Masks hurt you and don’t stop viruses
Read my http://www.Virus-Lies.com and http://www.Stop5gNow.com for more
and check out the links to actual facts, to dispel the BS from Fake News
—————————————————–
Mask Fatigue Hits America: Workers Cite Headaches, Anxiety
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/01/mask-fatigue-hits-america-workers-cite-headaches-anxiety/
“Some people who are forced to wear face masks all day in the workplace complain of headaches, shortness of breath and anxiety,” CBS DFW reported
Mask Fatigue: Some North Texas Workers Claim Headaches, Shortness Of Breath And Anxiety

Mask Fatigue: Some North Texas Workers Claim Headaches, Shortness Of Breath And Anxiety

8-FACTS

Nearly three months of wearing a face mask everyday has taken a toll on the women who work at Southern Sisters Salon in McKinney.
Like a lot of workplaces in North Texas, masks are mandatory, but for some of those forced to wear them, they are miserable.
“When I have long days, if it’s a 12 hour day, I’m sick when I get home,” said Courtney Warnell. “Sick to my stomach.
People working not only in salons but also, retailers, restaurants, factories and offices are struggling with mask fatigue,
but there’s no end in sight regarding the order to keep them on.
————————————————————–
COVID-19: Continuous Wearing of Mask Aggravates Risk of Infection. “Psychological Terrorism”?

COVID-19: Continuous Wearing of Mask Aggravates Risk of Infection. “Psychological Terrorism”?


The air, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2. It becomes
a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses).
Studies have shown that the porosity (microscopic holes) of the masks allows exhaled
germs to accumulate on the external surface of the mask. Not only do we re-inhale our
own CO2, but by touching our mask all the time (an inevitable gesture), we spread germs everywhere!
Forcing everyone to wear them all the time, while the epidemic is in a process of decline, is a scientific and medical aberration!
—————————————————————-
Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy
studies, which all show that masks do not prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses
——————————————————————-
The Science is Conclusive: Masks do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses
https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses?fbclid=IwAR1evotaD8SD7OJHJ5vvtoZrm5gGnPYJeLyGX_TNdK0WgjB1FwLWKikeOeg
The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked.
The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional
propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or
select only incomplete science that serves their interests.
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A
systematic review", Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658
None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask,
in either HCW or community members in households
(H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of
influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence", Influenza and Other
Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.
"There were 17 eligible studies. […]
None of the studies established a conclusive relationship
between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection."
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in
protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review
and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
"We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no
significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a)
laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported workplace absenteeism."
Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) "Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory
Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", Clinical
Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942,
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681

WOW! Dr. Fauci Cheered Hydroxychloroquine Success Treating MERS Coronavirus in 2013… But Today He’s Skeptical… That’s Weird?
By Jim Hoft
Published April 4, 2020 at 5:06pm
397 Comments

WOW! Dr. Fauci Cheered Hydroxychloroquine Success Treating MERS Coronavirus in 2013… But Today He’s Skeptical… That’s Weird?

Video of Dr. Fauci in 2009 is Unearthed – Shows a Calm and Unalarmed NIH Chief During H1N1 Epidemic that Killed Over 12 Thousand Americans
By Jim Hoft
Published March 22, 2020 at 7:50pm
443 Comments

Video of Dr. Fauci in 2009 is Unearthed – Shows a Calm and Unalarmed NIH Chief During H1N1 Epidemic that Killed Over 12 Thousand Americans

BRYAN FISCHERFauci knew about HCQ in 2005 — nobody needed to dieMonday, April 27, 2020 | Bryan Fischer – Guest Columnist
http://on.fb.me/1pFPvvd
Facebook143KTwitterEmailMore18.3K
Bryan FischerDr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.
https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/04/27/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die

How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.

The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”

Dr. Anthony FauciThis means, of course, that Dr. Fauci (pictured at right) has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”). So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Said Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005, “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”

Dr. Didier Raoult, the Anthony Fauci of France, had such spectacular success using HCQ to treat victims of SARS-CoV-2 that he said way back on February 25 that “it’s game over” for coronavirus.

He and a team of researchers reported that the use of HCQ administered with both azithromycin and zinc cured 79 of 80 patients with only “rare and minor” adverse events. “In conclusion,” these researchers write, “we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness.”

The highly-publicized VA study that purported to show HCQ was ineffective showed nothing of the sort. HCQ wasn’t administered until the patients were virtually on their deathbeds when research indicates it should be prescribed as soon as symptoms are apparent. Plus, HCQ was administered without azithromycin and zinc, which form the cocktail that makes it supremely effective. At-risk individuals need to receive the HCQ cocktail at the first sign of symptoms.

But Governor Andrew Cuomo banned the use of HCQ in the entire state of New York on March 6, the Democrat governors of Nevada and Michigan soon followed suit, and by March 28 the whole country was under incarceration-in-place fatwas.

Nothing happened with regard to the use of HCQ in the U.S. until March 20, when President Trump put his foot down and insisted that the FDA consider authorizing HCQ for off-label use to treat SARS-CoV-2.

On March 23, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko reported that he had treated around 500 coronavirus patients with HCQ and had seen an astonishing 100% success rate. That’s not the “anecdotal” evidence Dr. Fauci sneers at, but actual results with real patients in clinical settings.

“Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen. Of this group and the information provided to me by affiliated medical teams, we have had ZERO deaths, ZERO hospitalizations, and ZERO intubations. In addition, I have not heard of any negative side effects other than approximately 10% of patients with temporary nausea and diarrhea.”

Said Dr. Zelenko:

"If you scale this nationally, the economy will rebound much quicker. The country will open again. And let me tell you a very important point. This treatment costs about $20. That’s very important because you can scale that nationally. If every treatment costs $20,000, that’s not so good.

All I’m doing is repurposing old, available drugs which we know their safety profiles, and using them in a unique combination in an outpatient setting."

The questions are disturbing to a spectacular degree. If Dr. Fauci has known since 2005 of the effectiveness of HCQ, why hasn’t it been administered immediately after people show symptoms, as Dr. Zelenko has done? Maybe then nobody would have died and nobody would have been incarcerated in place except the sick, which is who a quarantine is for in the first place. To paraphrase Jesus, it’s not the symptom-free who need HCQ but the sick. And they need it at the first sign of symptoms.

While the regressive health care establishment wants the HCQ cocktail to only be administered late in the course of the infection, from a medical standpoint, this is stupid. Said one doctor, “As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.”

So why has Dr. Fauci minimized and dismissed HCQ at every turn instead of pushing this thing from jump street? He didn’t even launch clinical trials of HCQ until April 9, by which time 33,000 people had died.

This may be why: “Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases…is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV.” That’s the problem. It is safe, inexpensive, and it works – in other words, there’s nothing sexy or avant-garde about HCQ. It’s been around since 1934.

Given human nature, it’s possible, even likely, that those who are chasing the unicorn of a coronavirus vaccine are doing so for reasons other than human health. I can’t see into anybody’s heart, and can’t presume to know their motives, but on the other hand, human nature recognizes that there’s no glory in pushing HCQ, and nobody is going to get anything named for him in the history books. The polio vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in 1954, and it is still known as the “Salk vaccine.” There will be no “Fauci vaccine” if HCQ is the answer to the problem.

So while Dr. Fauci is tut-tutting and pooh-poohing HCQ, Dr. Raoult and Dr. Zelensky are out there saving lives at $20 a pop. Maybe we should spend more time listening to them than the wizards-of-smart bureaucrats the Talking Snake Media fawns over.

Dr. Fauci is regarded by the Talking Snake Media as the Oracle at Delphi. The entire nation hangs on his every word. But if nobody is dying and nobody is locked down, his 15 minutes of fame fades to zero. Very few people are not going to be influenced by that prospect, especially when it’s easy to keep the attention of the public by continuing to feed the panic.

It should not be overlooked that there is no money in HCQ for Big Pharma since HCQ is a generic that can be manufactured so cheaply there is little profit margin in it. On the other hand, the payday for a vaccine will literally be off-the-charts. Who knows what kind of behind-the-scenes pressure is being put on Fauci and others in the health care establishment?

There is a monstrous reputational risk for those who will be found to have dismissively waved off a treatment that could have been used from the very beginning, even back on February 15 when Dr. Fauci said that the risk from Coronavirus was “minuscule.” How many lives could have been saved if the heads of our multi-billion dollar health care bureaucracy had been advocating for HCQ treatment from day one? We’ll never know. Instead, their advice has been dangerous and deadly in every sense of that word.

Someday – maybe even today – we will be able to identify the individuals who had the knowledge and expertise to make a global difference, but turned up their noses at the solution when it could have made all the difference in the world.

Bryan Fischer hosts "Focal Point with Bryan Fischer" every weekday on AFR Talk (American Family Radio) from 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. (Central). He is author of The Boy to Man Book: Preparing Your Son for Manhood.

This column first appeared on The Stand, the official blog site for American Family Association.

This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Dr. Fauci APPROVED Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago To Combat Coronaviruses; Trump Must Investigate!
by Doyle Alexander 3 months ago

Dr. Fauci APPROVED Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago To Combat Coronaviruses; Trump Must Investigate!

Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.

How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.

The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”

Dr. Anthony FauciThis means, of course, that Dr. Fauci (pictured at right) has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”). So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Said Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005, “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”

Dr. Didier Raoult, the Anthony Fauci of France, had such spectacular success using HCQ to treat victims of SARS-CoV-2 that he said way back on February 25 that “it’s game over” for coronavirus.

