicial, and non-judicial frauds.

The next day 7/16/08, a fraudulent “3-DAY NOTICE TO QUIT” was posted on the

door of Salessi’s house, by the rouge law firm of Lane & Phillips, whom Salessi

subsequently contacted. The woman blackmailed Salessi with an Unlawful Detainer

Action (UDA) if he refused to abandon the house, and further offered a $3,000 payoff as

bait for the abandonment of the house. She threatened to destroy Salessi’s credit-rating

by filing the UDA. Salessi informed her of the forgeries, and subsequently faxed her the

NOTICE which appears herein at (Exhibit-A), in addition to multiple pages containing

the forgery forensics which Salessi had formerly sent to World Savings Legal

Department/s, between 2007-2008. Salessi probably recorded that blackmail

conversation. 7/176/08 was also the first day after release of TRO that a “legal auction”

could have been held, had such legalities preexisted.

Thereupon Lane & Phillips having researched the forgeries and having found

them to be accurate, attorney Mark Phillips evidently refused to participate in a UDA

which they later filed, and soon thereafter parted with Robert Lane, the rouge attorney

who brought in a hired gun John Gulino to run the calendared jury trial of 1/26/09, which

jury trial attorney Gulino subverted by his new “dual-tracking” scheme of stipulating with

Salessi to continue (actually to enjoin) the trial, awaiting Salessi’s filing of a new Quiet

Title Action (QTA), and consolidating the UDA with it, in order to determine Salessi’s

validity of title to Aloma property. The full account of this is laid out in the uncontroverted

declaration of Salessi in (Dkt. 7/30/13, page 4-9).

- 14 -

LEGAL DISCUSSION:

First Question Presented for Review:

Question: Is a legally fictional entity, already outlawed and deregistered owing to

criminal convictions, permitted to appear in California courts as a “real party in interest”

and utilize California courts to repossess real estate whose mortgages it purchased with

laundered drug money?

As a matter of first impression, the first question above presented for review to this

court by this petition, is to ask this court to establish that in California it is illegal for a

criminal narcotics money laundering enterprise, such as Wachovia, to launder colossal

amounts of drug money and to get away with the crime by laundering it through

investments in California real-estate through its purchase of World Savings Bank (WSB),

a 2007 outgoing California bank, due to its colossal predatory mortgage frauds, and in

order to escape the U.S. financial meltdown to which WSB had contributed, as

documented by Salessi in his 2004 Orange County Case # 04CC11080.

Furthermore, also as a matter of first impression, if this court does make the

above determination as expected, then this court should establish that any and all

assets procured by Wachovia in California should be forfeited by the operation of laws of

this country, as set forth in petitioner’s public notice to Wachovia (Dkt.1/21/14, Exhibit-

E), and/or, in the alternative, forfeiture proceedings be enforced state-wide by this court

with a writ of mandate, pursuant to the drug money forfeiture laws of the State of

California, as laid out here in this petition.

In its affirmance of the trial court’s forfeiture judgment of $1/2 million drug money

in the case of People v. $497,590 U.S. Currency (1997), 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 151; 68

Cal.Rptr.2d 185,189, in its Footnote #3 the court stated as follows:

“The federal statute reads: “All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this title, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys,

- 15 -

negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this title, except that no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.” (21 U.S.C., § 881, subd. (a)(6).)”

Similar to the above ruling, this Supreme Court, having denied review of the (4th-

Appellate-3) affirmance of forfeiture of $100,000 drug money, affirmed that court’s

decision, which stated in part as follows, in PEOPLE v. MITCHELL (1994) 30

Cal.App.4th 783, 802; 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 150, 160:

““Mitchell asserts the term “negotiable instrument” is vague, but gives the clear definition contained in Black's Law Dictionary: “a written and signed unconditional promise or order to pay a specified sum of money on demand or at a definite time payable to order.” (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1035.) In any event, she may not complain on that ground because only cash was involved here. ( Bowland v. Municipal Court, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 492, 134 Cal.Rptr. 630, 556 P.2d 1081.) Mitchell's attack on grounds of overbreadth must fail as well. “[A] facial overbreadth challenge is difficult to sustain. The [United States Supreme Court] has emphasized that ‘[a]pplication of the overbreadth doctrine ... is, manifestly, strong medicine. It has been employed ... sparingly and only as a last resort.’ [Citation.]” ( Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 853 P.2d 507.) “ ‘[A] governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.’ [Citation.] However, to successfully challenge a statute as overbroad, the overbreadth must not only be real, but must be substantial as well, judged by the legitimate reach of the law.” ( In re Alberto R. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1316, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 348.) “[T]he mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” ( City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) 466 U.S. 789, 800, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 2126, 80 L.Ed.2d 772.)”” In the above cited cases, the California Anti-Drug Task Forces undertook

extensive detective work to locate, and to confiscate, drug money with amounts

comparable to Wachovia’s laundered drug money as “needles in haystacks”, yet

- 16 -

California has closed its eyes as to Wachovia’s criminal activities.

Therefore, in compliance with California laws as set forth above, and based on

Wachovia’s 3/16/10 judicial confession to have laundered over $420 billion of drug

money, without disclosing the entirety the drug money, no question remains that the

entire proceeds must have been forfeited by the United States Justice Department

(DOJ), or by each affected state’s DOJ, but such forfeitures were not contemplated.

Instead of such forfeitures, the DOJ actors, probably one or more U.S. Attorneys, in

conjunction with a private insurance company (a.k.a: FDIC), upon the conspiracy of

Wachovia and Wells Fargo counsel, brokered an illegal deal to launder the entire

disclosed, and undisclosed, drug money into Wells Fargo, and to hide the same under

Wells Fargo’s much larger rug, to make it vanish from the public eye, and to save it from

mandatory forfeitures. In fact, according to the publicly known chain of events, as proved

by Salessi’s related exhibits, the unofficial laundering of the entire drug proceeds from

Wachovia into Wells Fargo and other entities occurred in October 2008, long before its

official transfer of Wachovia into Wells Fargo, and 16 months before Wachovia’s 3/16/10

confession of judgment. See last 5 pages of (Dkt. 7/30/13).4

California having long enforced its own drug forfeiture laws as elaborated in

People v. $497,590 U.S. Currency, supra, must not remain a victim of this colossal drug

money laundering operation, and its related crimes, which have devastated California

families; its society, and its economy in just a few years, for the benefit of Wachovia’s

drug lords. Thus, the California public should not have been allowed to suffer the

negative consequences of the above described illicitly brokered deal, in light of

California citizens having had in excess of one million home-loans which had been

laundered from World Savings into Wachovia, in exchange for drug money, and quickly

thereafter laundered into Wells Fargo, to wash them clean of its illicit origins.

If this court reviews the above issues, this court should also find it mandatory to

4 One of the U.S. Attorneys, who is known to have been offered a Wells Fargo position, went into private practice shortly after the Wachovia case and may have been fixing their court cases ever since.

- 17 -

order the expungement of all “legal fees” obtained by Wachovia attorneys throughout

their litigations against this injured-in-fact victim, and payable to Salessi, based on the

drug-derived forfeiture by wrongdoing laws presented in (Dkt. 12/2/13) as cited from

U.S. Supreme Court case #11-1013.

