Tag Archives: Aurora

Patriot’s Day 2013—April 15 Ennui in Boston—why I feel numb and no longer care (I hadn’t even notice four and a half months had already gone by again….)

Of course it’s a sad thing when anyone dies….. except, exactly why is it sad? Death is, after all, absolutely the only, the one single thing that all of we sons of Adam and daughters of Eve know for sure that we have in common.  Why should we be sad about that which is certain and inevitable?  Are we sad when the sunrises or sets?  

Nihil nisi bonum de Mortuis, wrote Marcus Tullius Cicero (without explaining how he felt about death after they posted his head on a spike in the Forum Romanun after Julius Caesar’s Assassination—it makes no sense to me why Mark Anthony and his allies wanted to killed Cicero—the great orator was basically critical of everybody….equal opportunity negative rhetoric was quite his specialty “Cicero was a real pompous ass” as top Newcomb Classics scholar Sarah Willard used to say back in my undergraduate days… To which my aunt Mildred replied, “what a marvelously astute young lady.”)  Cicero clearly was a pompous ass, but I wish we had just a few like him around these days….

To say that death comes too early to some—well, the miseries of old age don’t come to them at all.  Perhaps they are saved from betrayals by those they love, who instead of turning against them from greed or boredom will remember them fondly if they died young.  John F. Kennedy was simply not destined to become a grumpy old man.  Marilyn Monroe never had to worry about wrinkles or men not asking her out anymore…. Princess Diana never lost her saintly regal aura as she almost certainly would have had she actually settled down to live (in sin or otherwise) with Dodi Fayed.  An early death surely saves some people from fates much worse than death and thereby grants them imperishable fame.

But “terror” in the United States has become mind-numbingly tiresome and dull.  Thirty years ago, “domestic terror” basically didn’t exist—the occasional postal worker would “go postal” (= go berserk), riots would happen from time to time.

But every four months now, or so it seems, it’s time for another “tragedy” and we are expected dutifully either to ululate in public or at least go about wailing and gnashing our teeth in private.  July 2012—Batman in Aurora, December 2012—Newton School Children—April 2013—I can’t believe I hadn’t gotten the rhythm of it—every four and a half months we need a terroristic event, don’t we?  

I guess it keeps the blood circulating for some people, but not for me anymore.  It’s just a crashing bore: another chance for police to “boost security worldwide”, engage in “clamp down” in every city, and be extra-vigilant in their surveillance of the ignorant masses.  And talking of ignorant masses: did you hear that George W. Bush is now taking painting lessons in Dallas?

The newspapers from Paris-to-Portland talk of the tragedy, tragedy, tragedy, the pain and the tears—but who can cry for Argentina or America anymore?  I cannot.  I absolutely know that all these events are staged theatre and the use of real blood instead of ketchup or some other red tint on the sidewalks doesn’t make it any less theatrical—just a bit more primitive and sacrificial, perhaps, “Blood of the Lamb” and all that.  

I read with almost dull non-challance that the Boston Police had tweeted an announcement in the Boston Globe that there was going to be a “Bomb Explosion Exercise”, just as there was a North Atlantic Air Exercise on 9-11-01, just as there were tunnel exercises in London 0n 07-07-05.  Who cares?  

We who are awake and alert know that the government makes up the news as it goes along to suit its own purposes and those who have not realized or accepted this by now are free to cry for the runners of the Boston Marathon if they want to. 

In 1992, I thought that Ruby Ridge was a terrible tragedy—my wife was pregnant and my son was born so I was somewhat distracted that month, but I thought it was a terrible thing that the government had done.  And the conversations of just a couple of years ago with friends in Washington about how domestic terrorism was the next big threat now that the Cold War was over never entered my mind at that point.

I was likewise mesmerized in front of the TV at Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp’s West Palm Beach chambers in April 1993 during the Mount Carmel/Branch Davidian Crisis as we all watched Waco waft up in smoke fanned by ATF flame-throwers.  Judge Ryskamp had been involved in the Miami legal scene for several decades and he had absolutely nothing good to say about then Attorney General Janet Reno…. but she was not prosecuted.  Only the “little people” who survived the government onslaught were ever accused of any wrongdoing, naturally.  Little people always get in the way, you know… of big projects.  Although what the big project was in Waco in April 1993, I’m still not sure.  Perhaps it was sowing the seeds of that much needed campaign of domestic terrorism which would reshape and sustain the government after the cold war….

Two years later, the explosion and collapse of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was shocking.  I was attending a Rotary Meeting luncheon at the time and it was so utterly boring the news from straight up north on I-35 was almost a relief….much as I hate to say so.  Maybe that goes back to the whole “we need terrorist attacks to keep our blood circulating” concept noted above.

My mother, I guess, was perhaps wiser than I was, or at least more jaded.  Her question was: if they’re going to be anti-government terrorists, why couldn’t they do something useful, you know, like blow up the IRS?  It doesn’t help anything to blow up a Federal Building.  What happens in a Federal building anyhow?  (I hate to say it but I have only the vaguest notion myself…they apparently have child care facilities there is all that came to like after OKC).  I guess the answer to my mother’s question became fully apparent only after 9-11-01: real terrorists would take out real targets, but phony fake false-flag government terrorists only take out buildings that no one really cares about anyhow….

With a hey, ho, the wind and the rain for the rain it raineth every day…

In the summer of 1998, my son and I were on Holiday in Chicago.  We had a fantastic suite at the old Chicago Hilton on Michigan Avenue overlooking Grant Park and the Lake.  It was really one of the best suites I’ve ever had anywhere—tons of space for a five year old to run around and play in, and a three way view of Michigan Avenue North, East, and South.  So when the news of the bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam detained us in the room, and we had to explain to Charlie why we were glued to the tube….it was hard to explain to a little boy what it was all about.  It’s hard to explain to anyone what it’s all about, isn’t it?

September 11, 2001, was an epic day for me in many ways.  It started out with…well, some evidence of paranormal phenomena in my home and family life, progressed to a long drive listening to Lohengrin, and I only became aware of what was going on when I arrived at my destination at the Southwesternmost “Pinnacle” Campus of Austin Community College…. (The ACC Pinnacle Campus, 7748 Highway 290 West, Austin, Texas 78736, is one of eight campuses in the ACC District service area).  I was supposed to teach something about Political Anthropology and Cultural Evolution, but the television screens taught us all much more about those subjects.

I didn’t exactly know why but from the very moment it all started I could not think of anything except that Osama bin Laden was going to be the new Guy Fawkes…. this was all well over four years before V-for-Vendetta came out—it was originally scheduled to be released on Guy Fawkes’ Day in 2005, but it was delayed until the Spring of 2006 I think.  

By noon of 9-11-2001, I suppose my destiny as a “9-11 truther” was already fixed in stone—although I didn’t become aware of the movement or actively involved until 2003-2004.  But by noon of 9-11-2001, I knew I could see no aeroplane wreckage at the Pentagon.  NOT A SCRAP, and I knew it was quite simply physically impossible that an aeroplane actually hit the Pentagon, so what happened?  By that afternoon, when Building 7 came down—I was deeply puzzled but I didn’t know anything about controlled demolition…..so I couldn’t form the scenario in my head completely.  

By that evening I could tell that George W. Bush’s reelection campaign had already started.  I later found out my mother had come to exactly the same conclusion.  To paraphrase both Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt simultaneousely, the 43rd U.S. President George W. Bush had nothing to offer except Fear Itself, and nothing to fear except blood, toil, sweat, and tears….  And I suppose that’s why a couple of months later GWB went on television to tell everyone to go have a Merry Christmas and be “patriotic” by going out and doing lots of Christmas shopping.  I think my grandfather would have dropped dead, had he not died 21 years before that… he was always scandalized by America’s “crass materialism in time of war”, having been for a couple of years in charge of regional gas rationing and similar forms of organized, Patriotic, sacrifice during World War II, in which he heartily participated although he had not initially believed War was necessary—and his elder sister Marguerite was  an “active pacifist” associate of the anti-war Bund.

I guess the last time I was sad about any of these events was after the Madrid train bombing mostly because I had taken the exact same route and knew how beautiful the train route was and how completely unwarlike the Spanish people were, whatever their ancestors in the 1930s or 1450s-1590s might have been like.

So 7-7 in London was just “predictable” as were the bombings in Djakarta and I didn’t even bother to keep up, honestly.  2011 rolled around and I just commented to my friends, including William Rodriguez, a former janitor/custodians at the World Trade Center whom I had gotten to know through the Truther movement and from working with Philip J. Berg, “Well, Norway can expect to have it’s own Patriot Act within about 60-90 days, want to make a bet how long it will take?”  

Quite simply, it has become absolutely impossible to believe ANYTHING the government or mainstream media says.  “You got the CBS, and the ABC, you got Time and Newsweek, they’re the same to me—-PUZZLING EVIDENCE, PUZZLING EVIDENCE” to quote from the wild-eyed Texas Pastor in “True Stories” (David Byrne & the Talking Heads’ 1986 masterpiece, the clarity and depth of whose brilliance has only grown with time, even as the Texas Sesquicentennial of Special-Ness has receded into dim memory).