He and a team of researchers reported that the use of HCQ administered with both azithromycin and zinc cured 79 of 80 patients with only “rare and minor” adverse events. “In conclusion,” these researchers write, “we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness.”

The highly-publicized VA study that purported to show HCQ was ineffective showed nothing of the sort. HCQ wasn’t administered until the patients were virtually on their deathbeds when research indicates it should be prescribed as soon as symptoms are apparent. Plus, HCQ was administered without azithromycin and zinc, which form the cocktail that makes it supremely effective. At-risk individuals need to receive the HCQ cocktail at the first sign of symptoms.

But Governor Andrew Cuomo banned the use of HCQ in the entire state of New York on March 6, the Democrat governors of Nevada and Michigan soon followed suit, and by March 28 the whole country was under incarceration-in-place fatwas.

Nothing happened with regard to the use of HCQ in the U.S. until March 20, when President Trump put his foot down and insisted that the FDA consider authorizing HCQ for off-label use to treat SARS-CoV-2.

On March 23, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko reported that he had treated around 500 coronavirus patients with HCQ and had seen an astonishing 100% success rate. That’s not the “anecdotal” evidence Dr. Fauci sneers at, but actual results with real patients in clinical settings.

“Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen. Of this group and the information provided to me by affiliated medical teams, we have had ZERO deaths, ZERO hospitalizations, and ZERO intubations. In addition, I have not heard of any negative side effects other than approximately 10% of patients with temporary nausea and diarrhea.”

Said Dr. Zelenko:

“If you scale this nationally, the economy will rebound much quicker. The country will open again. And let me tell you a very important point. This treatment costs about $20. That’s very important because you can scale that nationally. If every treatment costs $20,000, that’s not so good.

All I’m doing is repurposing old, available drugs which we know their safety profiles, and using them in a unique combination in an outpatient setting.”

The questions are disturbing to a spectacular degree. If Dr. Fauci has known since 2005 of the effectiveness of HCQ, why hasn’t it been administered immediately after people show symptoms, as Dr. Zelenko has done? Maybe then nobody would have died and nobody would have been incarcerated in place except the sick, which is who a quarantine is for in the first place. To paraphrase Jesus, it’s not the symptom-free who need HCQ but the sick. And they need it at the first sign of symptoms.

While the regressive health care establishment wants the HCQ cocktail to only be administered late in the course of the infection, from a medical standpoint, this is stupid. Said one doctor, “As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.”

So why has Dr. Fauci minimized and dismissed HCQ at every turn instead of pushing this thing from jump street? He didn’t even launch clinical trials of HCQ until April 9, by which time 33,000 people had died. READ MORE:

————————————————————-
(inflated) Hospitals count ALL DEATHS as COVID, because they get more money:
CDC director acknowledges hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cdc-director-acknowledges-hospitals-have-a-monetary-incentive-to-overcount-coronavirus-deaths
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/08/02/cdc-director-admits-hospitals-medical-folks-have-perverse-incentive-to-falsely-count-covid-deaths-954633
——————————————————————–
COVID_Keep_in_Mind_98_per_cent_survival

The Great COVID-Con: Exposing Journalistic Malpractice
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/great-covid-con-exposing-journalistic-malpractice
On July 5th of this year – following weeks of steady decline – the United States recorded
263 deaths from COVID-19. This was the lowest daily toll in nearly three and half months.
The July 5th figure represented a 90 percent drop from the peak which
occurred April 21st. On that day there were 2748 deaths from COVID-19
(see worldometers.info for data).
But Fake News did not report the drop!
—————————————
Doctors Supressed and fired for telling the truth

Emergency Room Dr. Simone Gold Fired from Hospital After Attending White Coat Summit — Says She Has Hired Lin Wood to Represent Her (VIDEO)


Frontline doctors from across the US held a “White Coat Summit” on Monday in Washington DC to dispel the misinformation and myths surrounding the coronavirus.
The doctors are very concerned with the disinformation campaign being played out in the far left American media today.
From their website: “If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions,
the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease.” Facebook removed their videos.
On Thursday night Dr. Gold told Tucker Carlson that she was fired from her position after 20 years as an emergency room physician because she appeared at the White Coat Summit this week.
22

Dutch have no plans to recommend face masks, health minister says

Dutch have no plans to recommend face masks, health minister says


——————————————————————–
Sweden had no Lockdown, but now has HERD IMMUNITY after low numbers of deaths:

Sweden’s No-Lockdown COVID Numbers are Even Better Than They Look


Sweden’s numbers, their COVID fatalities were almost entirely restricted to the elderly.
88% were over 70 and
75% were in nursing homes or elder care.
Only 4.5% of fatalities were under 60.
Sweden had less than 500 reported COVID fatalities under 70, just 12% of the total.
A recent report from the British government estimates that in just a single year lockdowns
may cause 200,000 deaths from depriving people of medical care for ailments other than COVID-19 alone.
Britain has around 6 times Sweden’s population. But even dividing the British number by 20 gives you 10,000 deaths.
That’s 20 times those 500 people under the age of 70 that Sweden reported as succumbing
to COVID-19 and almost twice their total for all ages.
———————————————————————
‘Masks are muzzles’: Protests of Masks in London and Berlin
https://www.rt.com/uk/496879-london-mask-protest-bbc-downing-street/
1

https://www.rt.com/news/496852-berlin-protest-coronavirus-masks-germany/

Protests of Masks in Berlin – Around 15,000 protesters

23

bill_collage

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook BAN the Truth they don’t like
When doctors tell the truth about Covid-19 and good treatments, they are banned.
HydroxyChloroQuine (HCQ) with Zinc and Antibiotic works, but they want to promote Vaccines by Bill Gates instead.
Lancet and others promoted bogus studies with extremely high doses of HCQ (& without Zinc) that killed, then retracted the bogus studies.

LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir

How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created, and More

Yale Epidemiologist: Hydroxychloroquine Could Save 100,000 Lives If Widely Deployed


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hydroxychloroquine-one-chart-you-need-see
https://www.newsmax.com/us/trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-treatment/2020/07/03/id/975623/?oRef=mixi

But doctors (on the ER front line) that tell how well HCQ works are banned:
Banned: US Frontline Doctors Hold Presser in Washington DC to
Dispel Misinformation on COVID-19 – Including Attacks on Life-Saving HCQ Treatments

UPDATE: Facebook Deletes the Video! – US Frontline Doctors Hold Presser in Washington DC to Dispel Misinformation on COVID-19 – Including Attacks on Life-Saving HCQ Treatments

2

Watch their press conference on BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/video/HeC0tHZDX7dk/
Biden and Libtard Fake News lie to say HCQ doesn’t work
———————————————————————————————–
INSANE MURDER GOING ON IN NYC HOSPITALS RN DISCLOSES GO VIRAL MIRRORED
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kyybAOWDfcxO/
————————————————————————————–
Dr.-Anthony-Fauci-400x267

– whereas HCQ is one of the best treatments that actually cures when used before all the blood has clotted in the lungs.

1

constitution-home-cropped

Notice (above) how Twitter deletes many of Trump’s Tweets that they don’t like.
Twitter Locks Trump Jr Account For Posting
Press Conference By Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Doctors

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-suspends-trump-jr-posting-press-conference-pro-hydroxychloroquine-doctors

—————————————————————
3

———————————————————————————
Watch Videos of “DR BUTTAR UPDATE ON COVID-1” (on bitchute – banned elsewhere)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JACbggJvbVtH/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dMzRi6sUyy9L/
DR. RASHID BUTTAR STATEMENT – CORONA VIRUS IS A HOAX
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1oRwx4QxDFgj/
DR BUTTAR ACCUSES FAUCI, GATES & THE MEDIA FOR USING COVID-19 TO DRIVE HIDDEN AGENDA
https://www.bitchute.com/video/D4sEdWQME7wM/
————————————————————————————-
PLANDEMIC DOCUMENTARY: THE HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND COVID-19
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IB3ijQuLkkUr/
—————————————————————————————
CENSORED DOC DOUBLES DOWN – Dr Daniel erickson
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Qr2SNhpW0SAB/
—————————————————————————————–
WHY FACE MASKS DON’T WORK, ACCORDING TO SCIENCE
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LIE8tYCpI4A4/
——————————————————————————————-

download

Masks no longer required by Walmart, Home Depot, etc
https://www.theblaze.com/news/walmart-home-depot-mask-policy-stores
COVID-19 Is Fizzling Across Nation, Recent Cases Are Less Serious and
Deaths Are Diminishing
But Democrats Want to Completely Shut Down the Country – Why is That?

COVID-19 Is Fizzling Across Nation, Recent Cases Are Less Serious and Deaths Are Diminishing But Democrats Want to Completely Shut Down the Country – Why is That?