THE “INJURY-IN-FACT” STANDING ISSUE:

As this court held in its recent decision of RIVERISLAND COLD STORAGE, INC.,

v. FRESNO–MADERA PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION (2013) 55 Cal.4th

1169, 291 P.3d 316, held that parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of fraudulent

promises at variance with terms of the writing, overruling Bank of America etc. Assn. v.

Pendergrass, 4 Cal.2d 258, 48 P.2d 659, et. Seq. Whereupon the court further stated

that: Promissory fraud, like all forms of fraud, requires a showing of justifiable reliance

on the defendant's misrepresentation, See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012)

Documentary Evidence, § 99, 100.

Salessi’s declarations in (Dkt. 7/30/13), which were neither controverted by Lane

& Gulino, in the underlying case, nor by Wachovia’s counsel (AFRCT), in the federal

case as seen in (Dkt. 1/21/14), documented promissory frauds as well as illegal

practices of “double-tracking” by both Lane & Gulino on 1/26/09, and by World Savings

in January-May 2008, and earlier in 2007. The truth of the declarations and Wachovia’s

reality further prove the lack of standing of Wachovia, and its lack of injury-in-fact, to

have filed the fraudulent UDA.

A parallel case is that of In re DEAMICIS, Debtor, 454 B.R. 756 (2011), in which

the debtor suffered quite a similar victimology as Salessi here, with the exception that

Salessi’s loan and deed documents had all been forged in 2002, at inception. The

DEAMICIS court explained the situation in one concise section:

“Trust that had acquired title to Chapter 7 debtor's residence through a prepetition nonjudicial foreclosure sale, and that subsequently moved for stay relief to enforce a state-court unlawful-detainer judgment and to pursue eviction proceedings, failed to demonstrate that it was the real party in interest whose

- 18 -

rights were affected by the automatic stay; it was a third party, not trust, that posted notice to vacate on debtor's property, that filed state-court complaint in unlawful detainer against debtor and her husband, and that obtained judgment purporting to give it the right to possession of the property, trust was not mentioned in the notice to vacate, the unlawful-detainer complaint, or the unlawful-detainer judgment, and a still different third party earlier had sought stay relief to enforce the judgment. 11 U.S.C.A. § 362; Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7017, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 17(a)(1), 28 U.S.C.A.”

Citing DEAMICIS, supra, California Bankruptcy Journal (2012) 32 Cal. Bankr. J.

147, had designated a section to this exact issue, which principle the fraudulent

Wachovia attorneys had violated in Salessi’s Chapter-11 Bankruptcy case by bringing a

fraudulent motion for relief from stay in 2009, without probably cause, or an standing to

do so:

“B. The Importance of Being a Person Entitled to Enforce a Note”

““The Ninth Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has drawn a line when it comes to documenting standing to seek relief on a mortgage: you need to show you are the real party in interest, which means showing you are entitled to enforce the underlying note. Wells Fargo, the assignee of the debtors' mortgage, moved for relief from stay in order to foreclose. The note, however, was indorsed to a different entity, and the bank submitted no documentation showing it had been assigned the note along with the mortgage. Under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the maker of a note has an obligation only to a “person entitled to enforce the note.” This includes the “holder” of the note (which Wells Fargo wasn't, since the note was payable to another entity) and a nonholder “who has the rights of a holder.” UCC § 30301(i) & (ii). To assert the rights of a holder, a nonholding possessor has the burden of showing an effective “transfer” of the note, as governed by UCC Article 9. Here, however, the bank submitted evidence only of the transfer of the mortgage, which under governing state law (in this case Illinois) doesn't carry with it an assignment of the note. Without that, the bank could not show a colorable claim to an interest in the note, with or without the rights of a holder, and so was not entitled to relief from stay. (The panel reached a *151 similar result in resolving a claim objection against the bank's servicing agent, AHMSI, which had filed a proof of secured claim but did not include any admissible evidence that either it or the bank for which it was purportedly an agent was entitled to enforce the note--though it would have the opportunity to do so upon remand.) Veal v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011). See also U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn. v. Deamicis (In re

- 19 -

Deamicis), 454 B.R. 756 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2011) (motion for relief from stay to enforce unlawful-detainer judgment denied where brought by a trust entity nominally different than the indenture-trustee entity that had obtained the judgment).””

On the contrary to the lawful proceedings of the above bankruptcy motion of

DEAMICIS, in Salessi’s related 6/9/09 motion, Wachovia attorney Martin Phillips literally

ordered the court what to say, and what not to say, whose orders the court followed,

including the denials of the BK-court’s own statement on the record about the invalidity

of the 7/15/08 sham foreclosure where the court said: “…I believe the foreclosure was

invalid as you believe it was invalid…”.5

Second Question Presented for Review:

Question: Is the non-appealability of California Superior Court Appellate Division

(SCAD) orders, and/or, judgments to a higher court unconstitutional, on the basis of

Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, subd. (a) & 904.2 ?

The Appellate Court cited (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, subd. (a) & 904.2.).

The brief Appellate Order of Dismissal filed Jan. 20, 2014 is quoted here verbatim

from its docket available online:

“The order from which appellant appeals is an order of the appellate division of the superior court. Such an order is not appealable in this court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, subd. (a) & 904.2.) By invitation of this court, appellant filed a letter brief arguing the order was appealable under Drum v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 845. In Drum v. Superior Court, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th 845, the underlying limited civil case was appealed to the appellate division of the superior court, which affirmed the judgment. The court of appeal ordered the case transferred to itself "to secure uniformity of decision and to settle an important question of law." (Id. at p. 849.) This case does not involve a transfer or unresolved questions of law. The appeal is DISMISSED.”

5 That voice-track is publicly available on Salessi’s blog via:

Google: “6/9/09 (2 Minutes) SLOW MOTION REPLAY OF JUDGE SMITH”

- 20 -

The Appellate Court cited (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, subd. (a) & 904.2.).

Petitioner believes these statutes are too overbroad, and unconstitutional, as applied to

blanket refusal of appellate courts to review Superior Court Appellate Division (SCAD)

cases, no matter what the underlying factual circumstances.

Furthermore, despite petitioner’s repeated demands, the Appellate Court, just as

SCAD, evaded questioning the plaintiff/respondent’s threshold ab intio non-viability

standing issues, whereupon such an examination the plaintiff would have been found

non-viable, and without standing, and thus the case would have had to have been

summarily remanded to the Harbor Superior Court (proven corrupt by this petitioner)

with order of annulments of its fraudulent judgment and writs. However, appellant’s

personal experience is that courts protect lower courts’ wrongful rulings, as long as the

rulings are against self-represented victims of criminal enterprises, as in here.6

The threshold standing proofs were expressly demanded in (Dkt. 11/18/13, and

12/2/13), however to no avail. See for instance (Dkt. 12/2/13, Exhibit-15) which is the

transcript of a SCAD hearing of 10/25/12. At the top of page 5 appellant Salessi

expressly addressed the court as to the legal non-existence of plaintiff Wahovia in any

form, including as presented in the underlying action. The court immediately interrupted

appellant, just when he was going to spell out the words: “…for having laundered $1/2

trillion drug money…”, and evidently in anticipation of that statement. It is noteworthy,

that the 1/25/12 motion was to set aside an appeal “dismissal order” which had issued

without notice to appellant, and was thus void ab initio. Moreover, the void of that

proceeding’s underlying dismissal without notice, rendered the entire 1/25/12

proceedings null and void due to lack of notice of the underlying dismissal. Notice is a

6 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines organized crime as: “Any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole”[FBI 2011]. Source: Spotlight On Malicious Insiders and Organized Crime Activity by Chris King January 2012 (TECHNICAL NOTE-CMU/SEI-2012-TN-001)

- 21 -

requirement of due process. See, Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S 254. Furthermore,

all the underlying judgments, and writs, appealed from were constitutionally void for their

fundamental lack of due process, as set forth in ARMSTRONG v. MANZO, 85 S.Ct.