So, sorry folks: here are my great hopes about the possible results of the 15th of April in ’13:  (1) I hope that the commemorations of Paul Revere’s Ride on the 18th, and of the Battles of Lexington & Concord on April 19, will go ahead as normally scheduled, because THOSE were all very important events, (2) I hope that as a real result of the “tragedy” of the Boston Police Department’s Bomb Explosion Exercises which took place yesterday (whoever they decide to try to pin the blame on eventually—I wonder how much they have to pay to Patsies or their families these days???? I hope it’s a lot—I hope they pay in Gold and Silver in fact…), I do hope that as a real security measure, they will now forever BAN Urban Marathons.

Urban Marathons really have no purpose except to create traffic congestion and major driving problems for ordinary folks, whether it’s Boston or LA or you name it.  Healthy, safe MARATHONS could and should be run WAY OUT IN THE COUNTRY.  In rural agricultural areas or forests or on seaside roads snipers will have to hide behind trees or in cornfields or rocks and will be easily visible. Any potential attackers will be all the more visible and apparent because  very small (if any) crowds will ever assemble to watch, so that if bombs are set off, they may disturb the vegetation, but little else.  Now THIS (the abolition of Urban Marathons) would be a REAL security improvement AND a real advance in Urban life in America generally.

Here endeth my most severely curmudgenous meditations on this most solemn day.  To the victims of the Patriot’s Day Marathon “terrorist attack” in Boston, and their families, I’d say: “You got a lucky break—yesterday you were absolute nobodies, today you’re either the ‘honored dead’ or the ‘worthily wounded’ and you can count on a lifetime of government honors, support, and assistance—just like the victims of 9-11” (oh, uh, er, um, well, uh—maybe you’ll do better than they did, actually, I’ll give you a thumbs up on that one—the victims of 9-11 (see, e.g. the “Jersey Girls/Jersey Widows”) for the most part got screwed).

Crisis of Confidence in the Government—there are only lies in the Media? There is no truth…. Tragedy of Sandy Hook is not Murder, but National Hoax….

I don’t say these are the best or most accurate or even a representative sample of the youtube videos available challenging the official story of Sandy Hook, but they do reflect a widespread distrust of the government for which I think both the government and mainstream media MUST take full responsibility and to which these groups of institutions must collectively respond or lose all claims to legitimacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9XAr2BhMm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgSiRjS1Dfg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7dnJFq7lJU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eoPNyMnYaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El9YHFEagS8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enUw-OqfghA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2y1mg6urlQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnpBAjTap3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZmeZwipQ6k

In my Freshman year at Tulane University, I took a course called “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature” taught by the then just retired Yale Professor Cleanth Brooks.   He detailed the relationship between early twentieth century literature and socio-political change and the comments of many of the participants in that change later in their lives.

Today the Crisis in Culture is basically “old news”—the Victorian and Edwardian worlds vanished in the bombs of Europe’s Great War of 1914-1918, what we now call “World War I”, and whatever was left of the colonialist American, British, and French Empires was wiped away by the United Nations’ nascent New World Order after World War II.

Somehow, though, it seems that the desire for the appearance of democratic choice in the transition from freedom to some form of totalitarian government has made it essential that governments lie, that they stage or re-characterise all events so as to “ritually shape” history to conform to “mythological” expectations.  This is no different from what anthropologists from James G. Frazer through, Georges Dumezil, Edmund Leach, and Claude Levi-Strauss, to Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins have been teaching us about the role of ritual and mythology in shaping history for most of the past century.

But now, it seems that every minute change in the law must be micro-managed through false events.   Real confrontations such as Ruby Ridge and Waco in the early 1990s created at least as much counter-reaction against the government as support for it, if not more.  So, after Waco (“Mount Carmel”, the Branch Davidian Compound) in 1993, and starting with Okalahoma City in 1995, the government appears to have orchestrated terrorism to its own playbook, with no silver linings at all, only dark clouds of oppression.

I for one remain convinced that the “conspiracy theorists” who speak of both Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut, as staged “false flag” events are absolutely correct.  I challenge the authorities in government to come forward with a better explanation than they have yet propounded, and make more evidence publicly available.

It is a remarkable coincidence that neither Osama bin Laden’s body nor the bodies of any victims at Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, have ever been released or made public.  Compare this with the deaths of Bonnie & Clyde or Benito Mussolini or John Dillinger or John F. & Robert Kennedy, for that matter.   The American public has never been squeamish about seeing dead bodies.

In criminal law they teach us in law school that there cannot be any conviction of murder without evidence that a human being has died.   In the absence of a body, a coroner’s report, there is no “corpus delicti” meaning no physical evidence of crime, and there can be no prosecution for murder.

The evidence of connexions between Aurora and Sandy Hook are disturbing in the extreme.  The evidence that Sandy Hook parents may have been paid actors is much more disturbing.   The threats of prosecuting people who ask these questions on some sort of theory of “sedition” is so cravenly unAmerican….  I just cannot go on.

The Government and Mainstream Media should not ridicule or belittle, but respond by showing all available evidence of the how what and why of the alleged crimes and produce all photos and other evidence of corpus delicti which exist.

R.I.P. Eugene Luther Gore Vidal, October 3, 1925-July 31, 2012—the last aristocratic Democrat, a Sexually Liberated William Buckley—with thoughts on the leftist naiveté that led Timothy McVeigh’s most vocal supporter to misunderstand April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City Completely….

I for one will never forget those two April 19ths, in 1993 and 1995.  On April 19 in 1993 I was working in the chambers of United States District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, one of the most upstanding men I have ever known, and everyone in the chambers was speechless as we gathered around the television to watch the events unfolding in my native Texas, just outside of the town of Waco, where I had stopped a thousand times if once on the way from Dallas to Austin/Lago Vista.  As it happened, I was IN Lago Vista on April 19, 1995—at a horribly dull country club luncheon meeting of the Rotary Club (I might even have been a speaker that day, I don’t remember).

What I saw that Gore Vidal failed to see in his treatment of Timothy McVeigh, the most thoughtful treatment of Oklahoma City anywhere in the media, was that the government had apparently actually implemented the program of domestic terrorism which I had heard predicted by my friends in Washington in 1989-1991—around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union….  Washington Bureaucrats needed a new Perpetual but “Cold” War to maintain their power, and they had predicted with uncanny precision an outbreak of domestic terrorism in the 1990s.

As I have written many times before on these pages, 1963-1972 was the decade of major political figure assassinations in the implementation and justification of domestic and international policy, but 1992-2001 was the decade of domestic terrorism in the implementation and justification of domestic and international policy.  The Watergate Scandal, Jimmy Carter’s naiveté and Ronald Reagan’s major program of “Neo-Con” solidification of the New Deal and Great Society dominated the 1970s and 80s….. but George H. W. Bush (41st President) was ready for a new advance in the Police State and the New World Order, globally speaking…and William Jefferson Clinton was more than obliging to implement that program…. Newt Gingrich and his “Contract on America” took the Congress in the 1994 elections, taking office in 1995.  The crowning achievement of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract” and the Republican Congress in the 1995-1997 term that defined this era in U.S. History was the April 19, 1995 domestic terrorist attack by a supposedly white conservative patriot in the heartland, Oklahoma City, where nothing politically important had ever happened before except for the 1948 convention of Strom Thurmond’s Democratic States’ Rights “Dixiecrat” Party, and the resultant Bill-of-Rights killing AEDPA—the infamous “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”.  AEDPA, Newt Gingrich’s triumphant abrogation of Habeas Corpus and the substantive and procedural “due process” protections of the 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendments to the Constitution, laid the foundation for the much more draconian 2001 Patriot Act, which was already prepared and ready to sign when George W. Bush (43rd President) completed his Dad’s plans for the transformation of America into a Corporate-Socialist Dictatorship of Deception…a sophisticatedly postmodernist Communist state within the Global New World Order where two mulatto Secretaries of State (Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) paved the way for the first mulatto President of (highly controversial) African birth and/or parentage.

Without AEDPA and the Patriot Act, the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (Senate Bill 1867) could never have passed to finally lay the Bill of Rights in this Country into an unpeaceful grave under that first tragic mulatto President (and what a tragic MULE or mullet he really is…)

I do not understand how anyone as insightful and sophisticated as Gore Vidal could possibly have missed the clear trends and associations in and among the events of 1993-2001, or how he could have suppressed his comments if he saw them, but looking back over his fabled Vanity Fair article and related writings on McVeigh, I simply do not believe that Vidal ever quite could overcome his age, the fact that he was born in north the 1920s and wanted to believe in the grander myth of a good Yankee America…. to accept that just as much as Ruby Ridge and Waco, Oklahoma City and 9-11 were tailor-made designer products to implement and justify the suppression of the American Constitution of 1787.

Perhaps it is easier for those with Southern Heritage to see the modern corruption of our country for what it is, namely the end result of a process of degradation that began in 1861….and is not quite over yet.   Still, I will heartily miss Gore Vidal’s erudite commentary…. I agreed with much of what he said and wrote and the brilliance of his mind was undeniable.