15

——————————————————————————-
5g-400x254

Academic Paper Claims Link Between 5G, Coronavirus
(later withdrawn after coercion)
zerohedge.com/news/2020-07-25/academic-paper-claims-link-between-5g-coronavirus
The conspiracy theory that 5G technology causes the coronavirus is rearing its ugly head
again. This time the theory comes in a more official form as an academic paper suggests a
link between 5G and the coronavirus.
Here’s what the paper claims about 5G and coronavirus
The abstract of the paper in question starts by saying that “5G millimeter waves could be
absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the
main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells.”
————————————————————————————-
Can 5G cause flu-like symptoms and can it be used to activate the Coronavirus?
5G PROPAGATES INTO YOUR MOUTH AND NOSTRILS, DOWN YOUR THROAT AND INTO YOUR LUNGS.
IT WILL ALSO PROPAGATE DOWN YOUR EAR CANALS AND EXCITE YOUR INNER EAR, THE NERVES AND THAT ENTIRE REGION OF YOUR BRAIN THAT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO YOUR INNER EAR.
Radiofrequency/Microwave/Millimeter-Wave Engineer Explains Hard Science Behind the Propagation of 5G into the Human Body
Compare these Microwave Bands: 28 GHz (5G in China, Europe, Verizon), 39 GHz (AT&T 5G), 90 GHz (Crowd Control machine that makes skin feel like it’s on fire).
—————————————————————————————–
California Firemen test 5G and get sick ‐ forbid 5G near firestations
Firefighters Suffer Brain Damage Following Contact With 5G Cell Towers (Link)
Concerns about cell towers – 5G and otherwise – and other sources of WiFi radiation has been reported quite a bit already – especially over the last few months.
In 2017, 180 scientists requested a moratorium on 5G small cell towers because of biological and environmental health risks.(Link)
———————————————————————————————
Fake News Hype changed from 1.7 million deaths to 100,000
On March 15, 2020 Dr Anthony Fauci told Jon Karl on ABC that the US could expect up to 1.7 million coronavirus deaths.
On March 29, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci suddenly downgraded his worst case scenario to 100,000 US coronavirus deaths.(Link)
Deaths from ARDS not COVID-19?
According to Dr. Kyle Sidell, this is an “Oxygen Deprivation Disease” dissimilar from Pneumonia. ARDS Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Link with details)
Past Hypes Failed: Ebola, SARS, Swine Flu

Watch the Movie PlanDemic (taken down everywhere else)
Watch the Interview with Dr Kaufman
THE CREATION OF A FALSE EPIDEMIC BY JON RAPPOPORT
Watch “Vaxxed” (Robert Kennedy’s expose of Vaccines)

6

ALL is FAKE NEWS HYPE ON COVID19:
Read more at my http://www.Virus-Lies.com
So what??? if more tests show more positives among People without symptoms = so what??
Only 20% of people in hospitals are there for Covid19 – 80% with no Covid19
https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/06/stanford-scott-atlas-coronavirus-texas-hospitalizations/
What Spike? Hospitalization Data Show No Indication Of A Second Wave
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/what-spike-hospitalization-data-show-no-indication-second-wave
Deaths are NOT from Covid19, but from bacteria that coagulates blood around lung alveoli.
Ventilators kill by ruining lung tissue by trying to push oxygen into coagulated blood.
Media Hype Fake News denigrates the 1 drug combo that stops the coagulation of blood – HydroxyChloroQuine with Zinc and an Antibiotic.
Media hypes Vaccines and Antivirals for early treatment, when unnecessary because 90% show no symptoms and just get immune.
Gilead Rendesivir will cost $3,000 per treatment for everyone, whereas HydroxyChloroQuine costs $1 per pill and not needed for 90% of people.

STUNNING: Fauci’s Remdesivir Costs $9 Per Dose, Will Be Sold at $3,000 per Treatment — China Company Linked to Soros Will Also Mass Produce the Drug


Masks KILL – Masks make you rebreathe CO2, Germs and moisture to weaken your lungs and bronchials so respiratory infection can happen.

Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don’t Protect You

Warning About the Danger of Masks!

Yoda: Masks are Hazardous to Your Health


Lockdowns make people unemployed (and not everybody can get unemployment insurance), so many people will die of starvation.
29-Times More People Will Die Of Lockdown Measures Than From The Covid-19 Coronavirus Itself
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/29-times-more-people-will-die-of-lockdown-measures-than-from-the-covid-19-coronavirus-itself/
Libtard Demo-rats want to ruin the economy and cause mass starvation just to stop Trump in November – they even said so in advance.

For a summary of more articles discussing many aspects of this,
Read https://www.globalresearch.ca/selected-articles-flawed-covid-19-data-lockdown-global-impacts/5718183
COVID-19 Could Kill More People Through Hunger than the Disease Itself, Warns Oxfam
The “Second Wave”: Politics Influences the “Science” of COVID-19. Flawed Data, Flawed Models
120 Covid-19 Vaccine Projects are Underway
Coronavirus: Why Everyone Was Wrong. It is Not a “New Virus”. “The Fairy Tale of No Immunity”
The National Institute of Health (NIH) Owns Half of Moderna Vaccine: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Impacts of the Draconian Lockdowns: 1.1 Billion People At Risk of Starvation. Dr. John Ioannidis

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation

Robert-Kennedy-Jr-400x266

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation
By Peter Koenig
Global Research, July 11, 2020
Region: USA

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation

First published by GR on April 18, 2020

**

For over twenty years Bill Gates and his Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have been vaccinating foremost children by the millions in remote areas of poor countries, mostly Africa and Asia. Most of their vaccination program had disastrous results, causing the very illness (polio, for example in India) and sterilizing young women (Kenya, with modified tetanus vaccines). Many of the children died. Many of the programs were carried out with the backing of the WHO and – yes – the UN Agency responsible for the Protection of Children, UNICEF.

Most of these vaccination campaigns were implemented without the informed-consent of the children, parents, guardians or teachers, nor with the informed-consent, or with forged consent, of the respective government authorities. In the aftermath, The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more.

Bill Gates has a strange image of himself. He sees himself as The Messiah who saves the world through vaccination – and through population reduction.

Around the time, when the 2010 Rockefeller Report was issued, with its even more infamous “Lock Step” Scenario, precisely the scenario of which we are living the beginning right now, Bill Gates talked on a TED show in California, “Innovating to Zero” about the use of energy.

He used this TED presentation to promote his vaccination programs, literally saying, “If we are doing a real good job vaccinating childen, we can reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”.


(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I) .

This sounds very much like eugenics.

The video, the first 6’45”, “The Truth about Bill Gates and his Disastrous Vaccination Program”, will tell you all about it.

Read also Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: a Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination by Robert F Kennedy Jr

Robert F Kennedy Jr, an avid Defender of Children’s Rights and anti-vaccination activist, has launched a petition sent to the White House, calling for “Investigations into the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ for Medical Malpractice & Crimes Against Humanity“
Coronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It

“At the forefront of this is Bill Gates, who has publicly stated his interest in “reducing population growth” by 10-15%, by means of vaccination. Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines”. (Excerpt from text of Petition)

Link to the Petition.

If you wish to Sign the Petition click Here

(At the time of writing, the petition had over 265,000. It requires 100,000 for an answer from the White House)

See also brief video featuring Author Bill Still ( 6 min) entitled The Truth about Bill Gates and his disastrous Vaccination Programs around the World

Robert. F. Kennedy Exposes Bill Gates’ Vaccination Agenda

Now Mr. Gates and his allies, including Big-Pharma, WHO, UNICEF, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID / NIH, a close ally of Mr. Gates – and of course, Agenda ID2020, are proposing to (force) vaccinate 7 billion people around the globe, with their concoction of a (so far) untested coronavirus vaccine. This is a multi-billion dollar bonanza for Big Pharma and for all those who support the vaccine. Nobody will really know what the vaccine cocktail will contain. They intend to start with the Global South (Developing Countries) and then gradually move North (Developed Countries).

Mind you, there is no need for a vaccine to cure the corona virus. There are many cures:

French Professor Didier Raoult, who is one of the world’s top 5 scientists on communicable diseases, suggested the use of hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine or Plaquenil), a well-known, simple, and inexpensive drug, also used to fight Malaria, and that has shown efficacy with previous coronaviruses such as SARS. By mid-February 2020, clinical trials at his institute and in China already confirmed that the drug could reduce the viral load and bring spectacular improvement. Chinese scientists published their first trials on more than 100 patients and announced that the Chinese National Health Commission would recommend Chloroquine in their new guidelines to treat Covid-19. (Peter Koenig, April 1, 2020)

Be aware, awake, alert and warned.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research
Related Articles
Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination
Jul 16, 2020

Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination

2009 H1N1 Vaccine Caused Brain Damage in Children. Dr. Anthony Fauci on “Vaccine Safety” Issues
Jul 14, 2020

2009 H1N1 Vaccine Caused Brain Damage in Children. Dr. Anthony Fauci on “Vaccine Safety” Issues

Forced Vaccination Plan Unveiled
Jul 9, 2020

Forced Vaccination Plan Unveiled

The National Institute of Health (NIH) Owns Half of Moderna Vaccine: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Jul 7, 2020

120 Covid-19 Vaccine Projects are Underway


120 Covid-19 Vaccine Projects are Underway
Jul 7, 2020

2022: A Vaccination Passport. The EU Keeps Quiet Over Suspicious Documents
Jun 30, 2020

2022: A Vaccination Passport. The EU Keeps Quiet Over Suspicious Documents

Not Advice, Fact

legal15

Too, whenever you file a case, you need to do everything, as if you plan to appeal. Every case goes to appeal, unless it is so shitty a case that it don’t warrant an appeal. Everything you do in your case should prepare for an easy appeal, you have to be diligent, as if you are the one being sued, and you have to do plenty of discovery if you want anything from the opposing party, and the most important thing, is you have to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Court’s Rules and all Orders.
If any of the above things have not been followed to a “t” then you have made it hard for yourself, and will most likely loose the case. If you have planned to appeal, which should always be done, then it will be easier and less costly to appeal.