1187 (1965).

Immediately after line 7, it can be read that SCAD began gaming this threshold

issue in open court by preventing Salessi to deal with it. As documented in the appellate

filings that court erroneously, and capriciously, abused its discretion in order to dismiss

the UDA appeal in favor of the drug cartel, and despite the clear laws that Wachovia’s

purported standing had to be cleared at the earliest stage of appeal, as Salessi was

trying to do there. The underlying Appellate court further evaded to address that

threshold issue (Dkt. 7/30/13, page 3), and (Dkt. 12/2/13, page 1).

Initially the Appellate Court had issued its briefing schedule and anticipated

briefings. However, after appellant had been compelled to file Salessi (Dkt. 7/30/13)

which evidently opened a can of worms on the fraudulent procedures of the underlying

UDA court and the extensive Florida Criminal Court documents of Wachovi’a confession

of judgment, after the said filing (4Th Appellate-3) changed its strategy to dismissing the

case as lacking jurisdiction. (Dkt. 12/20/13)

Petitioner Salessi believes that the above refusals of the underlying courts to

disclose the true non-existing identity of Wachovia amounted to denials of due process,

and are reversible on review by this court, also as a matter/s of first impression in

making a ruling if California courts can legally, and knowingly, allow non-existent fictions

to appear in court and claim to own people’s homes.7

7 California Attorney General recently filed a 300 felony count complaint against a small criminal enterprise, similar to Gulino & Lane and AFRCT, under the Fresno Case No. F14900385. Its PDF version can be accessed by Google: “California -v- Foreclosure Mill Lawyers (300 count felony)”

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, it is urged that the petition be granted, the

Court of Appeal Opinion be reversed, and the final judgments of the lower court/s

be reversed, and rendered void ab initio, pursuant to inter alia, the legal

discussion herein presented. In the alternative this petition should be treated as a

petition for a writ of mandate, upon which an appropriate write issued as also set

forth before the underlying appellate court.

Respectfully submitted.

Dated, January 28, 2014 Kareem Salessi, Defendant/Petitioner 30262 Crown Valley Pkwy, B-174 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 Tel: (949) 783 0165

'

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT:

According to the Microsoft Word-Count tool program the total number of words in this document are 6,359 words.

Dated, January 29, 2014

Kareem Salessi, Petitioner/Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS:

All entities named or affiliated with any actual or related business interests, or those doing business under the pretext of inter alia these names:

Wells Fargo, Wachovia, Golden West, World Savings, Fidelity, LPS, DOCx., MERS.

In addition, the named defendants in the following related case, and any, and all, of their associates-in-fact, named or unnamed:

- Salessi v. Commonwealth Title, et al. (2009 WL 3873625) SAV 08-0127 4 DOC (Central District of Ca), On appeal to the 9th Circuit Case #13-57063

CERTIFICATE OF REAL TED CASES

THE FOLLOWING CASE/S ARE RELATED TO THIS APPEAL:

- Salessi v. Commonwealth Title, et al. (2009 WL 3873625) SAV 08-01274 DOC (Central District of Ca); On appeal to the 9th Circuit Case #13-57063

- 24 -

EXHIBIT-A:

- 25 -

0 7-31-2008 Lane & Phillips 8180 E. Kaiser Blvd., S-100 Anaheim Hills, Ca. 92808 Tel: 714-282 2432 Fax: 714-282 2434 Re: “NOTICE TO QUIT” posted on entrance of the above address Dear “lawyers”: This is a legal, and actual, notice to your persons, associates, assigns, under ground operators, O.C. Sheriff corroborators, and law firm, that the purported “TRUSTEE SALE” conducted by defendants Wachovia, Fidelity, and AFRCT (law firm), was under completely false pretenses and void as a matter of California law, particularly the pertinent sections of CCP 1161 which you have cited in your posted letter. This is in addition to the fact that the judge, who lifted the TRO on Wachovia, on 7/15/08, had no authority to do so since his disqualification was at issue and unresolved, thus he had no power to act. That matter as you must already know is now in the Court of Appeals pending decision in Case # G040713. I am faxing to you several pages of addendum to the exhibits (Appendix) of my most recent filing in the Appellate Case # G040713. If you ignore this notice and pursue your threatened actions against me you may soon find yourselves defendants, in an imminent Federal lawsuit, under Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Title 18 United States Code Sections 1961-1969, et seq. If you have any questions please call me at the above number. Kareem Salessi, Bank Fraud & forgery victim

KAREEM SALESSI Bank Fraud & forgery victim 28841 ALOMA AVE., LAGUNA NIGUEL, 92677 TEL/FAX: 949-218 7666

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL RE:

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CASE# ____ _

WACHOVIA v. Salessi, et al. OSC Case# 30-2009-00314155

Court of Appeal Case: G047834

I, Kareem Salessi, Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner, herewith declare that I AM a party to this action. My business address is 30262 Crown Valley Parkway, B-174, Laguna Niguel, Ca. 92677. I testify that on 1/29/2014, I served by the United States Mail a copy of the following document: "PETITION FOR REVIEW"

to the addresses that follow:

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT-CLERK COURT OF APPEAL 350 McAllister Street. San Francisco, 4TH APPELLAT DISTRICT, DIVISION 3 CA 94102-4797 601 W. Santa Ana Blvd.

Santa Ana, California 92701 Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 Attorney General's Office LANE & GULINO California Department of Justice 8180 E. KAISER BLVD, S-100 Attn: Public Inquiry Unit 231095 ANAHEIM HILLS, CA. 92808 P.O. Box 944255 Counsel for Wachovia (a Narco-Bank) Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: 1/29/2014 Kareem Salessi, Defendant/Petitioner

5216242

Notice of Errata & Errata to Petition for Review S216242 TO: CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT-CLERK 350 McAllister Street. San Francisco, CA 94102-4797

From: Kareem Salessi-Defendant/Appellant 30262 Crown Valley Parkway, 8-174 Laguna Niguel, Ca. 92677 Tel: (949) 783 0165 Date: February 10, 2014

To the honorable court, and to the parties:

Petitioner Salessi herein requests that the following corrections, and

addition, to his PETITIOIN FOR REVIEW# S216242, filed 1/31/13, to be

considered in conjunction with the reading of the petition. If this integration is

is too cumbersome for this honorable court, petitioner can file a brand new

corrected set of the petition in its original booklet form. In that case the court

should instruct petitioner for the task.