He may have been “conservative” as Hollywood Democrats go, but that just reflects how far left that party (and “the culture of Hollywood”) really have gone….  Gore Vidal was certainly not a Conservative Democrat by comparison with men like the Harry F. Byrds, (Sr. & Jr.), Robert Carlise Byrd, James O. Eastland, Sam Ervin, Olin D. Johnston, John Stennis, Eugene and Herman Eugene Talmadge, Strom Thurmond, or George Corley Wallace.  Nor is his analysis of the post-Constitutional world of America quite as on-point as former Alabama theatrical studies student Suzanne Collins.   But Gore Vidal was a breath of fresh air among the establishment elite—especially compared to other so-called “Eastern Aristocrats” such as the despicable Bushes….who Vidal always staunchly opposed and justly (if insufficiently) criticized.

Here in his memory is Gore Vidal’s Vanity Fair Essay on Timothy McVeigh as a misguided “Sanity Fair” Patriot (rather than, as I would see him, just an extremely well-trained “patsy” who played his governmentally designated role scrupulously and admirably, exactly as Andreas Breivik in Norway and James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado are doing right now, at this very moment):

truth and politics

The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh

Americans were fed the story of Timothy McVeigh’s trial and execution as a simple, unquestionable narrative: he was guilty, he was evil, and he acted largely alone. Gore Vidal’s 1998 Vanity Fair essay on the erosion of the U.S. Bill of Rights caused McVeigh to begin a three-year correspondence with Vidal, prompting an examination of certain evidence that points to darker truths—a conspiracy willfully ignored by F.B.I. investigators, and a possible cover-up by a government waging a secret war on the liberty of its citizens.

Toward the end of the last century but one, Richard Wagner made a visit to the southern Italian town of Ravello, where he was shown the gardens of the thousand-year-old Villa Rufolo. “Maestro,” asked the head gardener, “do not these fantastic gardens ’neath yonder azure sky that blends in such perfect harmony with yonder azure sea closely resemble those fabled gardens of Klingsor where you have set so much of your latest interminable opera, Parsifal? Is not this vision of loveliness your inspiration for Klingsor?” Wagner muttered something in German. “He say,” said a nearby translator, “‘How about that?’”

How about that indeed, I thought, as I made my way toward a corner of those fabled gardens, where ABC-TV’s Good Morning America and CBS’s Early Show had set up their cameras so that I could appear “live” to viewers back home in God’s country.

This was last May. In a week’s time “the Oklahoma City Bomber,” a decorated hero of the Gulf War, one of Nature’s Eagle Scouts, Timothy McVeigh, was due to be executed by lethal injection in Terre Haute, Indiana, for being, as he himself insisted, the sole maker and detonator of a bomb that blew up a federal building in which died 168 men, women, and children. This was the greatest massacre of Americans by an American since two years earlier, when the federal government decided to take out the compound of a Seventh-Day Adventist cult near Waco, Texas. The Branch Davidians, as the cultists called themselves, were a peaceful group of men, women, and children living and praying together in anticipation of the end of the world, which started to come their way on February 28, 1993. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, exercising its mandate to “regulate” firearms, refused all invitations from cult leader David Koresh to inspect his licensed firearms. The A.T.F. instead opted for fun. More than 100 A.T.F. agents, without proper warrants, attacked the church’s compound while, overhead, at least one A.T.F. helicopter fired at the roof of the main building. Six Branch Davidians were killed that day. Four A.T.F. agents were shot dead, by friendly fire, it was thought.

There was a standoff. Followed by a 51-day siege in which loud music was played 24 hours a day outside the compound. Then electricity was turned off. Food was denied the children. Meanwhile, the Media were briefed regularly on the evils of David Koresh. Apparently, he was making and selling crystal meth; he was also—what else in these sick times?—not a Man of God but a Pedophile. The new attorney general, Janet Reno, then got tough. On April 19 she ordered the F.B.I. to finish up what the A.T.F. had begun. In defiance of the Posse Comitatus Act (a basic bulwark of our fragile liberties that forbids the use of the military against civilians), tanks of the Texas National Guard and the army’s Joint Task Force Six attacked the compound with a gas deadly to children and not too healthy for adults while ramming holes in the building. Some Davidians escaped. Others were shot by F.B.I. snipers. In an investigation six years later, the F.B.I. denied ever shooting off anything much more than a pyrotechnic tear-gas cannister. Finally, during a six-hour assault, the building was set fire to and then bulldozed by Bradley armored vehicles. God saw to it that no F.B.I. man was hurt while more than 80 cult members were killed, of whom 27 were children. It was a great victory for Uncle Sam, as intended by the F.B.I., whose code name for the assault was Show Time.

It wasn’t until May 14, 1995, that Janet Reno, on 60 Minutes, confessed to second thoughts. “I saw what happened, and knowing what happened, I would not do it again.” Plainly, a learning experience for the Florida daughter of a champion lady alligator rassler.

The April 19, 1993, show at Waco proved to be the largest massacre of Americans by their own government since 1890, when a number of Native Americans were slaughtered at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Thus the ante keeps upping.

Although McVeigh was soon to indicate that he had acted in retaliation for what had happened at Waco (he had even picked the second anniversary of the slaughter, April 19, for his act of retribution), our government’s secret police, together with its allies in the Media, put, as it were, a heavy fist upon the scales. There was to be only one story: one man of incredible innate evil wanted to destroy innocent lives for no reason other than a spontaneous joy in evildoing. From the beginning, it was ordained that McVeigh was to have no coherent motive for what he had done other than a Shakespearean motiveless malignity. Iago is now back in town, with a bomb, not a handkerchief. More to the point, he and the prosecution agreed that he had no serious accomplices.

I sat on an uncomfortable chair, facing a camera. Generators hummed amid the delphiniums. Good Morning America was first. I had been told that Diane Sawyer would be questioning me from New York, but ABC has a McVeigh “expert,” one Charles Gibson, and he would do the honors. Our interview would be something like four minutes. Yes, I was to be interviewed In Depth. This means that only every other question starts with “Now, tell us, briefly … ” Dutifully, I told, briefly, how it was that McVeigh, whom I had never met, happened to invite me to be one of the five chosen witnesses to his execution.

Briefly, it all began in the November 1998 issue of Vanity Fair. I had written a piece about “the shredding of our Bill of Rights.” I cited examples of I.R.S. seizures of property without due process of law, warrantless raids and murders committed against innocent people by various drug-enforcement groups, government collusion with agribusiness’s successful attempts to drive small farmers out of business, and so on. (For those who would like further evidence of a government running amok, turn to page 397 of my The Last Empire.) Then, as a coda, I discussed the illegal but unpunished murders at Ruby Ridge, Idaho (a mother and child and dog had been killed in cold blood by the F.B.I.); then, the next year, Waco. The Media expressed little outrage in either case. Apparently, the trigger words had not been spoken. Trigger words? Remember The Manchurian Candidate? George Axelrod’s splendid 1962 film, where the brainwashed (by North Koreans) protagonist can only be set in murderous motion when the gracious garden-club lady, played by Angela Lansbury, says, “Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?”

Since we had been told for weeks that the Branch Davidian leader, David Koresh, was not only a drug dealer but the sexual abuser of the 27 children in his compound, the maternal Ms. Reno in essence decreed: Better that they all be dead than defiled. Hence, the attack. Later, 11 members of the Branch Davidian Church were put on trial for the “conspiracy to commit murder” of the federal agents who had attacked them. The jury found all 11 innocent on that charge. But after stating that the defendants were guilty of attempted murder—the very charge of which they had just been acquitted—the judge sentenced eight innocent church members up to 40 years on lesser charges. One disgusted juror said, “The wrong people were on trial.” Show Time!

Personally, I was sufficiently outraged to describe in detail what had actually happened. Meanwhile, the card players of 1998 were busy shuffling and dealing. Since McVeigh had been revealed as evil itself, no one was interested in why he had done what he had done. But then “why” is a question the Media are trained to shy away from. Too dangerous. One might actually learn why something had happened and become thoughtful. I wrote in these pages:

For Timothy McVeigh, [Waco and Ruby Ridge] became the symbol of [federal] oppression and murder. Since he was now suffering from an exaggerated sense of justice, not a common American trait, he went to war pretty much on his own and ended up slaughtering more innocents than the Feds had at Waco. Did he know what he was doing when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because it contained the hated [Feds]? McVeigh remained silent throughout his trial. Finally, as he was about to be sentenced, the court asked him if he would like to speak. He did. He rose and said, “I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, ‘Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.’” Then McVeigh was sentenced to death by the government.

Historical Metaphors and Mythic Realities—Dark Knight Rises, Aurora, and the Olympics—Is there more truth in the movies than the news? A forest of symbols and semiotic (coded) messages…. Are we not ultimately the most legitimate arbiters of our own integrity? Should we blindly believe that which is unbelievable?

Do Cinematic Semiotics tell more than CNN?