Damn, that’s good, I am going to post.

29f1d974578c240cfb0796b6b0f3da48449903f1

Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is an “Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery” 07/30/2015

AP-120526123936
Former US President Jimmy Carter speaks with the Associated Press following a press conference which outlined the initial assessments of the Carter Center’s election observation mission in Cairo, Egypt on Saturday, May 26, 2012. The Carter Center, which former President Carter founded, monitors elections world wide and deployed 102 observers to Egypt to monitor the Presidential elections that took place on the 23rd and 24th of May. While he expressed satisfaction with the overall order and peacefulness of the elections, he also cited concerns over restrictions placed on the delegation by the Egyptian authorities. (AP Photo/Pete Muller)
Photo: Pete Muller/AP

Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is an “Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery”
Jon Schwarz
July 30 2015, 7:09 p.m.
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/

Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show the Thom Hartmann Program that the United States is now an “oligarchy” in which “unlimited political bribery” has created “a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.” Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, “look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.”

Carter was responding to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign financing like Citizens United.

Transcript:

HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

I’ve added Carter’s statement to this list of politicians acknowledging that money controls politics. Please let me know if you have other good examples.

(Thanks to Sam Sacks for pointing this out.)

CrowdstrikeGate: A Massive Deep State Scandal That Will Collapse the Democrat Party

maxresdefault-1024x576

https://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2019/10/crowdstrikegate-a-massive-deep-state-scandal-that-will-collapse-the-democrat-party-3491102.html
Friday, October 18, 2019 11:58
Profile image
0000000000019358
By John Rolls (Reporter)

“The impeachment hoax
was initiated because of
Trump’s determination
to fully expose
CROWDSTRIKEgate.
That radioactive scandal
perpetrated by CrowdStrike
and the DNC leadership
is so dangerous to the
Democrat Party they
desperately started the
impeachment inquiry.
Now Trump really wants
that epic fraud investigated
because his presidency
depends upon it.”
— Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Military Officer
State of the Nation

Truly, it doesn’t get anymore explosive than CROWDSTRIKEgate!

CONFIRMED: DNC paid the ‘Russian’ founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!
What, pray tell, could be more radioactive than the fact that CrowdStrike was specifically hired by the Democrat National Committee to plant fake evidence on the DNC servers. The cyber-perps deceitfully used Russian digital signatures in order to falsely blame Russia for the election hack that never even occurred … except that it did and it was actually conducted by CrowdStrike.

Screen-Shot-2019-10-17-at-6-31-00-AM

Wow … what a tangled web, indeed … and incredibly reckless scandal ! ! !

How did Deep State ever think they could get away with such a conspiratorial hoax?

Especially with President Trump using his Twitter account to expose the entire CIA-directed black operation?

“Fancy Bear”
____________________________________________________________________________
Why Crowdstrike’s Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart – Say Hello to Fancy Bear
____________________________________________________________________________
This is exactly why they named the CrowdStrike-implemented psyop “Fancy Bear”.

The real perps behind the non-existent Russian hack wanted the American people to believe that CrowdStrike was a Russian bear-killing cybersecurity firm, which they aren’t.

Let’s be clear, the single best way for Trump to completely exonerate himself of even the slightest appearance of ‘Russian collusion’ is to prove that the Democrats falsified the evidence in the first place, WHICH THEY DID.

Why else would the DNC continually refuse to hand over their severs to the FBI so that the necessary forensic analysis could be conducted?!?!

Why else would the CEO of CrowdStrike — Dmitri Alperovitch — the “Russian-born American computer security industry executive … and co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike” name his bogus hacker-hunting operation “Fancy Bear” except to implicate the Kremlin for a hack that CrowdStrike pulled off?

bear-hunting-history-and-attribution-of-russian-intelligence-opeBear Hunting: History and Attribution of Russian Intelligence Operations

Source – “Bear Hunting: History and Attribution of Russian Intelligence Operations” posted by CrowdStrike at slideshare.net
——————————-

CROWDSTRIKEgate
Yes, the back story to this unparalleled Democrat scandal is long and complicated, convoluted and full of intrigue. The following exposé breaks it all down in a way that every voter ought to understand before November 3, 2020.
______________________________________________________________________________
DNC Russian Hackers Found!
______________________________________________________________________________
Let’s face it: the Democrats will do anything to overturn the 2016 election result. These serial traitors to the Republic are so overwhelmed by Trump derangement syndrome that they will use any means required to take down Trump.

Well, CROWDSTRIKEgate shows just how far these hopelessly crazy communists will go.

When even a casual observer takes a closer look at all the evidence — scientific, circumstantial and anecdotal — it’s clear that the Democrats contrived an extraordinarily absurd and fictitious story to launch this scandal. In other words, “Fancy Bear” is really “Fanciful Bear”.

Whereas Dimity Alperovitch is really Russian by birth and ancestry, he was employed by the C.I.A and NSA to carry out espionage and counterespionage operations similar to their Russian hack op. And, here’s the indisputable timeline that proves it:
Fancy Frauds, Bogus Bears & Malware Mimicry?

IMPEACHMENTgate
Which brings us to the true reasons behind IMPEACHMENTgate. See IMPEACHMENTgate: The Scandal Is Much Worse & Plot Much Thicker Than Anyone Knows

The Democrats know that Trump is not only on to them, he’s on a mission to expose the entire treasonous scandal.

What that really means is that it’s all-out war between Team Trump and Deep State.

See:
Deep State Attempts Yet Another Coup in Broad Daylight, Evidence Proves Treason and a Complex Criminal Conspiracy

This is it folks. The final battle in American politics is being played out between now and Election Day 2020.

What’s at stake is EVERYTHING … for both sides of the political aisle. It’s a winner take all proposition.

Try THIS on Your Car and You’ll Never Need to Wax it Again! (See Video)
That’s why the Democrats concocted out of thin air the patently false allegations that were used to trigger the impeachment inquiry.

That’s why the fake UKRAINEgate was immediately blown up by the CIA’s Mockingbird Media and has not relented despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever. As follows:

UKRAINEgate: CIA black op, Deep State psyop, Democrat coup, MSM distraction, Israeli espionage, Trump sting, or all 6?

Not only that, but seditious co-conspirators Pelosi and Schiff have even refused to present the so-called CIA ‘whistleblower’ whose ridiculous report was obviously fabricated to trigger the impeachment process.

See:
SOFT COUP IN PROGRESS: Deep State Democrats Staged Fake ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint to Orchestrate Impeachment Hoax
________________________________________________________________________________

KEY POINT: As always, there’s a much deeper and broader back story to CROWDSTRIKEgate. This particular video accurately connects so many dots it boggles the mind:
Super-sleuth drops more radioactive intel in 22 minutes than the entire Alt Media does in a month!
________________________________________________________________________________

5970-F7-B4-A58-A-45-C9-83-AC-6513718-B3-D81

Take a close look at this CrowdStrike piece taken from their website. Notice the heavy anti-Russian meming as well as the crucial dates. Everything points to a joint CIA-Madison Ave venture to further smear Russia.

Conclusion
Both Deep State and the entire Democrat Party are in extreme desperation mode.

Yes, they are facing the multifarious consequences associated with:
UKRAINEgate
BIDENgate
IMPEACHMENTgate
WHISTLEBLOWERgate,
but it’s really
CROWDSTRIKEgate
that has the highly explosive potential to destroy the thoroughly corrupt and criminal Democrat Party forever.

The stark reality is that, once the CrowdStrike crime wave is disclosed to the American people, the Democrats are history—FOR REAL!

This is precisely why Deep State has put the craziest of all the crazies — Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer, Newsom, DeBlasio, etc. in charge of their insane asylum at this pivotal point during their historic crash and burn. These bad actors (very bad by the looks of Shifty Schiff in every interview) were specifically chosen because of how profoundly compromised each of them is.

Try This Egyptian Copper Secret! You’ll Never Believe What It Does Until You See the Blood Video!
Just how compromised?

This compromised:
PEDOGATE: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened for Deep State and the C.I.A.

Let’s also take a much closer look at Nasty Nancy’s well-hidden history here: COUP-IN-PROGRESS: Pelosi, the Mafia and the Black Nobility.

Bottom Line: This rapidly intensifying 3rd Millennium “War of the Titans” is gonna get hot—hotter, in fact, than either the Civil War or American Revolution.

Therefore, the best thing the Patriot Movement can do is to disseminate this incriminating information so that the body politic is totally saturated with it. The more folks who are informed, the greater the likelihood that the collective consciousness will expand sufficiently to prevent a national cataclysm. Wide circulation of this critical material can de-escalate this decisive conflict as much as anything.

A LOT of prayer for the protection and focused intention for the continuity of the American Republic would greatly help as well.

State of the Nation
October 17, 2019

CROWDSTRIKEgate: A Massive Deep State Scandal that Will Collapse the Democrat Party

5970-F7-B4-A58-A-45-C9-83-AC-6513718-B3-D81

From Lawzilla: RAINN GAUNA v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

legal14

RAINN GAUNA v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

RAINN GAUNA v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

Filed 3/6/19 Gauna v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Nevada)

—-

RAINN GAUNA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

C078490

(Super. Ct. No. CU13-079937)

Rainn Gauna sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan Chase), Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase Home Finance), California Reconveyance Corporation (CRC) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank) after her property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to all causes of action in a first amended complaint without leave to amend.