ERRATA: Corrected versions, and/or, additions appear in [brackets]:

Page 1-3 should be replaced with the new pages 1-3 herein, for simplicity.

Page 6: Issue # 3 is to be added as follows:

"3- Are patently void judgments, and orders, proven to have been

obtained by fraud subject to review by the California Supreme Court?"

Page 7: add this new line at end of page 7 text:

"In addition, judgments obtained by fraud, and patently void, must be subject

to review by the Supreme Court to maintain justice and peace in the nation."

Page 9, Line 20: 10/5/13 [1 0/4/13].

Page 10, line 18: retrieve his stolen mane [money].

Page 10, line 21: Ortiz sellers, [which had been forged].

Page 11, line before last line: illegal "double tracking" ["dual tracking"].

Page 12, line 3: double-tracking [dual tracking].

Page 12, line 16: admitted to his corruption in the above [above case].

Page 12, line 19: in fixing cases [intentionally scheming to fix cases].

Page 13, line 1: California Civil Code {} [§2924g(d)].

Page 13, line 3: Order (TRO), or injunction, [plus 6 days thereafter].

Page 13, line 16-17: replace with: [conversation. 7/22/08 was the first date ,

after the illegal release of the TRO, that a potentially legal auction could have

been held, only in absence of any other illegalities, or irregularities, both of

which preexisted in this case.

Page 16, line 4: money, without disclosing the entirety [ of] the drug money, ...

Page 17, line 17: practices of "double-tracking" [dual tracking] ...

Page 18, line 12: ... , [,without probable cause, or any standing to do so]:

Page 19, line 10: add newly attached pages 19.1 a·nd 19.2, to read before:

"Second Question Presented for Review":

Page 22-end: Replace "CONCLUSION" page 22 to the end, with new pages

22-end for simplicity. (Exhibit-A) is the same as the original (Exhibit-A).

(Jvf,vttffv1J {"b~·ffid,

/L J: ~

J )& ~(? !Lf

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Page#

TABLE OF CASES 2

TABLE OF STATUTES, RULES & OTHER AUTHORITES 3

Previous Related Supreme Court Cases: 4

INTRODUCTION 4

ADOPTION OF OTHER CASES INTO THIS PETITION 5

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 6

REASONS TO GRANT REVIEW 7

REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST 8

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 9

LEGAL DISCUSSION 14

THE "INJURY-IN-FACT" STANDING ISSUE: 17

B. The Importance of Being a Person Entitled to Enforce a Note" 18

Second Question Presented for Review: 19

Third Question Presented for Review: 22

CONCLUSION... 28

CERTIFICATES OF: WORD COUNT; INTERESTED ENTITYES; CASES 29

1

TABLE OF CASES:

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826. 860 (2001) Cooter & Gel/ v. Hartmarx Corp. 496 U.S. 384 (1990), 110 S. Ct. 2447.

7, 7, 7, People v. Gudger(1994) 29 Cai.App.4th 310, 316, 34 Cai.Rptr.2d 510.

Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561 7, 15 NAACP v. Alabama (1964) 377 U.S. 288 FULLER v. FIRST FRANKLIN .... (2013), 216 Cai.App.4th 955, Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1192 Regents of University of Ca v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 509, Boatwright, supra, 124 Cai.App.3d People v. $497,590 U.S. Currency(1997), 58 Cai.App.4th 145 In re Alberto R. (1991) 235 Cai.App.3d 1309 City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) 466 U.S. 789 RI,VERISLAND COLD STORAGE, INC., v. FRESNO-MADERA PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169, 291 P.3d 316

7 10 10 10 10 14 15 15

17

Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass, 4 Cal.2d 258, 17 In re DEAMICIS, Debtor, 454 B.R. 756 (2011), 17, 18 (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) 18 Drum v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cai.App.4th 845 19 Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S 254 20 ARMSTRONG v. MANZO, 85 S.Ct. 1187 (1965). 21 In re Tome (1990) 113 B.R. 626. 22 Moore v. Kaufman 189 Cai.App.4th 604 (201 0) 22 People v. Vasilyan (2009) 174 Cai.App.4th 443 22 Andrews v. Superior Court (1946) 29 Cal.2d 208 22 Pumphrey v. K. W Thompson Tool Co. 62 F .3d 1128, (1995) 22 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245-46, (1944) 22 U.S. v. Frega 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) 23 PEOPLE v. ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO., 41 Cal.4th 704 (2007) 24, 25 Burge v. City & County of San Francisco (1953) 41 Cal.2d 608 24 Moreno Mutual ... v. Beaumont Irrigation Dist. (1949) 94 Cai.App.2d 766 25, 26 Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009) 25 Parsonsv. Weis, 144Cai.410;77P.1007(1904) 26 Patch v. Ward, L. R., 3 Ch. App. 207 26

2

TABLE OF STATUTES & RULES & OTHER AUTHORITIES:

California Rules of Court, rule 13(a)(5)

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 904.1, subd. (~) & 904.2

Cal. Rules of Court§8.525.

21 U.S.C., § 881, subd. (a)(6)

11 U.S.C.A. § 362;

Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 7017, 11 U.S.C.A.;

Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 17(a)(1), 28 U.S.C.A."

ucc § 30301 (i) & (ii)

cc §§ 2466; 2468; 2469

Title 18 USC §1960

18 USC §981 (a)(1 )(A) and 18 USC §982(a)(1)

cc §2924g(d)

Evidence Code sections 666 and 664

CCP §170.6

CCP §170.1

California Civ. Codes§§ 1572; 1710

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1969 (RICO)

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

5

6,19,20

7

15

18

18

18

18

19.1

19.1

19.1

22,23,25

24

25

25

27

27

2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Documentary Evidence, § 99, 100. 17

California Bankruptcy Journal (20 12) 32 Cal. Bankr. J. 14 7 18

Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business (IRS) ;19.1

FBI: Spotlight On Malicious Insiders and Organized Crime Activity by Chris King January 2012

(TECHNICAL NOTE·CMU/SEI-2012· TN-001) 20

Crimina/Investigation of Money Laundering and Currency Crimes (IRS) . 24

3

Furthermore, according to Salessi's uncontroverted proofs presented in the

above dockets, there never existed any Wachovia entities, such as the purported

plaintiff here, before, during, or after the filing of their underlying UDA complaint. In

addition to the state preemption of the non-existing Wachovia names, per inter alia_,

CC §§ 2466; 2468; 2469, as they appeared in the underlying UDA (Dkt. 7/30/13, Ex-

11-A), and other related cases, and on the robe-signed purported "TRUSTEE DEED

UPON SALE", the said names were also rendered illegal by the federal mandate of

Title 18 USC §1960, Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business,

Pursuant to_ the IRS report, readily available at Google: "9.5.5.2.3 (08-27-2007)",

which reads inter alia as follows:

1. Effective October 26, 2001, 18 USC §1960 was revised to relax the scienter requirement and broaden the scope of the statute to a "general intent" crime. It is now an offense for anyone to knowingly conduct any unlicensed money transmitting business, whether or not the defendant knew that the operation was required to be licensed or that operation without a license was a criminal offense. The proceeds of illegal money transmitting businesses are subject to both civil and criminal forfeiture to under 18 USC §981 (a)(1 )(A) and 18 USC §982(a)(1 ).