It seems undeniable that a growing number of people simply have no confidence in the national government of any member of the U.N. Security Counsel or anything that they say or do—or in the elections that appear to shape their composition for that matter.   Pretty obviously, I am one of that growing number and I just wish it were growing faster.  But here’s what I see:

I am not alone in believing that the more likely explanations for the events in Aurora, Colorado, are to be found in the premier of the Dark Knight Rises, and the initiation of the Olympics strongly suggest than in government pronouncements of any kind, including those quoted on the news.

http://unifiedserenity.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/batman-rises-symbolism-in-aurora-shooting-and-landmarks-points-to-a-ritual-taking-place/

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1936994/pg.

As frustrated as I get with my long-time assistant Peyton Freiman sometimes, I have to acknowledge again that he was the first one who pointed out the links between MK Ultra and the new species of staged crime that has so dramatically narrowed the gap between socially-sanctioned ritual-killings, crime, and terrorism that we have seen evolving in America since 1965 at least.  The motif of the lone gunman, the madman, doing things which are on so many levels politically significant.  I quote again from “Godlike Productions” website:

LAST DISCOVERIES London Olympic False Flag & JAMES HOLMES AURORA CARNAGE EXPLAINED! (PIN THIS)

*** Aurora Carnage is a staged False Flag and James Holmes is a MKultra victim, a Manchurian candidate ***

– The Cinema Century 16 (6+1=7) refers to 7/27 as the shooting took place on 7/20/12, just 7 days before 7/27/12.

– The colors on the entry of the Century 16 cinema refers to the Olympic Colors, you can even see the masonic logo on it.

– The carnage was in theater 9 which refers to the “Spooks: Code 9” (a predictive movie about the London Olympic Nuclear False Flag), 9 is the number of completion, the achieved work, ie mass death through a satanic ritual sacrifice.

– James Holmes was a student in the University of Denver which is part of the universities which are involved in the MKUltra program.

– There is a 1986 Batman comics which title is “My Sweet Satan” in which a man gun fire on a crowded theater, the comic shows a spiral behind this man which refers to the MKultra program meaning that the killer has been programmed (manchurian candidate), the comic also shows XXX on the cinema which refers to the London Olympics which are the 30th (XXX in roman means 30 in decimal) olympic games.

– A day before the Aurora Carnage, CNN aired a video news anchor analyzing the conditions for an ordinary man to turn into a movie superhero/supercriminal.

– The trailers of the movies Skyfall and Gangster Squad were played before Screenings of the Dark Knight Rise, these trailers contains very explicit contents which seem to work as a trigger for James Holmes. Gangster Squad has already been withdrawn because of the Aurora Carnage, it shows a group of armed men shooting on a crowded theater.

 Skyfall’s trailer begin with sequence phrase which work as a trigger sequence in MK Ultra, Manchurian Candidate plotline:

Country – Britain
Gun – Shot
Agent – Provocateur
Murder – Employment
Skyfall Skyfall – Done

– The trailer Skyfall also shows a MIND BLOWING PROOF which definitely prooves that this is really connected with Aurora Carnage and that this shooting was actually staged: @0:40 of the Skyfall’s trailer, you can read on a building in red letters: “AURORA”

– There is also an FBI skyfall warning which was issued on the FBI website which title is Skyfall and it’s about a terrorist attack.

– There is a clip by Lil Wayne “My Homies Still” which was released few days before the Aurora Carnage and it shows 12 skulls in a theater (refering to the 12 deaths in the Aurora Carnage), a batman like costume, manikins like the ones used in mkultra programs…

– James Holmes uses the same drug than the drug which killed Heath Lodger who played the character of the Joker in the last Batman… Knowing that Heath Lodger’s death is an illuminati assassination, it confirms that James Holmes is mkultra victim… the illuminati agents use the same technics and drugs.

– James Holmes‘ appearance at court showed him totaly drugged and his eyes bulging, it’s typical of demonic possession by jinns/devils… Mkultra preparation is based on drugs, satanic rituals and demonic possession… James Holmes States was so explicit that the judge has banned cameras on next courts.

– The 2010 movie “Rampage” is the copy paste story of the Aurora Carnage, the attacks are similar, both characters, Bill Williamson, the lead character in “Rampage” and James Holmes looks like each others and have the exact same profile….there is a lot of other similarities and references to the Aurora Carnage’s date and to 7/27/12.

*** More Predictive Programming Movies for the London False Flag ***

– “Kung Fu Panda 2” shows a Big Ben like tower being destroyed, it’s about a Sacrifying its own people, a sacrifice which will take place at the middle of the year (ie the Olympics’ period).

– “Rango” shows a series of explosions from underground tunnels which affect the whole city and make the ground fall and then a big ben like tower clock explodes.

– “Spice World” shows a bomb which is placed under the Londonian bus of the Spice Girls…then the movie continues as oft hey were no bomb and when the movie ends, there is an extra scene in which the bomb explodes…the explosion takes place when the movie is over which refers to a bomb which explodes in London in the real life.

– In “The Sum of All Fears”, the vilains, the neo nazis make a false flag nuclear bomb exploding during the super bowl, the goal is to blame it on the Russian in order to trig a nuclear war between Russia and the USA… In the novel “The Sum of All Fears” by Tom Clancy, the scenario is a bit different, the vilains are the muslims, with the implication of Iran, a nuclear Bomb explodes in Denver during the Super Bowl, in order to trig a nuclear war between Russia and the USA…In retaliation, the USA orders an attack on Qom by nuclear strike… but eventually, they discover that Iran was not involved… This is similar to what is going on in the real life, the London False Flag will be blamed on Iran in order to trig a nuclear WW3 between East and West.

– During the Big Brother UK show, there is a subliminal image which shows a blown up stadium.

– A Vauhxall UK ADS showing the Olympic colors and with the lyrics:

“Run run runaway, runaway baby
Before I put my spell on you
You better get get getaway getaway darling
‘Cause everything you heard is true”

– Denver is at the center of many illuminati stuff:

* Aurora Carnage a DENVER Suburb
* James Holmes is student at the Denver University
* Denver University part of the MKUltra Program
* Illuminati Denver Airport with its satanic murals about ww3 and its huge underground bases
* BlackJack slideshow says that Denver will become the future capital of the world, ie North American Union which will be be born after the London False Flag
* Tom Clancy’s novel “The Sum of All Fears” speaks about a nuclear explosion during the Super Bowl in Denver

– Music Clip “Not Prepared” by Mesh says we are doomed and focus on the London Underground

– more and more terrorist attacks in Syria, Kenya, Bulgaria, Iraq, Denver…in order to desensibilize us about the coming the olympic false flag … The illuminati mainstream media says that these attacks are actually to target israeli tourists and are orchestrated by Iran…. they are preparing us to blame Iran for the coming nuclear false flag… a news report even says that Iran may target the olympics in order to kill israeli people… that makes no sense, but this is brainwashing

– More and more illuminati mainstream media report about lack of security during London Olympics, lack of security guards, major security breaches, the FBI involved, the Mossad involved… we have a similar context than before 9/11…we are prepared to see a terrorist attack in London Olympics… but in reality, it won’t be due to a lack of security, it won’t be Iran… but it will be a false flag planned by the satanic secret elites.

Whatever you may think of someone who looks for coded semiotic messages in Kung-Fu Panda 2, Lil’ Wayne, and Rango (and I most emphatically do NOT)—-this suggests that we are currently in the midst of a crisis in culture as reflected in lack of confidence in all the major institutions of our times—a crisis of almost unprecedented proportions.

I am writing to suggest here that it is in fact because we have turned so far away from the ethical and foundational myths of our own Western Christian Society that we have forgotten the importance of ethics and foundational principles—and so we are wildly thrashing about, looking for truth, groping along the walls like the Blind Men in Isaiah Chapter 59.

We are hungry for justice and fair-play—that is the express message of the Hunger Games, presaged seven years go in V-for-Vendetta and echoed and emphatically confirmed in Dark Knight Rises.  We recognize fraud and hypocrisy in the straightforward pronouncements of “truth” from our government and major institutional authorities, but we lack the code to decipher what is really going on.

“You’re a detective now, you’re not allowed to believe in coincidence anymore” is clearly one of the quotes from Batman: Dark Knight Rises that will endure for a very long time.  Oh, I guess it could be taken as a simple practical bit of advice: “a detective has to follow every lead—no matter how weird or unlikely it looks at first.”  But there is too much else going on in Batman: Dark Knight Rises—to believe that this movie is not directly connected to the major transformational events going on in economic and political society around it.

No, just as I believe that mass murder carried a well-calculated message of political semiotics on 9-11-2001 for the U.S. Government to the American people, I believe that Aurora, Colorado, was (NOT a Satanic—at least not in the mystical sense, but a very practical, real world) a RITUAL murder, a historical enactment of a mythic reality with a political purpose—or perhaps several political purposes.  And it does seem that all signs are that the Brave New World Order will be centered in (if not Denver) then somewhere in Colorado….as it the Hunger Games also predicted..

But even that bit of advice has major political significance: are we not the ultimate arbiters of our own integrity?   Do we not surrender more than our sanity, but our freedom as well if we do not reject and refuse to believe that which is unbelievable?