Gauna now contends the trial court erred in (1) taking judicial notice of hearsay and disputed facts, (2) ruling that her fraud and deceit cause of action is time-barred, (3) concluding that the first amended complaint does not state a cause of action for breach of contract and that her breach of contract claim is time-barred, (4) ruling that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust and that tender is required to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, (5) sustaining the demurrer to her causes of action for cancellation of instruments, slander of title and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (6) denying her leave to amend, and (7) hearing defendants’ demurrer before her discovery motions.

We will reverse the judgment as to the wrongful foreclosure cause of action, a portion of the cancellation of instruments cause of action, and a portion of the slander of title cause of action. Based on the well-pleaded allegations in the first amended complaint, which we must accept as true at this stage of the lawsuit, JPMorgan Chase could not assign the deed of trust because it did not have an interest in the note and deed of trust. In all other respects we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Gauna’s first amended complaint alleged the following:

Pursuant to a note secured by a deed of trust, Gauna promised to pay Long Beach Mortgage Company (LBMC) $168,800 plus interest. LBMC’s loan to Gauna was not funded by LBMC, it was funded by investors who bought certificates to the Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 (LBM Trust).

Gauna signed a deed of trust in relation to real property located in Nevada County (the property). The deed of trust identified Gauna as the borrower and LBMC as the lender and trustee. It secured to LBMC repayment of the note. Through the deed of trust, Gauna irrevocably granted to LBMC the property, in trust, with power of sale. The deed of trust provided that the note and deed of trust could be sold without prior notice to Gauna. It further provided that the lender may appoint a successor trustee who shall succeed to all title, powers and duties of the original trustee.

Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) was the original servicer on the loan. It became the successor in interest to LBMC’s assets when LBMC closed its operations. However, Gauna’s note and deed of trust were sold before LBMC closed and WaMu did not acquire Gauna’s note as part of LBMC’s assets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over WaMu’s operations in 2008. JPMorgan Chase bought certain assets of WaMu from the FDIC, but it did not buy any interest in Gauna’s note.

A process to modify Gauna’s loan was started in August 2008. Gauna did not miss a payment on her loan until March 2009, when a JPMorgan Chase branch representative was unable to process her monthly payment. A JPMorgan Chase branch representative also could not process Gauna’s April 2009 payment.

On or about May 1, 2009, Gauna received a Trial Period Plan (TPP) offer which outlined the steps she should take to obtain a loan modification, including making three monthly payments of $1,034. The cover letter for the offer was from WaMu which purportedly was “becoming Chase.” The offer identified JPMorgan Chase as the lender. The offer promised to modify Gauna’s adjustable interest rate loan if Gauna timely made TPP payments and if she qualified under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Gauna accepted the TPP offer. She made TPP payments in May, June and July 2009.

At some point, Chase Home Finance serviced Gauna’s loan. A Chase Home Finance representative instructed Gauna to continue making TPP payments until she received a loan modification agreement. Gauna made TPP payments during the period August 2009 through January 2010. In January 2010, Gauna was instructed to stop making further payments until a loan modification agreement was executed. She attempted to make payments in February and March 2010, but those payments were refused.

Gauna received a loan modification agreement on March 18, 2010, with instructions to sign and return the agreement within seven days. The agreement did not account for $10,340 in TPP payments Gauna had made. It increased the principal balance on Gauna’s loan from $168,800 to $172,063.08. It contained undefined terms and terms Gauna opposed.

Gauna sought clarification about the role of Chase Home Finance and asked about the identity of the lender. She spoke with several Chase Home Finance representatives about terms in the loan modification agreement and the non-credited TPP payments. Chase Home Finance representatives refused to explain terms. They intimidated Gauna into signing the agreement by threatening to deny modification altogether. Gauna signed the agreement but wrote on it, “I am requesting an appraisal and an extension; I am signing with great stress and pressure with unanswered questions. Also your window of response is unreasonable.”

Chase Home Finance refused to execute the loan modification agreement. It required Gauna to go through the modification process again. And it instructed Gauna to stop making payments to requalify for a loan modification. After making her April, May and June 2010 payments, Gauna did not make a July 2010 payment upon the instruction of a JPMorgan Chase representative. She sent her completed loan modification application to JPMorgan Chase. And she made a modified loan payment in August 2010.

In December 2010, CRC recorded an assignment of the deed of trust in Nevada County. The assignment said JPMorgan Chase assigned to Deutsche Bank, as trustee of the LBM Trust, Gauna’s note and deed of trust. The LBM Trust was closed at the time of the assignment.

CRC also recorded a substitution of trustee. The person who signed the substitution purportedly signed it as an officer of JPMorgan Chase, as attorney in fact for Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee of the LBM Trust. The document said Deutsche Bank substituted CRC as the trustee of Gauna’s deed of trust.

CRC also executed and recorded a notice of default stating that Gauna was in default by $23,358.34 as of December 22, 2010. CRC then executed a notice of trustee’s sale which was recorded in Nevada County.

Gauna filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code about a month later. The bankruptcy action was dismissed.

Almost 11 months after the termination of the bankruptcy action, CRC recorded another notice of trustee’s sale. CRC recorded three more notices of trustee’s sale in 2013. It ultimately conducted a trustee’s sale in September 2013. And it recorded a trustee’s deed upon sale, transferring all of its right, title and interest in the property to Deutsche Bank, as trustee of the LBM Trust.

Five days later, Gauna filed a complaint against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend.

Gauna filed a first amended complaint, alleging fraud and deceit, breach of contract, cancellation of instruments, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and conversion. Defendants also demurred to that pleading. The trial court sustained the demurrer to all causes of action without leave to amend. It denied Gauna’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the action. Because Gauna’s appellate opening brief does not address the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the conversion cause of action, we will not address the propriety of a demurrer as to that cause of action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading. (Milligan v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) We independently evaluate the pleading, construing it liberally, giving it a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole, and viewing its parts in context. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) We assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded or implied and consider judicially noticed matter, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) We also disregard those allegations in the pleading which contradict judicially noticed facts. (Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1054.) Viewing matters through this prism, we determine de novo whether the factual allegations of the challenged pleading are adequate to state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Milligan, at p. 6.) We will affirm the judgment if proper on any grounds stated in the demurrer, whether or not the trial court acted on that ground. (Carman v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, 324.) The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the demurrer was sustained erroneously. (Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1485.)

DISCUSSION

I

Gauna argues the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of hearsay and disputed facts. We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for judicial notice for abuse of discretion. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264, disapproved on another ground in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 939, fn. 13 (Yvanova).)

Gauna asserts the trial court took judicial notice of a “private agreement pulled from a website.” Her claim is forfeited because she does not cite the portion of the record supporting it. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) Gauna further claims the trial court took judicial notice of disputed facts contained in the notice of default. Again, however, she does not cite the portion of the record in which the trial court took judicial notice of the facts she describes. We are not required to examine such an undeveloped claim. (Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, 984.) The claim is forfeited. (Nwosu, at p. 1246.)

II

Gauna next contends the trial court erred in ruling that her fraud and deceit cause of action is time-barred.

While Gauna addresses the statute of limitations ground for the trial court’s ruling, she does not address the other grounds upon which the trial court sustained the demurrer on the fraud cause of action. The trial court correctly determined that the first amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud because the pleading falls short of the specificity needed to state a claim for fraud and fails to allege specific facts showing all the elements of fraud. Accordingly, we need not address whether the fraud cause of action is time-barred.

“ ‘The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (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.’ [Citations.]” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) To withstand demurrer, a plaintiff must plead facts constituting every element of fraud with particularity. (Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23, 35 (Kalnoki).) The plaintiff must plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom and by what means a misrepresentation was tendered. (Lazar, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.) And when the defendant is a corporation, the plaintiff must “ ‘allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.’ ” (Ibid.) General and conclusory allegations will not suffice. (Ibid.)

Gauna alleges fraud with regard to the loan origination, the modification of the loan, the notice of default, and the assignment of the deed of trust.

A

As to the loan origination, Gauna alleges wrongful acts by LBMC. The trial court found the allegations lacked the requisite specificity, and we agree. For example, regarding the allegation that LBMC changed the interest rate for Gauna’s loan from fixed to adjustable, there is no allegation that a specified individual made a specified misrepresentation on a specified date. But there is also another deficiency. Gauna fails to allege facts showing how Chase Home Finance, Deutsche Bank and CRC can be liable for the alleged fraudulent acts by LBMC, which is not a defendant in this action.

B

Turning to the loan modification, the first amended complaint alleges the lender and Chase Home Finance represented that if Gauna entered into the TPP and complied with its terms, Chase Home Finance and the lender would modify her loan. It alleges Gauna justifiably relied on that representation and made modified payments, but Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the modification agreement and instead demanded that Gauna resubmit her financial information and make another set of TPP payments. Chase Home Finance and the lender then rejected Gauna’s TPP payments, declared a default and foreclosed on the property. Gauna says she lost the property as a result of defendants’ fraud.

Gauna fails to allege a false representation because she admits she received an offer to modify her loan. The first amended complaint alleges Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the loan modification agreement, but it also alleges facts showing that Gauna did not unconditionally accept the terms of the loan modification agreement. Rather, Gauna asked for an appraisal and an extension and objected that she signed the agreement with “great stress and pressure with unanswered questions.”