In support of proving this illegality, Salessi reattaches as (Exhibit-B) one of

the last pages of (Dkt. 7/30/13, Exhibit-13) to show that both World Savings Bank

FSB (WORLD), and Wachovia Mortgage, F.S.B. (WMFSB) became empty shells,

and new drug money laundering tools, by selling their assets to Wachovia Bank NA,

on 10/12/2007 (October 2007).

According to publicly made announcements, WORLD's principles received

around $100 billion of [drug] money and disappeared, while WMFSB became the

empty shell-front into which massive amounts of drug money must have been

pour~d for unlimited acquisitions of American realty in fraudulent foreclosures,

staged by rouge lawyers, as in here. Thus, the flood of drug money pouring into

WMFSB must have been in return for "TRUSTEE DEEDS UPON SALE" (TDS),

similar to the Robe-Signed TDS recorded (by email) on Salessi's property on

19-1

7/18/08. Eventually, [a yet] unknown amount of drug money was ultimately washed

clean (laundered), and theoretically legitimized by the filing of the herein attached

(Exhibit-C) IRS form 1 099-A showing WMFSB as the buyer, with a purported ID#

22-2815289, while the (Exhibit-D) cites the name of another fraudulent, and non­

existing creature, as the GRANTEE. Meantime, that 2-page TDS, also at (Dkt.

7/30/13, Exhbit-14 ), carefully excluded the name/s of any "BENEFICIARY", or

"LENDER" at all, due to the inception forgeries. Thus, their TDS also proves that

there existed neither a lender, nor a beneficiary, which .is why they didn't claim there

existed any. The Wachovia, and Fidelity/ASAP, lawyers consistently concealed

these material facts in their false, and perjurious, declarations in which they claimed

that Salessi had borrowed [drug] money from them and had defaulted in paying it

back.

This interwoven form of criminal soph_istry, from its design, through to its

implementation, is the direct proof of highly organized international terrorism, as

defined in the referenced IRS release. This terrorism was contemplated by: first

importing internationally trafficked drug money into the United States; accumulating,

and distributing, the drug proceeds through Wachovia fronts; washing the drug

money with criminally acquired American real estate through fraudulent banking,

judicial, and recording operations, as in here.

This seemingly impossible feat has been made possible only with the

sophisticated design; aiding; abetting; and implementation of the work-products of

the most criminally innovative American lawyers, as in here. This court would

probably agree with appellant that all the lawyers who designed, and/or, participated,

in the above elaborate criminal nationwide scheme/s should be granted lifetime

memberships behind bars, as opposed to the State BAR memberships which they

have been utilizing to commit their crimes. At the minimum the California Supreme

Court should pull such attorneys' California BAR licenses to slow down their

statewide devastation.{} 19-2

Third Question Presented for Review:

Question: Are patently void judgments, and orders, proven to have been

obtained by fraud subject to review by the California Supreme Court?

It has been a tradition of jurisprudence in this state to do justice, by higher

courts' review of decisions of lower courts, whenever injustice was obtained through

fraud upon courts, and the said frauds brought to the attention of this court, as in the

petitioner's easels. Therefore, in the underlying cases, substantial injustLces having

been rendered against appellant deserve review by this court on their merits.

Pursuant to the statutory mandates of CC §2924g(d), which prohibit a trustee

sale before the 7th day after release of a TRO, the 7/15/08 sham auction sale (the

Robo-Signed TDS) on the actual date of the TRO release. was patently void, thus

rendering this petition's underlying UDA, and its outcomes also patently void. See In

re Tome (1990) 113 B.R. 626.

Petitioner Salessi herein, directly as well as collaterally, attacks all of the

underlying "patently void" outcomes based upon citations to the California Supreme

Court in Moore v. Kaufman 189 Cai.App.4th 604 (201 0), as follows:

""More broadly, "[a] void judgment may be attacked ' "anywhere, directly or collaterally whenever it presents itself, either by parties or strangers. It is simply a nullity, and can be neither a basis nor evidence of any right whatever." ' " (People v. Vasilyan (2009) 174 Cai.App.4th 443, 451, 94 Cai.Rptr.3d 260, quoting Andrews v. Superior Court (1946) 29 Cal.2d 208, 214-215, 174 P.2d 313.)""

In the instant Salessi case, the end result of the scheme of Wachovia was to

steal a house by bypassing, and undermining, the judicial processes, resulting in

fraud upon the court, as it did in Pumphrey v. K. W Thompson Tool Co. 62 F.3d

1128, (1995) citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238,

245-46, (1944 ), which is the leading case on fraud upon the court.

22

In its endeavor to undermine the judicial process, Wachovia resorted to illegal

means by scheming with judicial officers to achieve its illegal ends, as in the case

against disgraced San Diego judges, who used to play what they called the "Adam's

Game" in the case of U.S. v. Frega 179 F .3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999), which affirmed the

convictions of multiple judges, and attorney Frega, for their criminal conspiracies in

fixing cases in return for bribes, as it happened in this case. For over a decade,

Judge Adams, and his associated bandits, the in San Diego's Superior Court, (a.k.a.

"Enron On the Sea"), fixed cases of attorney Frega's clients, in return for bribes.

The criminal scheme played out by Wachovia attorneys in California courts, in

the past few years, dwarfs the Frega case above by at least 20,000-to-1, considering

that the drug cartel has managed to steal over [an estimated] one million California

homes since 2008 (6 years). Dividing 1,000,000 by 20,000 results in 50 homes, the

estimated equivalent value of which the Frega bandits plundered from the public by

fixing cases, in over a decade. Despite the magnitude of Wachovia crimes,

compared with the Frega bandits, nothing has been done against Wachovia lawyers.

While this court should apply Hazel-Atlas, supra, to setting aside judgments

obtained by fraud upon the court, it must take into account Wachovia's aggravating

circumstances in originating, and prosecuting the false UDA against Salessi, after

the malicious denial of the underlying injunction by Judge Monroe, and owing to the

fact that the judicial officers involved had actively, and wantonly, participated in the

commission of judicial frauds upon the court, thus further justifying the reversal of

their patently void orders and acts, in conjunction with impositions of substantial

sanctions against the lawyers, and the courts, as in Frega, supra.