I intend to write more—the relationship between myth, history, and political structure was after all the subject of my doctoral dissertation at Harvard, but one week after the killing in Aurora, on the day of the highly ritualized opening of the Olympics—and the close of the Small Arms Treaty in New York—it’s enough to say that every human being MUST be a detective, an archaeological digger for truth….in the great rubbish heap of history—past, present and future….

If James Holmes, a Mayflower descendent, has been selected by the powers that be (under Obama) as the symbol for the decline and decadence of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant people in the nation they founded, that too is very sad…. but extremely significant.  I have not yet been able to discover whether he’s related to the line of Oliver Wendell Holmes of Massachusetts, also an MYF lineage of some significance, though at the present it appears that these are two separate families…

Lane & Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group, 713 F.Supp.2d 1092 (E.D. California 2010)—From East and South, California Courts have surrendered to MERS and California Civil Code 2924 Unconstitutional Foreclosure without Due Process of Law

2010 Comm. Fin. News. 51
Commercial Finance Newsletter
Professor Dan Schechtera
June 28, 2010
Foreclosure Is Valid Because MERS Has Power to Designate New Trustee Under Deed of Trust, Even Though It Holds No Interest in Underlying Note. [Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group (E.D. Cal.).]
A district court in California has held that MERS had the power to designate a new trustee under a deed of trust (thus validating the designee’s foreclosure), even though neither MERS nor the designee held any interest in the underlying promissory note. [Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group, 2010 WL 1956707 (E.D. Cal. 2010).]
Facts
Two borrowers filed suit against their mortgage lenders and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), claiming that the defendants had wrongfully conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the borrowers’ home. MERS had been initially designated as the “nominal beneficiary” under the deed of trust and had then executed a substitution of trustee in favor of another entity, following the borrowers’ default.
As part of the borrowers’ wrongful foreclosure claim, they asserted that the foreclosure was improper because none of the parties to the foreclosure were beneficiaries of the underlying note and instead held interests in the deed of trust. MERS moved to dismiss that aspect of the borrowers’ claim.
Reasoning
The court ruled in favor of MERS, holding that MERS and its assignees could foreclose on the deed of trust, even though MERS held no interest in the underlying note:
Under California Civil Code section 2924(a)(1), a “trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents” may conduct the foreclosure process. Under California Civil Code section 2924b(4), a “person authorized to record the notice of default or the notice of sale” includes “an agent for the mortgagee or beneficiary, an agent of the named trustee, any person designated in an executed substitution of trustee, or an agent of that substituted trustee.”…. There is no stated requirement in California’s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme that requires a beneficial interest in the Note to foreclose. Rather, the statute broadly allows a trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or any of their agents to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure. Accordingly, the statute does not require a beneficial interest in both the Note and the Deed of Trust to commence a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.
This interpretation is consistent with the rulings of this court, along with many others, that MERS has standing to foreclose as the nominee for the lender and beneficiary of the Deed of Trust and may assign its beneficial interest to another party.
Author’s Comment
Although there is some disagreement across the country on this issue (see below), the emerging trend in California is to validate the role of MERS as a nominee. The court in Lane relied primarily upon the wording of the statute to reach that result. However, Stephen Dyer (one of my four coauthors of California Real Estate Finance) has alerted me to a possible contractual glitch resulting from Paragraph 24 of the standardized Freddie Mac form, used throughout California, which provides: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located…. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.” [Source: http:// http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/doc/3005-CaliforniaDeedofTrust.doc.%5D
The problem, of course, is that MERS is not identified as the “lender” in that form, and the “lender” is defined as the originating lender itself. Therefore, although the statute would appear to empower an agent (such as MERS) to execute a substitution of trustee, the current wording of the contract itself seems more restrictive, empowering no one other than the originating lender to execute a substitution of trustee.
Ideally, the Freddie Mac form should be amended to make it clear that MERS is authorized to appoint a successor. Admittedly, an amendment would not retroactively solve the problem under the existing documentation. My guess is that if a California court were presented with this contractual argument, the court would probably use the wording of the statute to empower MERS, as the agent of the lender, to act on its behalf, even if the document itself did not say so. The only caveat is that there are a few bankruptcy courts, primarily in Southern California, that have subjected MERS transactions to very strict scrutiny; those courts might not rescue the lender from the effect of the Freddie Mac language.
For discussions of other cases involving MERS and its standing as an agent or nominee, see:
  • –2009 Comm. Fin. News. 103, Assignee of Mortgage Lacks Standing to Foreclose Because Assignee Failed to Show That MERS Assigned Underlying Promissory Note, Along with Mortgage.
  • –2009 Comm. Fin. News. 72, Senior Lienholder’s Failure to Give Notice of Foreclosure to MERS Did Not Affect Validity of Senior’s Foreclosure Because MERS Was Merely a Nominee.
  • –2009 Comm. Fin. News. 59, Assignees of Mortgages Cannot Enforce Unendorsed Notes in Their Possession Because MERS Documentation Does Not Expressly Authorize Assignment of Notes.

Copyright Thomson Reuters

Footnotes

These materials were written by Dan Schechter, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of Professor Schechter.
***********************************************************************************
713 F.Supp.2d 1092
United States District Court,

E.D. California.

James LANE and Dawna Lane, Plaintiffs,
v.
VITEK REAL ESTATE INDUSTRIES GROUP dba Vitek Mortgage Group, a California corporation; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a California corporation; Aurora Loan Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; CitiMortgage, Inc., a New York corporation; Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., a California corporation; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.
No. CIV. 2:10-335 WBS GGH.
May 13, 2010.

Synopsis

Background: Trustors under deed of trust brought action against lender, nominal beneficiary for the lender and other defendants, alleging various federal and state claims arising out of mortgage transaction. Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
Holdings: The District Court, William B. Shubb, J., held that:
1 trustors did not have a valid claim for wrongful foreclosure;
2 equitable tolling of limitations period for exercising right to rescind loan was not warranted;
3 borrowers failed to adequately plead a claim under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) based on kickbacks; and
4 trustors could not quiet title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured.
Motions granted.

West Headnotes (25)Collapse West Headnotes

Court could take judicial notice of several publicly recorded documents related to plaintiffs’ mortgage as well as two court documents relating to plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings since such documents were matters of public record whose accuracy could not be questioned. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 201, 28 U.S.C.A.
A bankruptcy petitioner loses standing for any causes of action and the estate becomes the only real party in interest unless the bankruptcy trustee abandons the claims. 11 U.S.C.A. § 541(a).
Trustors under deed of trust had standing to pursue suit against lender and other defendants alleging various federal and state claims arising out of their mortgage transaction where their bankruptcy petition was dismissed. 11 U.S.C.A. § 541(a).
Wrongful foreclosure is an action in equity, where a plaintiff seeks to set aside a foreclosure sale.
Lender, which referred trustors under deed of trust to a department which then discussed the procedure they would need to follow to obtain a loan modification, was not required by California law to grant trustors’ request for loan modification prior to initiating non-judicial foreclosure sale. West’s Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 2923.5.
Under California law, a deed of trust entitles the lender to reach some asset of the debtor if the note is not paid.
California law does not require a beneficial interest in both the note and the deed of trust to commence a non-judicial foreclosure sale. West’s Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 2924b(b)(4).
Nominee for the lender and beneficiary of the deed of trust had standing to commence non-judicial foreclosure sale and could assign its beneficial interest to another party. West’s Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 2924b(b)(4).
Under California law, parties do not lose their interest in a loan secured by deed of trust when it is assigned to a trust pool.
Borrowers’ conclusory allegation that they were unable to discover creditors’ Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations until two weeks before the filing of complaint because creditors “fraudulently concealed those violations” was insufficient to establish the necessity for equitable tolling of limitations period for exercising right to rescind loan secured by deed of trust on borrowers’ principal dwelling. Truth in Lending Act, § 125(f), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1635(f)12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3).
Under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), only a loan servicer has a duty to respond to a borrower’s qualified written requests (QWR). Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, § 6, 12 U.S.C.A. § 2605.
Without alleging that either defendant was a loan servicer under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), borrowers could not show that either defendant owed them any duty to respond to their qualified written request (QWR). Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, § 6, 12 U.S.C.A. § 2605.
A showing of pecuniary damages is required in order to state a claim against loan servicer under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for failure to make the required disclosures. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, § 6(f), 12 U.S.C.A. § 2605(f).
Borrowers failed to adequately plead a claim against parties involved in their mortgage transaction under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) based on kickbacks; borrowers did not explain what the kickbacks were, when they occurred, or which defendants received them, but instead, simply alleged the existence of secret kickbacks and lumped the actions of defendants together. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, § 8(a), 12 U.S.C.A. § 2607(a).
In California, every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.
In California, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement.
In California, the essential elements of a claim for fraud are (1) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.
Where multiple defendants are asked to respond to allegations of fraud, the complaint must inform each defendant of his alleged participation in the fraud. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A.
Fraud allegations, which failed to specify so much as when the fraudulent statements alleged were made, who specifically made them, and why they were false, failed to meet heightened pleading standard for fraud claims.Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A.
Purpose of a quiet title action under California law is to establish one’s title against adverse claims to real property.
A basic requirement of an action under California law to quiet title is an allegation that plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the property, i.e., that they have satisfied their obligations under the deed of trust.
Under California law, a mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured.
Declaratory and injunctive relief are not independent claims, rather they are forms of relief.
Under California law, elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim are (1) existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach.
Absent special circumstances, a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship under California law between the borrower and lender.