“ ‘[T]erms proposed in an offer must be met exactly, precisely and unequivocally for its acceptance to result in the formation of a binding contract [citations].” (Panagotacos v. Bank of America (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 851, 855-856; see Civ. Code § 1585.) An acceptance which, as here, contains additions or limitations is a rejection of the offer and amounts to a counteroffer. (Panagotacos, at pp. 855-856; Ajax Holding Co. v. Heinsbergen (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 665, 669-670.) A counteroffer containing a condition not in the original offer, if not accepted by the original offeror, does not result in a contract. (Ajax Holding, at pp. 669-670.) Gauna cites no authority requiring an original offeror to accept a counteroffer.

Guzman v. Visalia Community Bank (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1370, a case Gauna’s counsel cited during oral argument, is not on point. That decision held that general contract principles did not apply in determining whether a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer was rejected. (Id. at p. 1377.) But this case does not involve an offer to compromise made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998.

The first amended complaint also fails to allege facts showing knowledge of falsity, intent to defraud and that Gauna’s alleged injury — making modified payments and loss of the property — was caused by Chase Home Finance or the lender’s alleged misrepresentation. As for the last fraud element, continuing to make modified loan payments does not constitute detrimental reliance because Gauna was contractually obligated to make loan payments. (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 79 (Lueras); West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 795 (West).) Gauna fails to allege specific facts showing how her reliance on defendants’ promise to modify her loan caused her to default on her loan or prevented her from curing that default. (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1499-1500 (Rossberg).)

C

Regarding the notice of default, the first amended complaint alleged the notice represented that Gauna was in default by $23,358.34 as of December 22, 2010, but the representation was false because it did not account for $13,442 in TPP payments and it included improper charges. Gauna alleged Chase Home Finance and the lender caused the notice of default to be recorded even though they knew it was false. She claimed the false representation prevented her from clearing the arrears and she lost the property as a result.

A plaintiff asserting fraud must plead actual reliance, i.e., a causal relationship between the alleged misrepresentation and the harm claimed to have resulted therefrom. (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 864.) The plaintiff must “allege specific facts not only showing he or she actually and justifiably relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations, but also how the actions he or she took in reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations caused the alleged damages. [Citation.]” (Rossberg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1499; see Lueras, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 79.) “If the defrauded plaintiff would have suffered the alleged damage even in the absence of the fraudulent inducement, causation cannot be alleged and a fraud cause of action cannot be sustained.’ ” (Rossberg, at p. 1499, italics omitted; see Lueras, at p. 79.)

The first amended complaint does not allege facts showing a causal relationship between Gauna’s alleged injury and the allegedly inflated amount stated in the notice of default. In particular, Gauna does not allege facts showing that she took or did not take some action because of the misstatement in the notice of default. (Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1008 (Orcilla); Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1615 (Hamilton); Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1091.) Her general allegation that she relied on the false representations by defendants is conclusory and insufficient to plead fraud. (Glaski, at p. 1091.) While she alleged she could have cleared the arrears, the first amended complaint indicated Gauna did not make other payments, and she stated in her appellate opening brief that she last made a payment on the note in August 2010 and she was $13,442 in arrears. She does not say she could have paid the arrears not caused by defendants’ alleged refusal to accept her payments. Without a loan modification, Gauna was still obligated to make the payments due under her note. (Lueras, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 79) The TPP Agreement expressly provided that the lender’s acceptance of a payment during the TPP period did not constitute a cure of Gauna’s default under the loan documents unless such payments were sufficient to completely cure her entire default under the loan documents. It also stated that the terms of the loan documents remained in full force and effect and the TPP did not release the obligations contained in the loan documents.

D

As for the assignment of the deed of trust, the first amended complaint alleged Colleen Irby falsely represented in the assignment that she was an officer of JPMorgan Chase, thereby obscuring the identity of the lender and preventing Gauna from resolving the servicing improprieties, which resulted in the loss of the property. But those allegations are not specific enough. They do not allege what action Gauna took or did not take in reliance on Irby’s alleged misrepresentation (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1007-1008; Hamilton, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1615), and they do not specify exactly how she lost her property because of Irby’s alleged false representation. Gauna was in arrears and the first amended complaint does not allege that she was able to bring her loan current.

III

Gauna further argues the first amended complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract.

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract include (1) the existence of a contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) damages to the plaintiff caused by the breach. (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005.) To the extent Gauna alleges the breach of a written contract, she may plead the contract by its terms (set out verbatim or with a copy of the contract attached to her pleading and incorporated therein by reference) or by its legal effect by alleging the substance of its relevant terms. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 993.)

The first amended complaint alleged that the note, deed of trust and TPP were breached. The trial court took judicial notice of the note and deed of trust; those documents show an agreement between Gauna and LBMC. The note and deed of trust did not mention JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank. Further, based on the allegations of the first amended complaint, neither JPMorgan Chase nor Deutsche Bank is a successor in interest to LBMC. The first amended complaint did not allege facts showing the existence of a note or deed of trust between Gauna, on the one hand, and JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank, on the other, and the terms of any such note or deed of trust. Therefore, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action based on the note and deed of trust because Gauna cannot assert a claim for breach of contract against an entity that is not a party to the contract. (Universal Bank v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. (1997) 62 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 (Universal Bank); Tri-Continent International Corp. v. Paris Savings & Loan Assn. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1359 (Tri-Continent).)

Turning to the TPP agreement, the first amended complaint alleged Chase Home Finance and the lender breached that agreement by refusing to execute the loan modification and by failing to provide Gauna with a fair and reasonable modification agreement.

Exhibit 3 to the first amended complaint is a copy of the purported TPP agreement. That exhibit includes a three-page document entitled “Home Affordable Modification Trial Period Plan” (hereafter TPP agreement) and a cover letter from “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor to Washington Mutual Bank.” Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank are not mentioned in the TPP agreement. Moreover, the first amended complaint fails to state facts showing that Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank are parties to the TPP agreement. Accordingly, the first amended complaint fails to state breach of contract claims against Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank based on the TPP agreement. (Universal Bank, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1066; Tri-Continent, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 1359.)

The TPP agreement said if Gauna was in compliance with the TPP and her representations in the document continued to be true, JPMorgan Chase would provide her with a Home Affordable Modification Agreement which would amend the note. JPMorgan Chase does not argue that the TPP agreement is not a contract. Under the terms of the TPP agreement, JPMorgan Chase was obligated to provide Gauna with a loan modification agreement if Gauna complied with the terms of the TPP and her representations in the document continued to be true. (Bushell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 915, 925-928 (Bushell); Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (7th Cir. 2012) 673 F.3d 547, 560-561 (Wigod).)

However, the first amended complaint alleges that Gauna received a Home Affordable Modification Agreement (loan modification agreement). The facts alleged do not, therefore, demonstrate a breach of contract. Gauna did not unequivocally accept the terms of the loan modification agreement. She does not state a cause of action for breach of contract based merely on the argument that defendants were required to accept her counteroffer.

The first amended complaint also claims defendants breached the TPP agreement by failing to offer a fair and reasonable loan modification agreement. We agree with Gauna that a lender’s duty to offer a loan modification pursuant to a TPP includes a duty to offer a good faith permanent loan modification. (Bushell, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 925-928; West, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 796-799; Wigod, supra, 673 F.3d at p. 565.) But Gauna argues the loan modification agreement was not in good faith because it was a contract of adhesion presented to her on a “take it or leave it” basis, it inexplicably increased her principal balance by $3,200, it included a balloon payment of $38,513.47, and it had vague terms that were prejudicial to her.

The phrase contract of adhesion “signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it.” (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694.) A contract of adhesion is nevertheless enforceable according to its terms unless it defeats the reasonable expectations of the weaker or adhering party, and even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the adhering party, it is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 108; Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 201; Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1375.) Unconscionability has both procedural and substantive elements. (Lona, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 109.) Substantive unconscionability may exist when a contract has overly-harsh or one-sided results or when it reallocates the risks of the bargain in an objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner. (A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 487.)

The first amended complaint did not allege facts showing how the loan modification agreement defeated Gauna’s objectively reasonable expectations. (Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 694, 721-724.) Gauna had to allege specific facts because an allegation that a contract is unconscionable is mere legal conclusion. (Shadoan v. World Sav. & Loan Assn. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 97, 103.)

The loan modification agreement stated that the modified principal balance on the note would include all past due amounts, including unpaid and deferred interest, fees, escrow advances and other costs (but not unpaid late charges), less any amounts paid to the lender but not previously credited to Gauna’s loan. The cover letter to the TPP similarly advised Gauna that past due amounts, including unpaid interest, taxes, insurance and assessments paid on Gauna’s behalf to a third party, would be added to the principal loan balance. According to the first amended complaint, no monthly loan payments were made on Gauna’s loan for two months in 2009 and for at least four months in 2010. On this record, an approximately $3,200 increase in the principal loan balance was not without explanation and was not substantively unconscionable.

In addition, Gauna offers no facts showing that the terms of the proposed modified loan or other circumstances were overly-harsh or one-sided and unjustified. She does not present legal analysis with citation to supporting authority establishing that the loan modification agreement is unenforceable, and we are not obligated to perform that function for her. (Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1045, fn. 1 (Okasaki); Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 656 (Keyes).)

Furthermore, the first amended complaint failed to allege damages caused by defendants’ breach of the TPP agreement. It alleged Gauna was forced to continue to pay under the unconscionable terms of the note, lost her property and incurred legal fees and costs because of defendants’ breaches, but it did not allege that Gauna was not in default under her loan and that absent the alleged breaches by defendants, Gauna would have avoided foreclosure and the loss of the property. (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005.)