The statutory violation of CC §2924g(d) alone, having rendered the underlying

UDA to this appeal void, as an act of malicious prosecution and terrorism, by drug

traffickers' agents (lawyers), was brought without probable cause, and in furtherance

of turning drug money into hard American real estate. Such acts in furtherance of

drug money laundering are defined as acts of terrorism, pursuant to inter alia, the 23

published mandates of the IRS report on uCriminal l[7vestigation of Money

Laundering and Currency Crimes", readily available at Google: "IRS 9.5.5.1 (02-15-

2008)", or at: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm 09-005-005.html

On the basis of the same IRS definitions, the assignment of any U.S.

mortgages to Wachovia, and their subsequent transfers to Wells Fargo, are

definable as acts of international terrorism in furtherance of drug money laundering

and trafficking, and must be rendered null and void, by the operation of law,

whereupon the mortgages, and other interests of any Wachovia drug lords must be

forfeited by the operation of laws of "forfeiture by wrongdoing" by blanket annulment

of all such mortgages as to their mortgagors, as set forth inter alia in appellant's

Petition For Rehearing of his U.S. Certiorari #11-1013 (2012 WL 1979952), and in

this petition. [The U.S. petition itself is not on Westlaw]

At the very least, here in California, its Supreme Court should order the

publication, and recording, of a blanket "full reconveyance" to all California real, and

other, properties, of outstanding mortgages, and other debts, purchased by

Wachovia, and laundered into Wells Fargo. The end game of these terrorist

activities has been the infiltration, ownership, and control of hard American real

estate, plus other assets and obligations, with the laundered drug money in order to

exert financial, and political, influence on the American public, and American policy­

makers, with the ownership, and control, of the public's debts owned by drug-lords.

As to the presumption of void judgments, in the underlying easels, appellant

relies upon the reasoning of PEOPLE v. ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY, 41

Cal.4th 704 (2007), stating as follows:

'"'Consistent with Evidence Code sections 666 and 664, the general rule was stated by Justice Traynor in Burge v. City & County of San Francisco (1953) 41 Cal.2d 608, 612-613, 262 P .2d 6 (Burge ): "[W]hen an order or a judgment of a [state] court ... is collaterally attacked, the only evidence that may be considered in determining whether the order or judgment is void is the record in the proceeding in which it was entered. If the record is silent as to the existence of a jurisdictional fact, that fact will be presumed." (Italics added; see

24

also Moreno Mutual Irrigation Co. v. Beaumont Irrigation Dist. (1949) 94 Cai.App.2d 766, 780, 211 P.2d 928 (Moreno)""

In the instant Salessi case, the record before this court shows that the TRO

was lifted on 7/15/08, and the recorded Robe-Signed TDS purported an "auction

sale" on the same date, rendering it patently void. Therefore, as reasoned in

Allegheny supra, this court can presume that the Monroe court failed to perform its

statutorily mandated duty, and thus lost jurisdiction, by releasing a TRO on 7/15/08,

upon judge Monroe's self induced 7/8/08 scheming with Wachovia to steal the house

on the same date of his planned TRO release (7/15/08), and in total disregard of the

CC §2924g(d) mandates, rendering his orders illegal and patently void, as in Moore

v. Kaufman, supra. Both the (7/8/08) scheming, and its subsequent (7/15/08) order

were in excess of that court's jurisdiction justifying a presumption against that court

based upon ALLEGHENY, supra and against its subsequent UDA, which is the

underlying action to this appeal. Also the deceit of the court, in conspiracy with the

lawyers, was well defined by CC §1710.

More importantly, as fully documented in this appellant's previous cases here,

on the morning of 7/8/08, Judge Monroe had totally lost jurisdiction of the underlying

case to the UDA, once he was served with a combined peremtory challenge, per

CCP §170.6, coupled with a statutory challenge for cause, pursuant to CCP §170.1,

and thus lost jurisdiction to hold any hearings at all until another judge determined

the challenge. However, judge Monroe, with the expectation of Salessi's absence

from the court, and with the evil intent of scheming in advance with Wachovia, held a

hearing in the afternoon of 7/8/08, blatantly instructing the Wachovia attorney to

auction Salessi's house on 7/15/08, the date the judge declared for his planned

denial of his challenges, and for release of the TRO, all in violation of the

disqualification laws Salessi fully briefed in his U.S. Certiorari #11-1 013, on the basis

of Caperlon v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009), and its progeny.

25

In addition to the Monroe court's loss of jurisdiction on 7/8/08, the UDA court's

loss of jurisdiction as of 1/26/09, by stipul~tion of parties, had been fully documented

in the related papers, thus providing additional presumptions of void judgments as

against Wachovia.

Furthermore, Moreno, supra, 94 Cai.App.2d 766, cited to the California_

Supreme Court decision in Parsons v. We is, 144 Cal. 41 0; 77 P. 1 007 ( 1904) which

clearly defined the nullity of judgments obtained by fraud, as in here:

"An attack upon a judgment on the ground that it was procured by fraud is a direct attack, since the establishment of the fraud shows that no judgment has been rendered. The fraud, however, from which said relief may be given, does not include a judgment regularly obtained upon a fraudulent claim or by false testimony, but it is limited to a fraud in procuring the judgment. [Citation] "Failure of a party against whom fraud is charged to produce testimony within his own control will raise a presumption of fraud against him. [Citation] The findings are sufficiently supported by the evidence. The court has regard to the opportunities of knowledge of the respective parties. [Citation]"

"The allegations in a complaint may be erroneous as matter of law, or they may be untrue in point of fact, and yet be made in good faith and in the belief that they are true, but if they are made with the knowledge on the part of the party making them that they are false, a judgment rendered thereon is fraudulently obtained, and should be set aside and annulled."

""The extrinsic fraud for which a judgment may be set aside is defined by Lord Cairns in Patch v. Ward, L. R., 3 Ch. App. 207, to be "actual fraud, such that there is on the part of the person chargeable with it the malus animus, the mala mens putting itself in motion and acting in order to take an undue advantage of some other person for the purpose of actually and knowingly defrauding him." To meet this requirement the plaintiff has alleged that the averments of Weis in the former action were not only false, but that he knew that they were false, and the court has found that these charges were true.""

As in Parsons, supra, Salessi has proved that the UDA had been filed with

plaintiff Wachovia's knowledge of the falsity of its claims, and of its own non-viability

as well as its illegitimacy. Additionally, in the underlying cases, Salessi consistently

proved that the underlying court judgments, orders, and writs, issued against him

26

had all been obtained by the fraudulent deceits of the lawyers and the courts of

Judicial officers William Monroe, and Richard Pacheco (UDA), both of whom were

without jurisdiction to conduct any proceedings, as of 7/8/08, and 1/26/09,

respectively. On 1/26/09, once appellant told the Pacheco court that the grant deed

and the loan documents had been forged in 2002 (at inception), Com. Pacheco

exclaimed something like: "... so in fact they never sold you the house in the first

place ... since title was not transferred to you ... " which Salessi acknowledged.

Immediately thereafter, seemingly assured that Wachovia would lose if the case

went to trial, after the stipulated continuance, Com. Pacheco suggested mediation

and proffered himself as the mediator. Since then, the Harbor Court has denied

having "court reporter monitor" recording/s of Com. Pacheco's hearings, despite

salessi's demand for same in writing, and in advance of the first hearing, thus

establishing the presumptions of the truth of Salessi's statements, as set forth here.

In light of the above uncontroverted finding of fact, and declaration of Com.

Pacheco as to the inception forgeries, his complicity with attorney John Gulino, was

multifaceted, beginning with Salessi's consistent objection to be heard on 3/13/09,

and followed by his official concession to his disqualification, in spite of which

disqualification he fabricated a backdated judgment to undermine his disqualification,

followed by his physical theft of the disqualification, and related documents, from the

court file, some of which incidents Salessi documented in (Dkt. 7/30/13), all

amounting to serial frauds and deceits, as defined by California Civ. Codes§§ 1572;

1710, and in violation of inter alia, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1969 (RICO).