Attorneys and Law Firms

*1095 Stephen C. Ruehmann, Law Offices of Stephen C. Ruehmann, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Joshua A. Rosenthal, Medlin & Hargrave, PC, Oakland, CA, Thomas N. Abbott, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, Nicole K. Neff, Wright Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiffs James and Dawna Lane brought this action against defendants Vitek Real Estate Industries Group dba Vitek Mortgage Group (“Vitek”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Aurora Loan Services, Inc. (“Aurora”), CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CMI”), and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (“CWRC”) alleging various federal and state claims arising out of plaintiffs’ mortgage transaction. Presently before the court are defendants Vitek and CMI and MERS’s motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On July 17, 2003, plaintiffs obtained a loan from Vitek to refinance their home, located at 8442 West Hidden Lakes Drive in Granite Bay, California. (FAC Ex. 1.) This loan was secured by a Deed of Trust on the property. (Id.) The Deed of Trust listed Fidelity National Title Company as trustee, Vitek as lender, and MERS as the nominal beneficiary for the lender and the lender’s successors and assigns. (Id.) At the time of consummation of the loan, defendants allegedly falsely represented to plaintiffs that plaintiffs were qualified for their mortgage and that plaintiffs could pay back the loan even though defendants had not conducted an investigation into plaintiffs’ finances. (Id. ¶ 51.) The FAC further alleges that Vitek failed to provide plaintiffs with two copies of the statutory right to rescind their loan and received kickbacks to steer plaintiffs into an unaffordable loan. (Id. ¶ 34.)
Plaintiffs began experiencing financial difficulties in October 2008 and eventually fell behind on their loan payments. (Id. ¶ 13.) CMI allegedly never contacted plaintiffs to discuss loan modification before filing a Notice of Default, and the only calls plaintiffs ever received from CMI were collection calls. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs called CMI in response to the alleged collection calls and were eventually referred to CMI’s Loss Mitigation Department, which provided them with loan modification forms and advised them that a loan negotiator would be assigned to their account. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs completed the loan modification paperwork and sent it to CMI by fax. (Id. ¶ 18.) After allegedly calling twice a week for forty-five days and being unable to reach a loan negotiator, plaintiffs were allegedly told by CMI that it lost their paperwork and that they should reapply for loan modification. (Id.) Plaintiffs resubmitted their paperwork and allegedly were not contacted by anyone at CMI while they attempted to contact CMI every week for eight months. (Id.)
*1096 In May of 2009, plaintiffs allege that they were told orally that their loan modification was approved at a payment of $2,700 a month of three months that would subsequently become permanent. (Id. ¶ 18.) After sending in a payment, plaintiffs were subsequently told that their payment was only partial and that their loan modification was denied. (Id.) On September 14, 2009, MERS substituted CWRC as the new trustee under the Deed of Trust. (CMI Req. Judicial Notice Ex. C.) On September 15, 2009, MERS assigned its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to CMI pursuant to an Assignment of Deed of Trust. (Id. Ex. D.) A Notice of Default was filed on plaintiffs’ property on September 18, 2009. (Id. ¶ 16.) In October, plaintiffs hired a representative to negotiate with CMI. (Id. ¶ 18.) CMI allegedly again denied plaintiffs’ request for loan modification without negotiation or discussion. (Id.)
A trustee’s sale of plaintiffs’ property was originally scheduled for February 10, 2010. (Id. Ex. B.) On February 9, 2010, plaintiffs filed this action and a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining the foreclosure sale. (Docket Nos. 1, 7.) The court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for a TRO on February 9, 2010, and issued an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction ought not issue in this action. (Docket No. 11.) The court vacated the TRO and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on February 26, 2010, after CMI and MERS appeared and opposed the motion. (Docket No. 30.) Vitek filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on March 18, 2010. (Docket No. 33.) CMI and MERS filed their own motion to dismiss the FAC on March 30, 2010. (Docket No. 36.) Plaintiffs did not oppose the motions. Nor did plaintiffs file a statement of non-opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(c). Therefore, on May 3, 2010, the court vacated the hearing date on Vitek, MERS, and CMI’s motions pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), and took the motions to dismiss under submission without oral argument. (Docket No. 39.) On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs and Vitek filed a stipulation dismissing Vitek from this action with prejudice. (Docket No. 41.)
II. Discussion
On a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984)Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff needs to plead “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). This “plausibility standard,” however, “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” and where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. —-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955).
In general a court may not consider items outside the pleadings upon deciding a motion to dismiss, but may consider items of which it can take judicial notice. Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir.1994). A court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they are either “(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort *1097 to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”Fed.R.Evid. 201.
1CMI and MERS submitted a request for judicial notice. CMI and MERS request the court take judicial notice of several publically recorded documents related to plaintiffs’ mortgage as well as two court documents relating to plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings. (Docket No. 36.) The court will take judicial notice of these documents, since they are matters of public record whose accuracy cannot be questioned. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir.2001).
A. Standing
2CMI and MERS contend that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action because their claims are now property of their bankruptcy estate. On March 12, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Voluntary Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California. (CMI Req. Judicial Notice Ex. E.) Upon a declaration of bankruptcy, all petitioner’s property becomes the property of the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property,” id. at § 541(a)(1), which has been interpreted to include causes of action. See Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 789 F.2d 705, 707 (9th Cir.1986)Rowland v. Novus Fin. Corp., 949 F.Supp. 1447, 1453 (D.Haw.1996) (holding claims under the Truth in Lending Act are included as an interest under § 541(a)(1)). Accordingly, a bankruptcy petitioner loses standing for any causes of action and the estate becomes the only real party in interest unless the bankruptcy trustee abandons the claims. See In re Lopez, 283 B.R. 22, 28-29 (9th Cir.2002)In re Pace, 146 B.R. 562, 565-66 (9th Cir.1992).
3If plaintiffs were in bankruptcy they clearly would lack standing to bring this action absent abandonment of their claims by the bankruptcy trustee. However, plaintiffs continue to have standing to pursue this case because their bankruptcy petition was dismissed after CMI and MERS filed their motion to dismiss. See In re Lane, No. 10-25998 at Docket No. 14.
B. Section 2923.5 Wrongful Foreclosure Claim
4Plaintiffs’ FAC purports to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure against all defendants. Wrongful foreclosure is an action in equity, where a plaintiff seeks to set aside a foreclosure sale. See Abdallah v. United Sav. Bank, 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 286 (1996)Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 15 Cal.App.3d 112, 117, 92 Cal.Rptr. 851 (1971). Plaintiffs primarily base this claim on defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the communication requirements set forth in California Civil Code section 2923.5Section 2923.5(a)(2) requires a “mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent” to “contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.” Section 2923.5(b) requires a default notice to include a declaration “from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent” of compliance with section 2923.5, including attempt “with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section.”
The FAC only makes the conclusory claim that no one from CMI attempted to contact them to discuss options to pay their loan or assess their financial situation before foreclosure and that there was no personal meeting or telephonic communication between CMI and plaintiffs at any time. (FAC ¶¶ 15-16, 19, 21.) However, plaintiffs further state that they called CMI in response to what they characterize as “constant collection calls” and were subsequently *1098 referred to CMI’s Loss Mitigation Department, which provided plaintiffs with loan modification forms to fill out. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) These contradictory statements are difficult to reconcile-plaintiffs claim they had no contact with CMI and yet that CMI referred them to a department which then discussed the procedure plaintiffs would need to follow to obtain a loan modification.
5While section 2923.5 requires the borrower to discuss options to prevent foreclosure, it does not require that any loan modification take place. See Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1113 (E.D.Cal.2009) (O’Neill, J.). Although plaintiffs plead they responded to “collection calls” by CMI, the actions allegedly taken by CMI are consistent with an attempt to assess plaintiffs’ financial situation and investigate ways to avoid foreclosure. As plaintiffs admit, CMI provided plaintiffs with loan modification forms and told them a loan negotiator would be assigned to their account. (FAC ¶ 17.) While CMI ultimately rejected plaintiffs’ application for loan modification after a protracted process, CMI was not required by law to grant plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs’ allegations against CMI “stop [ ] short of the line between possibility and plausibility” and cannot survive a motion to dismiss because they are both contradictory and not inconsistent with compliance with section 2923.5Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
6Plaintiffs base their wrongful foreclosure claim on “numerous improprieties in the assignment, transfer and exercise of power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust, and that … CWRC[ ] is not properly appointed or authorized by the true beneficiary to foreclose upon the Subject Property.” (Id. ¶ 27.) The FAC contends that CWRC is not authorized to foreclose because none of the parties are beneficiaries of the Note and only have interests in the Deed of Trust, which leaves them without any right to foreclose upon the Deed of Trust. “Financing or refinancing of real property is generally accomplished in California through a deed of trust. The borrower (trustor) executes a promissory note and deed of trust, thereby transferring an interest in the property to the lender (beneficiary) as security for repayment of the loan.” Bartold v. Glendale Fed. Bank, 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 821, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 226 (2000). A deed of trust “entitles the lender to reach some asset of the debtor if the note is not paid.” Alliance Mortg. Co. v. Rothwell, 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1235, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 900 P.2d 601 (1995).