The first amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank. Accordingly, we need not address whether any such cause of action is time-barred.

IV

Gauna claims the trial court erred in ruling that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust, and that tender was required to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.

After the trial court ruled that Gauna lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust, the California Supreme Court held in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th 919, that a borrower of a home loan secured by a deed of trust who has been subjected to a nonjudicial foreclosure has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment of the note and deed of trust — e.g., that the foreclosing entity lacked authority to pursue foreclosure — even if the borrower is in default on the loan and is not a party to the challenged assignment. (Id. at pp. 924, 935, 939.) Under Yvanova, Gauna has standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust if the assignment is void but not where the assignment is voidable. (Id. at pp. 942-943.) We independently evaluate the first amended complaint to determine whether it alleges a void assignment.

A suit for wrongful foreclosure is an equitable action to set aside a foreclosure sale, or an action for damages resulting from the sale, based on the assertion that the foreclosure was improper. (Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 552, 561.) To succeed on a wrongful foreclosure cause of action, the plaintiff must show that (1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the party attacking the sale was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. (Id. at pp. 561-562.)

In a nonjudicial foreclosure, only the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust or its agent may direct the trustee to sell the property. (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(1), (6); Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 929, 935.) If a foreclosing entity claims the power to foreclose based on a void assignment, the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 929, 935.)

Here, the first amended complaint alleged (1) the lender could not exercise the power of sale because Chase Home Finance and the lender breached the note and deed of trust, (2) the nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful because the notice of default was deficient in that it inflated the arrears amount and falsely claimed that the notice was issued by CRC as trustee (when LBMC was the trustee) and that JPMorgan Chase was the beneficiary, (3) CRC was not a validly substituted trustee, and (4) Deutsche Bank was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust and thus could not enter a credit bid.

Regarding the first allegation, we have already concluded Gauna fails to state a cause of action for breach of the note and deed of trust against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank. As for the allegedly deficient notice of default, the notice contained the statements required under Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)(1) and the first amended complaint does not allege facts showing that the information in the notice caused Gauna injury. However, the first amended complaint states a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure by alleging facts showing that CRC (which Deutsche Bank substituted as the new trustee) had no authority to conduct the nonjudicial foreclosure because JPMorgan Chase, the entity from which Deutsche Bank purportedly obtained an assignment of the deed of trust, did not own a beneficial interest in the loan and deed of trust and, therefore, had no authority to assign the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank.

Defendants say the claim that the assignment is void is based on the late transfer of the note into the LBM Trust. But the first amended complaint alleged other facts which Gauna asserts rendered the assignment void. The first amended complaint alleged that the note and deed of trust were sold before WaMu became LBMC’s successor in interest. Therefore, according to the first amended complaint, JPMorgan Chase did not acquire any interest in the note and deed of trust when it purchased WaMu’s assets from the FDIC. Contrary to the assertion by counsel for JPMorgan Chase at oral argument, Gauna raised this issue in her appellate opening brief. She urges on appeal that her loan was sold before LBMC merged with WaMu and, therefore, JPMorgan Chase did not acquire her loan from the FDIC. She complains that the trial court failed to address that allegation.

The case of Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th 552, is instructive. In that case, the plaintiff executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust identifying WaMu as the lender. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 556-557.) About four years later, JPMorgan Chase, as successor in interest to WaMu, assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6. (Id. at p. 557.) The plaintiff defaulted on her loan and the trustee recorded a notice of default and trustee’s sale. (Ibid.) JPMorgan Chase then assigned the note and deed of trust to Bank of America, which foreclosed on the deed of trust. (Id. at pp. 557-558.) The plaintiff brought a wrongful foreclosure action, alleging that the assignment to Bank of America was void and Bank of America had no right to foreclose because JPMorgan Chase had previously assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank. (Id. at pp. 561-562.) The documents subject to judicial notice were consistent with the plaintiff’s allegations. (Id. at p. 563.) The court in Sciarratta held that the assignment to the foreclosing entity (Bank of America) was void and not merely voidable because having assigned all beneficial interest in the plaintiff’s note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase could not later assign the same interests to Bank of America. (Id. at p. 564.)

In this case, under the facts alleged in the first amended complaint, JPMorgan Chase could not assign the beneficial interest in the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank because it did not have any interest in the note and deed of trust to assign. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 564; Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 964, 971-974 (Barrionuevo) [the plaintiffs stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure where they alleged that the lender sold the beneficial interest in their deed of trust before the entity purporting to be the beneficiary under the deed of trust acquired the lender’s assets]; Burke v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2015, No. 13-4249SC) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61512, p. *8; Subramani v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2013, No. 13-1605SC) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156556, pp. *10-11; Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2011, No. CV10-08185 ODW FFMx) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62152, pp. *13-14.)

The judicially noticeable facts do not contradict the allegations in the first amended complaint. While the assignment of the deed of trust recites that JPMorgan Chase was the successor in interest to WaMu and WaMu was the successor in interest to LBMC, we may not take judicial notice of those asserted facts because they are subject to dispute. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375; Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1102.) The matters which we must accept as true for purposes of a demurrer show that the assignment from JPMorgan Chase to Deutsche Bank was void; thus, Deutsche Bank had no authority to substitute CRC as the trustee and CRC had no authority to conduct the nonjudicial foreclosure.

The first amended complaint adequately alleges that Gauna suffered harm as a result of the wrongful foreclosure in that it alleges that she lost the property as a result of the void assignment and sale of the property by one without power of sale. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 565-567.) A void contract is a nullity and cannot be validated by any party. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 929.) It is hard to imagine that a borrower who has lost his or her property in a sale by an entity that had no right to enforce the debt has not been prejudiced thereby. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 565-567; see Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 937-939.)

Kalnoki, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th 23 is inapposite. In contrast with the facts pleaded here, the judicially noticeable facts in Kalnoki showed that the entities which executed the substitution of trustee and assignment of the deed of trust and initiated the nonjudicial foreclosure were authorized to do so. (Id. at pp. 36-44.)

As respondents concede, tender is not required when the instrument or transaction sought to be cancelled or set aside is void. (Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal.2d 617, 621; Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 565, fn. 10; Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 818-819 (Saterbak); Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1063 [the plaintiff need not allege tender where the foreclosure sale was void because the defendants lacked a contractual basis to exercise the power of sale]; Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1100; Cheung v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 987 F.Supp.2d 972, 978; Barrionuevo, supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at pp. 969-971.)

Based on the above, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the wrongful foreclosure cause of action.

V

Gauna also contends the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to her causes of action for cancellation of instruments, slander of title and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. We will address each cause of action in turn.

A

We begin with the cause of action for cancellation of instruments. Civil Code section 3412 provides: “A written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.” To obtain cancellation, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the instrument is void or voidable and would cause serious injury if not canceled. (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 523; Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 818-819; Kroeker v. Hurlbert (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 261, 266.) Here, the cause of action for cancellation of instruments seeks to cancel the note and deed of trust, the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.

The first amended complaint alleges LBMC was not the actual lender on Gauna’s loan and provided no consideration for the note because the loan was table-funded by Doe investors. “ ‘Table-funding’ is defined as a ‘settlement at which a loan is funded by a contemporaneous advance of loan funds and an assignment of the loan to the person advancing the funds.’ [Citation.] In a table-funded loan, the originator closes the loan in its own name, but is acting as an intermediary for the true lender, which assumes the financial risk of the transaction.” (Easter v. Am. West Fin. (9th Cir. 2004) 381 F.3d 948, 955, fn. omitted.) The first amended complaint alleges the note and deed of trust are void because they did not identify the real lender and there was no consideration from LBMC. Gauna argues that because of the table-funding and securitization of her loan, the parties who provided the consideration were concealed in violation of Civil Code sections 1550 and 1558, and there was no mutual consent as required under Civil Code section 1580.

Civil Code section 1558 says the ability to identify the parties to a contract is essential to a contract’s validity. In this case, the promissory note identifies the lender and the borrower. While Gauna alleges Doe investors actually provided the funds that LBMC lent Gauna, she cites no authority that such an arrangement invalidates the contractual relationship between Gauna and LBMC under the note. (Logvinov v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011, No. C-11-04772 DMR) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 141988, pp. *8-9 [securitization does not change the relationship of the parties to the note]; Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015, No. 14-CV-03218-LHK) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8790, p. *62 [securitization does not render the plaintiff’s mortgage loans unenforceable].) In any event, the first amended complaint alleges that the true parties to the note are Gauna and the investors who owned the LBM Trust. On this record it appears it was possible to identify the alleged true lender.

Civil Code section 1550 sets forth the essential elements of a contract including consideration and consent. Civil Code section 1580 provides that consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. A reasonable inference from the facts alleged in the first amended complaint is that Gauna received $168,800 in consideration for her execution of the note and deed of trust. Courts have rejected claims that table-funding voids or invalidates a loan. (Arzamendi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018, No. 1:17-cv-01485-CJO-SKO) 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38382, p. *11; Marquez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017, No. 16-cv-03012-EMC) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38239, p. *7; Grieves v. MTC Financial Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017, No. 17-CV-01981-LHK) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116458, p. *37, fn. 1; see Silas v. Argent Mortgage Co., LLC (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2017, No. 1:17-cv-00703-LJO-JLT) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115324, p. *27; Sotanski v. HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015, No. 15-cv-01489-LHK) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106859, pp. *17-18; Ghalehtak v. FNBN I, LLC (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2016, No. 15-cv-05821-LB) 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61347, p. *9; Major v. Imortgage.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016, No. 5:15-cv-02592-CASDTBx) 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15225, pp. *9-10.)