In light of the above detailed actual frauds in the procurements of adverse

judgments against Salessi, in conjunction with the losses of jurisdiction of both

courts, the presumption of the voidness, as applied to the underlying orders and

judgments, is at least ten-fold as that sanctioned by each of the above cited cases,

thus justifying review upon this revisited attack on the adverse judgments, and thus

calling for review on the merits by the California Supreme Court. 27

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, it is urged that the petition be granted, the

Court of Appeal Opinion be reversed, and the final judgments of the lower

court/s be reversed, and rendered patently void ab initio, pursuant to inter alia,

the legal discussions herein presented. In the alternative, this petition should

be treated as a petition for a writ of mandate, upon which an appropriate writ

issued as also set forth before, in the underlying appellate record/s.

Respectfully submitted.

Dated, February 9, 2014

28

Kareem Salessi, Defend ant/Petitioner 30262 Crown Valley Pkwy, B-174 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677 Tel: (949) 783 0165

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT:

According to the Microsoft Word-Count tool program the total number of words in the bodies of the Petition For Review, and its Errata, add up to 716 word~

!1/ Dated, February 10, 2014

Kareem Salessi, ·Petitioner/Plaintiff

CERTIFJCA TE OF INTERESTED PERSONS:

All entities named or affiliated with any actual or related business interests, or those doing business under the pretext of inter alia these names:

Wells Fargo, Wachovia, Golden West, World Savings, Fidelity, LPS, DOCx, MERS.

In addition, the named defendants in the following related case, and any, and all, of th_eir associates-in-fact, named or unnamed:

- Salessi v. Commonwealth Title, et al. (2009 WL 3873625) SAV 08-01274 DOC (Central District of Ca), On appeal to the 9th Circuit Case #13-57063

CERTIF/CA TE OF REAL TED CASES

THE FOLLOWING CASE/S ARE RELATED TO THIS APPEAL:

-. Salessi v. Commonwealth Title, et al. (2009 WL 3873625) SAV 08-01274 DOC (Central District of Ca); On appeal to the 9th Circuit Case #13-57063

29

EXHIBIT-A:

30

0 7-31-2008 Lane & Phillips 8180 E. Kaiser Blvd., S-100 Anaheim Hills, Ca. 92808 Tel: 714-282 2432 Fax: 714-282 2434

KAREEM SALESSI Bank Fraud & forgery victim 28841 ALOMA AVE., LAGUNA NIGUEL, 92677 TEL/FAX: 949-218 7666

Re: "NOTICE TO QUIT" posted on entrance of the above address

Dear "lawyers":

This is a legal, and actual, notice to your persons, associates, assigns, under ground operators, O.C. Sheriff corroborators, and law firm, that the purported "TRUSTEE SALE" conducted by defendants Wachovia, Fidelity, and AFRCT (law firm), was under completely false pretenses and void as a matter of California law, particularly the pertinent sections of CCP 1161 which you have cited in your posted letter. This is in addition to the fact that the judge, who lifted the TRO on Wachovia, on 7/15/08, had no authority to do so since his disqualification was at issue and unresolved, thus he had no power to act. That matter as you must already know is now in the Court of Appeals pending decision in Case# G040713.

· I am faxing to you several pages of addendum to the exhibits (Appendix) of my most recent filing in the Appellate Case # G040713.

If you ignore this notice and pursue your threatened actions against me you may soon find yourselves defendants, in an imminent Federal lawsuit, under Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Title 18 United States Code Sections 1961-1969, et seq.

If you have any questions please call me at the above number. Kareem Salessi, Bank Fraud & forgery victim

31

EXHIBIT-B:

Federal Reserve Website Documenting Wachovia's Drug Money Laundering Timeline

32

1-11-12 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED TO OCC for FOIA#2012-00208-F

Dear Ms. Burton:

1- In the first instance I am requesting documents specified by you as "copies of approval/decision letters or agency orders" dating back to 2006. These documents should be readily accessible to you as computer files, and retrievable in a short time. On the basis of what you sent me I will try to buy certificates through the website you provided.

2- In the second instance I am looking for documentation from the OCC responsive to the following questions, and the issues presented herein below:

A- Do you confirm the details posted at the following Federal Reserve Links?

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/lnstitutionHistorv.aspx?pariD RSSD=1157433 &parDT END=99991231

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/lnstitutionHistory.aspx?pariD RSSD=484422 &parDT END=20100319

0- WORLD SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B. sold assets to WACHOVIA BANK, 12 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

2007_12

_ WORLD SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B. was renamed to WACHOVIA

31 MORTGAGE, F.S.B. and moved to 6825 ALIANTE PARKWAY NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV.

0- WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, F.S.B. sold assets to WACHOVIA BANK, 12 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

The above table which is extracted from one of the above links shows that on October 12, 2007, World Savings Bank, FSB (WORLD), and Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (WMFSB) separately, but concertedly, sold all their assets to Wachovia Bank NA (WBNA), thus both becoming empty shell companies with no assets at all, but probably with substantial liabilities. However, on December 31, 2007, the first of the above worthless companies supposedly changed its name to the latter worthless company, but for what reason other than for the predetermined colossal criminal fraud of laundering around $100 billion drug money in to the purchase of all outstanding WORLD mortgages (i.e.: Real Estate)? Does the OCC have any explanations for this fraud other than my uncontested findings that this was a drug money laundering operation to launder all assets of the two drained entities (WORLD & WMFSB) into

. EXHIBIT-C:

IRS form 1099-A

34 .

Z5121-Z94 LENDER'S name, street address, city, state, ZIP code, and telephone no.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB 4101 WISEMAN BOULEVARD SAN ANTONIO TX {800) 642-0257 78251-4201

LENDER'S federal identification number BORROWFR'~ j,.j..,..t;F.~...:-- ----- •

22-2815289 BORROWER'S name, Street address (including apt. no.), City, state, and ZIP code 000006 M9WT9ATA

OMB No. 1545-0Sn

~@08 Form 1099-A

2 Balance of principal outstanding

Acquisition or Abandonment of

Secured Property

CopyB For Borrower

$ 364,371.97 This is important tax

information and is being furnished to the Internal Revenue Service. If you·

4 Fair market value of

$ KAREEM SALESSI 28841 ALOMA AVE 5 Was borrower personally liable for repayment of

are required to file a return, a negligence

penalty or other sanction may be

imposed on you if taxable income results

from this transaction and the IRS determines

that it has not been

LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677-1406 ~!]Yes 6 Description of property

Account number (see instructions) 0025220476

28841 ALOMA AVENUE LAGUNA NI CA 92677

Form 1099-A (keep for your records) Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service

Instructions for Borrower Certain lenders who acquire an interest in property that was security for a loan or who have reason to know that such property has been abandoned must provide you with this statement. You may have reportable income or loss because of such acquisition or abandonment. Gain or loss from an acquisition generally is measured by the difference between your adjusted basis in the property and the amount of your debt canceled in exchange for the property, or, if greater, the sale proceeds. If you abandoned the property, you may have income from the discharge of indebtedness in the amount of the unpaid balance of your canceled debt. You also may have a loss from abandonment up to the adjusted basis of the property at the time of abandonment. Losses on acquisitions or abandonments of property held for personal use are not deductible. See Pub. 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets,,or information about foreclosures and abandonments. ·

Property means any real property (such as a personal residence}; any intangible property; and tangible personal property that is held for investment or used in a trade or business.