The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District has explained that California’s non-judicial foreclosure statute, California Civil Code section 2924, is a “comprehensive statutory framework established to govern nonjudicial foreclosure sales [and] is intended to be exhaustive.” Moeller v. Lien, 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 834, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 (1994)see I.E. Assoc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 39 Cal.3d 281, 216 Cal.Rptr. 438, 702 P.2d 596 (1985) (“These provisions cover every aspect of exercise of the power of sale contained in a deed of trust.”). Because of the exhaustive nature of this scheme, California appellate courts have refused to read any additional requirements into the non-judicial foreclosure statute. See Moeller, 25 Cal.App.4th at 834, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 777; see also, I.E. Assocs. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 39 Cal.3d 281, 288, 216 Cal.Rptr. 438, 702 P.2d 596 (1985).
7Under California Civil Code section 2924(a)(1), a “trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents” may conduct the foreclosure process. Under California Civil Code section 2924b(b)(4), a “person authorized to record the notice of default or the notice of sale” includes “an agent for the mortgagee or *1099 beneficiary, an agent of the named trustee, any person designated in an executed substitution of trustee, or an agent of that substituted trustee.” “Upon default by the trustor, the beneficiary may declare a default and proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.” Moeller, 25 Cal.App.4th at 830, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 777. There is no stated requirement in California’s non-judicial foreclosure scheme that requires a beneficial interest in the Note to foreclose. Rather, the statute broadly allows a trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or any of their agents to initiate non-judicial foreclosure. Accordingly, the statute does not require a beneficial interest in both the Note and the Deed of Trust to commence a non-judicial foreclosure sale.
8This interpretation is consistent with the rulings of this court, along with many others, that MERS has standing to foreclose as the nominee for the lender and beneficiary of the Deed of Trust and may assign its beneficial interest to another party. See, e.g., Morgera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. Civ. 2:09-01476 MCE GGH, 2010 WL 160348, at *8 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)(collecting cases); Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F.Supp.2d 1177 (N.D.Cal.2009)Castaneda v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc., 687 F.Supp.2d 1191, 1197-98 (E.D.Cal.2009)Benham v. Aurora Loan Servs., No. C-09-2059 SC, 2009 WL 2880232, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 1, 2009)Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 334-35, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 (2008). MERS properly substituted Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. as a Trustee and assigned its beneficial interest to CMI on September 15, 2009. (Oaks Decl. Exs. C, D.)
9Finally, plaintiffs contend that none of the defendants have the authority to foreclose because their loan was packaged and resold in the secondary market, where it was put into a trust pool and securitized. The argument that parties lose their interest in a loan when it is assigned to a trust pool has also been rejected by many district courts. See, e.g., Benham, 2009 WL 2880232, at *3 (“Other courts … have summarily rejected the argument that companies like MERS lose their power of sale pursuant to the deed of trust when the original promissory note is assigned to a trust pool.”); Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 652 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1042-43 (N.D.Cal.2009). Accordingly, the court must grant CMI and MERS’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ wrongful foreclosure claim.
C. Truth in Lending Act Rescission Claim
Plaintiffs’ second cause of action demands for rescission of their loan under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 16011667f. In a consumer credit transaction where the creditor acquires a security interest in the borrower’s principal dwelling, TILA provides the borrower with “a three-day cooling-off period within which [he or she] may, for any reason or for no reason, rescind” the transaction. McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 475 F.3d 418, 421 (1st Cir.2007) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1635). A creditor must “clearly and conspicuously disclose” this right to the borrower along with “appropriate forms for the [borrower] to exercise his right to rescind.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a).
If a creditor fails to provide the borrower with the required notice of the right to rescind, the borrower has three years from the date of consummation to rescind the transaction. Id. § 1635(f)see 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3) ( “If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation.”). “[Section] 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period.” Beach v. *1100 Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998)see also Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2002) (“[S]ection 1635(f) represents an ‘absolute limitation on rescission actions’ which bars any claims filed more than three years after the consummation of the transaction.” (quoting King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir.1986))); Cazares v. Household Fin. Corp., 2005 WL 6418178, at *8, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39222, at *24-25 (C.D.Cal.2005) (concluding that, “[i]f certain Plaintiffs did exercise their rights to rescind[ ] prior to the expiration of the three-year limitation period,” such facts “would only entitle Plaintiffs to damages, not rescission” (citing Belini v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 412 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.2005))). Plaintiffs argue that the Complaint, filed February 9, 2010, acted to rescind the loan. (Docket No. 1.) However, plaintiffs’ loan closed on July 13, 2003, putting their notice of rescission well outside of the three-year limitations period. (FAC Ex. 1.)
10Even if plaintiffs were legally entitled to equitable tolling of their claim, plaintiffs have not alleged any facts in the Complaint that would warrant tolling the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs simply assert that they were unable to discover defendants’ TILA violations until two weeks before the filing of the FAC because defendants “fraudulently concealed those violations ….” (FAC ¶ 34.) This conclusory allegation is insufficient to establish the necessity for equitable tolling under even the pleading standards ofFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, —U.S. —-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2009 WL 3157160, at *4, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87997, at *13-14 (D.Ariz.2009) (holding that equitable tolling was not appropriate when plaintiffs simply alleged that defendants “fraudulently misrepresented and concealed the true facts related to the items subject to disclosure”). Accordingly, the court will grant CMI and MERS’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ TILA claim.
D. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Claim
Plaintiffs’ third claim alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 26012617. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated RESPA in two ways: (1) by failing to respond to plaintiffs’ Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) and (2) “by receiving money and/or other things of value for referrals of settlement service business … including secret kickbacks and yield spread premiums to loan brokers such as Vitek.” (FAC ¶¶ 42-43.) The court will address each allegation in turn.
1. Failure to Respond to QWR
RESPA provides that borrowers must be provided certain disclosures relating to the mortgage loan settlement process. See 12 U.S.C. § 2601Section 2605 of RESPA relates to the disclosures and communications required regarding the servicing of mortgage loans, and provides that loan servicers have a duty to respond to QWRs from borrowers asking for information relating to the servicing of their loan. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Under RESPA lenders of federally related mortgage loans must disclose whether servicing of a loan may be assigned, sold or transferred to loan applicants. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(a). Additionally, borrowers may send QWRs under RESPA to loan servicers for information relating to the servicing of their loan. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1). Loan servicers have sixty days after the receipt of a QWR to respond to the borrower inquiry. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2).
1112Plaintiffs allege that they submitted a QWR and that defendants failed to timely respond. (FAC ¶ 42.) The FAC *1101does not indicate to whom the QWR was sent or when it was sent. Perhaps this is because plaintiffs claim that they “are not certain at this point in time exactly which entity was and is actually the beneficiary, lender, servicer or trustee” of their loan. (Id.) “[U]nder RESPA § 2605, only a loan servicer has a duty to respond to a borrower’s inquiries.” Gonzalez v. First Franklin Loan Servs., No. Civ. 1:09-941 AWI GSA, 2010 WL 144862, at *12 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010). Without alleging that MERS or CMI is a loan servicer under RESPA, plaintiffs cannot show that MERS or CMI owed any duty to respond to plaintiffs’ QWR. Castaneda,687 F.Supp.2d at 1196-97; see Blanco v. Am. Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., No. Civ. 2:09-578 WBS DAD, 2009 WL 4674904, at *6 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 4, 2009). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ RESPA claim is insufficient as currently pled. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
13Plaintiffs’ RESPA claim must also allege actual harm to survive a motion to dismiss. Section 2605(f) imposes liability on servicers that violate RESPA and fail to make the required disclosures. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f). Although this section does not explicitly make a showing of damages part of the pleading standard, “a number of courts have read the statute as requiring a showing of pecuniary damages in order to state a claim.” Allen v. United Fin. Mortgage Corp., 660 F.Supp.2d 1089, 1097 (N.D.Cal.2009). For example, in Hutchinson v. Del. Sav. Bank FSB, the court stated that “alleging a breach of RESPA duties alone does not state a claim under RESPA. Plaintiff must, at a minimum, also allege that the breach resulted in actual damages.”410 F.Supp.2d 374, 383 (D.N.J.2006).
This pleading requirement has the effect of limiting the cause of action to circumstances in which plaintiffs can show that a failure to respond or give notice has caused them actual harm. See Singh v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 09-2771, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73315, *16, 2009 WL 2588885, *5 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 19, 2009) (dismissing RESPA claim because, “[i]n particular, plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts in support of their conclusory allegation that as a result of defendants’ failure to respond, defendants are liable for actual damages, costs, and attorney fees”) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs here have not offered any facts to support an inference that defendants’ failure to respond to their QWR resulted in pecuniary damages. The closest plaintiffs get to alleging any harm is stating that they “have suffered and continues [sic] to suffer compensable damages.” (FAC ¶ 44.) Even under a liberal pleading standard for harm, plaintiffs’ pleading fails.
2. Kickbacks and Illegal Fees