If you borrowed money on this property with someone else, each of you should receive this statement.

Account number. May show an account or other unique number the lender assigned to distinguish your account.

Box 1. For a lender's acquisition of property that was security for a loan, the date shown is generally the earlier of the date title was transferred to the lender or the date possession and the burdens and benefits of

ownership were transferred to the lender. This may be the date of a foreclosure or execution sale or the date your right of redemption or objection expired. For an abandonment, the date shown is the date on which the lender first knew or had reason to know that the property was abandoned or the date of a foreclosure, execution, or similar sale. Box 2. Shows the debt (principal only} owed to the lender on the loan when the interest in the property was acquired by the lender or on the date the lender first knew or had reason to know that the property was abandoned.

' Box 4. Shows the fair market value of the property. If the amount in boX" 4 is less than the amount in box 2, and your debt is canceled, you may have cancellation of debt income. If the property was your main home, see Pub. 523, Selling Your Home, to figure any taxable gain or ordinary income.

Box 5. Shows whether you were personally liable for repayment of the loan when the debt was created or, if modified, when it was last modified.

Box 6. Shows the description of the property acquired by the lender or abandoned by you. If "CCC" is shown, the form indicates the amount of any Commodity Credit Corporation loan outstanding when you forfeited your commodity.

EXHIBIT-D:

Robo-Signed Trustee Deed Upon Sale (TDS)

with phony entity name as buyer is proof of

drug money laundering scheme

35

~ 8:08-cv-01274-DOC-MLG

RECORDING REQUESTED BY: GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: GOLDEN WEST SA VJNGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE CO 4101 WISEMAN BOULEVARD, T6F1 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78251-4201 REO#t24579 Forward Tax Statements to WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB 794 DAVIS STREET, MAIL CODE CA7276 SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577

TS #: 2007-25220476 Loan #: 0025220476

Document 10-2 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 22 of 50 Recorded In Official R~- .4&, Orange County

Tom Daly, Clerk-Recorder

V llllllllllllllllmllllllliiiRIIIIIIIIIIIIImllll 9 .oo 2008000343302 08:OOam 07/18/08

117 73 T09 2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SPACF ABOVE LINE POll RI!CORDER'S USE

Order#: 3206-52151

TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE

A.P.N.: 637-114-12 . Transfer Tax: 0.00 '"THIS TRANSACT'ION IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. SECfiON 480.3" The Grantee Herein Was The Foreclosing Beneficiary. The Amount of The Unpaid Debt was $89,777.46 The Amount Paid By The Grantee Wu $89,777.46 Said Property Js In The City of LAGUNA NIGUEL, County ofOraDge

GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, as Trustee, (whereas so designated in the Deed of Trust hereunder more particularly described or as du1y appointed Trustee) does hereby GRANT and CONVEYto .

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB FKA WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK REO# 124579 REO DEPT. 794 DAVIS STREET, MAIL CODE CA7276 SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577

(herein called Grantee) but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, all right title and interest conveyed to and now held by it as Trustee under the Deed of Trust in and to the property situated in the county of Orange, State of California, descnbed as follows:

LOT 63 OF TRACT 7340, IN THE CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 280, PAGE(S) J TO 4 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

This conveyance is made in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Deed of Trust executed by KAREEM SALESSI, A MARRIED MAN as Trustor, dated 4/29/2004 of the Official Records in the office ofthe Recorder of Orange, California under the authority and powers vested in the Trustee designated in the Deed of Trust or as the duly appointed Trustee, default having occurred Wider the Deed of Trust pursuant to the Notice of Default and Election to Sell under the Deed of Trust recorded on 6/l/2004, instrument number 2004000491855, Book , Page of Official records. Trustee having complied with all applicable statutory requirements ofthe State of California and performed all duties required by the Deed ofTNSt including sending a Notice ofDefault and Election to Sell within ten days after its recording and a Notice of Sale at least twenty days prior to the Sale Date by certified maiJ, postage pre-paid to each person entitled to notice in compliance with California Civil Code 2924b.

Case 8:08-cv-01274-DOC-MLG Document 10-2 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 23 of 50

TS #: 2007 .. 25220476 Loan#:002!ll0476 Order#: 3206-52151

TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE

All requirements per California Statutes regarding the mailing, personal delivery and publication of copies of Notice of Default and Election to SeU under Deed of Trust and Notice ofTrustee's Sale, and the posting of copies ofNotice ofT!llStee's Sale have been c~mplied with. Trustee, in compliance with said Notice of Trustee's sale and in exercise of its powers under said Deed of Trust sold said real property at public auction on 7115/2008. Grantee, being the highest bidder at said sale became the purchaser of said property for the amount bid, being $89,777.46, in lawful money of the United States, in pro per, receipt thereof is hereby aclmowJedged in fuU/partial satisfaction of the debt secured by said Deed of Trust.

In witness thereof, GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, as Trustee, has this day, caused its name to be hereunto affixed by its officer thereunto duly authorized by its corporation by-laws.

Date: 7115/lOOI

State of Texas } ss. County·ofBexar}

By:

GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE CO., A Ck=RATION SETH WHITE, OFFICER

On 711612008 before me, PATTY A. ALLEN the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared SETH WIUTE, OFFICER personally known to me (or proved to me on the b~is of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name{s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

r l • ·~ , ., .,, , • ~. , , ' ... ' • , 1 ' 1 : • • ·; ,

: I I.-· "I ' / -~ ; ':- I :I . . !f: • ~ .. t. •"t ·'~" .,, · :·u ;•: .-.' ·, ... ,.,,,:

: 1 ' • r · ~ ·~ .·If I f ·' (

:. I

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL RE:

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CASE # 5216242

WACHOVIA v. Salessi, et al. OSC Case# 30-2009-00314155 Court of Appeal Case: G047834

I, Kareem Salessi, Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner, herewith declare that I AM a party to this action. My business address is 30262 Crown Valley Parkway, B-174, Laguna Niguel, Ca. 92677. I testify that on 2/1 0/2014, I served by the United States Mail a copy of the following document: Notice of Errata & the Errata to Petition for Review

to the addresses that follow:

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT- COURT OF APPEAL CLERK 4TH APPELLAT DISTRICT, DIVISION 3 350 McAllister Street. San Francisco, 601 W. Santa Ana Blvd. CA 941 02-4 797 Santa Ana, California 92701 Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 Attorney General's Office LANE & GULINO California Department of Justice 8180 E. KAISER BLVD, S-100 Attn: Public Inquiry Unit 231095 ANAHEIM HILLS, CA. 92808 P.O. Box 944255 Counsel for Wachovia {a Narco-Bank) Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

.I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

/(-/o Dated: 2/10/2014 Kareem Salessi,

Defendant/Petitioner

36