14Plaintiffs’ second allegation relating to kickbacks similarly fails. RESPA § 2607 prohibits any person from giving or accepting “any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding … that business incident to or a part of a real estate service … shall be referred to any person,” 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a), and from accepting any unearned fee in relation to a settlement service, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b). Plaintiffs’ allegations of kickbacks are completely devoid of any factual enhancement whatsoever. Plaintiffs do not explain what these kickbacks were, when they occurred, or which defendants received them. Instead, plaintiffs simply allege the existence of secret kickbacks and lump the actions of defendants together. Defendants should not be forced to guess how they each violated RESPA. See Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F.Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D.Cal.1988). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ kickback claim “stops short of the line between possibility and *1102 plausibility” and must be dismissed.Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
E. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim
15“Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.”Marsu, B.V. v. Walt Disney Co., 185 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342, 371, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 826 P.2d 710 (1992)). “A typical formulation of the burden imposed by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is ‘that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.’ ” Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates, 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 832 (2005) (quoting Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., 9 Cal.3d 566, 573, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032 (1973)). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by “failing and refusing to comply with the foreclosure avoidance provisions of Civil Code § 2923.5 ….” (FAC ¶ 47.)
16The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement.” Agosta v. Astor, 120 Cal.App.4th 596, 607, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 (2004) (internal citation omitted). “Absent [a] contractual right … the implied covenant has nothing upon which to act as a supplement, and should not be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings.” Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal.4th 1, 36, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619 (1995) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs have not articulated how a failure to comply with section 2923.5 frustrated plaintiffs’ rights under the loan contract. The claim is also inadequate because it lumps all defendants together and fails to explain what actions each individual defendant took to violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Gauvin, 682 F.Supp. at 1071. Accordingly, the court must grant CMI and MERS’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.
F. Fraud Claims
1718Plaintiffs’ fifth (fraudulent misrepresentation), sixth (fraudulent concealment), and seventh (civil conspiracy to defraud)1 causes of action are all species of fraud. In California, the essential elements of a claim for fraud are “(a) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” In re Estate of Young, 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 79, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 (2008). Under the heightened pleading requirements for claims of fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The plaintiffs must include the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the fraud. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted); Decker v. GlenFed, Inc., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th Cir.1994). Additionally, “[w]here multiple defendants are asked to respond to allegations of fraud, the complaint must inform each defendant of his alleged participation in the fraud.” Ricon v. Recontrust *1103 Co., No. 09-937, 2009 WL 2407396, at *3 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 4, 2009) (quoting DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., 822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d Cir.1987)).
19Plaintiffs’ fraud allegations do not even come close to surviving a motion to dismiss. First, the FAC’s fraud claims rarely differentiate between defendants. Plaintiffs’ concealment and conspiracy claims, for example, simply allege that “[d]efendants concealed the fact from [p]laintiffs that they had a right to rescind or cancel the loan” (FAC ¶ 57), and that “[d]efendants represented to [p]laintiffs that they were qualified for their mortgage ….” (Id. ¶ 61.) Defendants should not be forced to guess as to how their conduct was allegedly fraudulent. See Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983)Gauvin, 682 F.Supp. at 1071. Plaintiffs’ other fraud allegations fail to specify so much as when the fraudulent statements alleged were made, who specifically made them, and why they were false. Plaintiffs’ conclusory statements come nowhere close to meeting the pleading standard generally required under Rule 8, let alone the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b)See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106.
Additionally, the statute of limitations for fraud claims under California law is three years. Cal.Code Civ. P. § 338(d). As previously discussed, plaintiffs brought this cause of action long after the close of the statute of limitations and have not plead any facts suggesting why they might be entitled to equitable tolling outside of conclusory allegations of fraud. Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ fifth, sixth, and seventh fraud causes of action against CMI and MERS.
G. Quiet Title Claim
202122Plaintiffs cannot sustain a quiet title claim as a matter of law. The purpose of a quiet title action is to establish one’s title against adverse claims to real property. A basic requirement of an action to quiet title is an allegation that plaintiffs “are the rightful owners of the property, i.e., that they have satisfied their obligations under the Deed of Trust.” Kelley v. Mortgage Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D.Cal.2009). “[A] mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured.” Watson v. MTC Fin., Inc., No. Civ. 2:09-01012 JAM KJM, 2009 WL 2151782 (E.D.Cal. Jul. 17, 2009)(quoting Shimpones v. Stickney, 219 Cal. 637, 649, 28 P.2d 673 (1934)). As plaintiffs concede they have not paid the debt secured by the mortgage, they cannot sustain a quiet title action against defendants.
H. California’s Unfair Competition Law Claim
California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 1720017210, prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 973 P.2d 527 (1999). This cause of action is generally derivative of some other illegal conduct or fraud committed by a defendant, and “[a] plaintiff must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 708 (1993).
Plaintiffs’ claim under the UCL is vague and conclusory, simply alleging that “the unlawful acts and practices of [d]efendants alleged herein constitute unlawful business acts and/or practices….” (FAC ¶ 72.) Plaintiffs’ claim lumps all defendants together*1104 and fails to identify any specific act taken by any one of the named defendants. (See FAC ¶¶ 72-76.) Such vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to inform defendants as to their liability. See Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., 459 U.S. at 526, 103 S.Ct. 897; Gauvin, 682 F.Supp. at 1071; see also Lingad v. Indymac Fed. Bank, 682 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1155 (E.D.Cal.2010). Although plaintiffs cite violations of California Civil Code sections 2923.5 and 2924 in their UCL claim, the court has already found that plaintiffs’ section 2923.5 wrongful foreclosure claim is inadequately pled, and plaintiffs have not alleged how defendants purportedly violated section 2924. Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ UCL claim.
I. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
23Plaintiffs’ tenth claim purports to state a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Declaratory and injunctive relief are not independent claims, rather they are forms of relief. See McDowell v. Watson, 59 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1159, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 692 (1997) (“Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself a cause of action ….” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also, Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Karp, 108 F.3d 17, 21 (2d Cir.1997). Because plaintiffs’ other claims have been dismissed and declaratory and injunctive relief are not causes of action in and of themselves, the court must grant MERS and CMI’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action as well.
J. Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Aiding and Abetting Claim
24The elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim are (1) existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach. Roberts v. Lomanto, 112 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1562, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 866 (2003). “The absence of any one of these elements is fatal to the cause of action.” Pierce v. Lyman, 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 (1991). Plaintiffs allege that Vitek owed them a fiduciary duty because it was plaintiffs’ mortgage broker and MERS interfered with the fiduciary obligations of Vitek by aiding and abetting Vitek in violating its fiduciary duty. (FAC ¶¶ 84-86.)
25“Absent special circumstances, a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.” Rangel v. DHI Mortgage Co., Ltd., No. CV F 09-1035 LJO GSA, 2009 WL 2190210, at *3 (E.D.Cal. July 21, 2009) (quoting Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court, 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 561 (2006)). Plaintiffs claim that MERS can be held secondarily liable for the actions of Vitek because it “aided and abetted” Vitek. (FAC ¶ 87.) Even assuming that plaintiffs can establish MERS is liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary claim as a matter of law, plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to suggest what actions MERS took to aid and abet any of Vitek’s alleged violations of its fiduciary duties. Without such facts plaintiffs cannot override the presumption that a lender owes no fiduciary duty to its borrowers. Accordingly, the court must dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
K. Sanctions
If plaintiffs’ attorney could not draft a complaint that contained a single claim upon which relief could be granted, he could have at least complied with Local Rule 230(c) and told the court he had no opposition to the granting of defendants’ motion. Instead, counsel ignored the Local Rule and did nothing in response to the motion to dismiss the Complaint. Counsel’s failure to comply with Local *1105 Rule 230(c) and timely file any response to Vitek and MERS and CMI’s motions to dismiss is inexcusable, and has inconvenienced the court by forcing it to nevertheless examine the motion on the merits.
Local Rule 110 authorizes the court to impose sanctions for “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules.” Therefore, the court will sanction plaintiffs’ counsel, Stephen C. Ruehmann (also identified in the FAC as Mendstephen C. Ruehmann) $250.00 payable to the Clerk of the Court within ten days from the date of this Order, unless he shows good cause for his failure to comply with the Local Rules.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that MERS and CMI’s motion to dismiss those claims that apply to MERS and CMI be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Vitek’s motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten days of this Order Stephen C. Ruehmann shall either (1) pay sanctions of $250.00 to the Clerk of the Court, or (2) submit a statement of good cause explaining his failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c).
Plaintiffs have twenty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint, if they can do so consistent with this Order.

Footnotes

“Civil conspiracy to defraud” is not a separate tort. Conspiracy only serves as a theory of liability for claims of fraud.See Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503, 511, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 869 P.2d 454 (1994).
End of Document © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
End of Document © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.