Courts have also rejected the argument that a lender loses its interest in a note when it is securitized. (Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, supra, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8790, p. *62; Ramirez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2013, No. 1:13-CV-352 AWI GSA) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80624, p. *10 [securitization of the note does not affect the ability to foreclose]; Hague v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011, No. C11-02866 TEH) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 140122, p. *16; Logvinov v. Wells Fargo Bank, supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 141988, pp. *8-9; Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2011, No. S-11-1784 KJM KJN) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73949, pp. *9-10; Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Group (E.D. Cal 2010) 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1099; Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2009) 652 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1043.) Gauna cites no authority voiding a note or deed of trust based on table-funding or securitization.

Gauna claims on appeal that her loan was paid off. But courts have rejected claims that a borrower is relieved of his or her mortgage obligation when the lender received payment in full upon the securitization of a note. (Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62152, pp. *13-14; Hague v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 140122, p. *16; West v. Bank of America, N.A. (D. Nev. June 22, 2011, No. 2:10-CV-1966 JCM GWF) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66726, p. *5.)

Gauna also argues that the securitization of her loan introduced new parties, terms and risks to her loan contract. However, the first amended complaint does not allege, and Gauna’s appellate brief does not state, facts showing such alteration. Gauna’s conclusory statements are insufficient to plead a void or voidable contract. (New v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. (1938) 24 Cal.App.2d 681, 683 [allegation that policy is “in contravention of the laws of the State of California” and is void are mere conclusions of law]; see 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 674, p. 98 [to state an action to remove cloud over title, facts showing actual invalidity of apparently valid instrument must be specifically pleaded].) The first amended complaint failed to allege facts showing that the note and deed of trust are void or voidable.

The cause of action for cancellation of instruments also seeks to cancel the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.

The first amended complaint alleges the assignment of the deed of trust is void because (1) JPMorgan Chase had no valid interest in the note or deed of trust, (2) the interest in Gauna’s note and deed of trust was assigned to Deutsche Bank after the closing date of the LBM Trust, and (3) Colleen Irby was not an officer of JPMorgan Chase and had no authority to execute the assignment for JPMorgan Chase. The first amended complaint alleges that the notice of default, notice of trustee’s sale and trustee’s deed upon sale must be cancelled in part because CRC was not the duly authorized trustee and Deutsche was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Those allegations appear to be based on the alleged void assignment by JPMorgan Chase.

As we have explained, the assignment of the deed of trust is void under the facts alleged because JPMorgan Chase had no interest in the note or deed of trust to assign. The first amended complaint alleges sufficient facts showing that Gauna would suffer a serious injury if the void assignment is not canceled. (Cf. Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 819-820 [no “ ‘serious injury’ ” where assignment was voidable because defective assignment did not change the borrower’s payment obligations under the note].) Tender is not required to state a cause of action for cancellation of instruments because Gauna adequately alleged that the assignment is void and not merely voidable. (Sciarratta, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th p. 568.)

In addition, because the assignment to Deutsche Bank is void under the facts alleged, Deutsche Bank had no authority to substitute CRC as the trustee under the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale, and those documents are also void under the facts alleged.

The judgment as to the cancellation of instruments cause of action must be reversed with regard to the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.

B

With regard to her cause of action for slander of title, Gauna contends the trial court erred in concluding that (a) the deed of trust, substitution of trustee, and trustee’s deed upon sale were privileged under Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (d)(1), (b) the privilege applied because CRC was the trustee under the deed of trust, (c) Gauna must allege malice, and (d) loss of title and investment in the property was not a direct pecuniary loss.

“Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” ’ [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. [Citations.] If the publication is reasonably understood to cast doubt upon the existence or extent of another’s interest in land, it is disparaging to the latter’s title. [Citation.] The main thrust of the cause of action is protection from injury to the salability of property [citations], which is ordinarily indicated by the loss of a particular sale, impaired marketability or depreciation in value [citations].” (Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1030.) The pecuniary loss element is also satisfied by attorney’s fees and costs necessary to clear title. (Id. at pp. 1030-1031.)

The slander of title cause of action in the first amended complaint is based on the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. Gauna fails to show how the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee disparaged her title to the property. The first amended complaint does not state a slander of title cause of action based on the recording of those documents.

However, the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale constitute publications for purposes of a slander of title cause of action. (Ghuman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2013) 989 F.Supp.2d 994, 1000 (Ghuman).) The first amended complaint alleged those documents contained false statements of material fact and their recording impaired Gauna’s title to the property. The alleged falsity was that CRC was authorized to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure under the deed of trust.

Nevertheless, the recording of a notice of default, a notice of sale, and a trustee’s deed upon sale is protected by a qualified privilege. (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (d)(1), (2); Schep v. Capital One, N.A. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1336; Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.) The privilege protects communications made without malice. (Kachlon, at p. 336.) Malice means the defendant was “ ‘ “motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff” ’ ” or “ ‘ “lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication and therefore acted in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Implied malice is sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege. (Contra Costa County Title Co. v. Waloff (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 59, 66.)

The first amended complaint alleged JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank knew the recorded documents contained false representations and intended the recorded documents “to have a specific legal effect based on those false representations.” We understand the allegation to mean that JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank intended to use the recorded documents to foreclose on the property even though they knew they did not have a right to foreclose because JPMorgan Chase never acquired an interest in the note and deed of trust. The first amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to plead malice. (Ghuman, supra, 989 F.Supp.2d at p. 1000 [allegation that the defendants’ recording of documents was “ ‘knowingly wrongful’ ” was sufficient to defeat the privilege]; Barrionuevo, supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at p. 975 [allegations that the defendants published a notice of trustee’s sale with “ ‘malice and a reckless disregard for the truth’ ” and the publications were false were sufficient to withstand challenge to the pleading]; Davis v. Wood (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 788, 794-795 [allegation that the defendants recorded documents maliciously and with knowledge that their claims were wholly false was sufficient to negative any privilege].)

Gauna alleged the recording of the challenged documents diminished the marketability of her title to the property and caused her to lose her investment in the property through an improper foreclosure. That is sufficient to allege the “ ‘direct pecuniary loss’ ” element of a slander of title cause of action. (Barrionuevo, supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at p. 975.)

Based on the above, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the slander of title cause of action as to the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. But Gauna fails to demonstrate error as to the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee.

C

Turning to the cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., the trial court concluded Gauna failed to show standing because her factual allegations did not demonstrate an economic injury caused by the defendants’ conduct. We agree.

Gauna’s Business and Professions Code cause of action is based on the following alleged acts: Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to accept Gauna’s loan payments, refused to execute the loan modification agreement, and caused to be recorded a notice of default that did not account for all monies paid and inflated the arrears; CRC falsely claimed to be the trustee; and Deutsche Bank accepted late assignments into the LBM Trust.

Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. prohibits and provides civil remedies for any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Actions for relief by a private plaintiff are limited to those who have been injured in fact and lost money or property as a result of an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) The plaintiff must plead general facts showing an economic injury which was caused by the defendant’s unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322, 327.)

When a Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. claim is derivative of other substantive causes of action, the claim “stand[s] or fall[s] depending on the fate of the antecedent substantive causes of action.” (Krantz v. BT Visual Images (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 164, 178.) Regarding the alleged refusal to accept Gauna’s loan payments, the first amended complaint fails to state a breach of contract cause of action against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank and Gauna fails to demonstrate how the refusal to accept loan payments constitutes an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice by any defendant. As for the allegation that Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the loan modification agreement, as we have explained, Gauna rejected the offer of a modification and she cites no authority mandating acceptance of her counteroffer. Because her claims are not supported by legal analysis and citation to authority, they are forfeited. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.) The first amended complaint does not state facts showing an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice based on those allegations.

With regard to the other bases for the Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. cause of action, the first amended complaint does not allege facts showing a causal connection between the alleged wrongful act and the alleged injury. A plaintiff fails to plead a causal connection between the alleged injury and the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice if he or she would have suffered the same harm regardless of the defendant’s act or practice. (Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 522 (Jenkins), disapproved on another ground in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 939, fn. 13; Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1099 (Daro).)

Gauna represented that she was unable to pay her regular monthly loan payments. She began making modified loan payments in May 2009. The first amended complaint alleges the notice of default overstated the amount of arrears by over $13,422, but it does not allege Gauna would not otherwise have defaulted on the note. The order sustaining the demurrer was proper because the first amended complaint failed to allege that Gauna would not have been injured absent defendants’ wrongful acts. (Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 614; Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 523; Daro, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1099; Diunugala v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal. 2015) 81 F.Supp.3d 969, 992.)

Gauna identifies additional alleged acts or omissions in her appellant’s opening brief that she claims constituted violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., but her assertion is forfeited because she fails to provide legal argument and citation to authority in support. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.) “ ‘The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.’ ” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.)

VI

Gauna claims the trial court erred in denying her leave to amend. We consider whether the challenged pleading might state a cause of action if the appellant were permitted to amend. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) If the complaint could be amended to state a cause of action, the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend and we will reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we will affirm. (Ibid.) The appellant bears the burden of showing a reasonable possibility that a defect can be cured by amendment. (Ibid.)

The allegations in the first amended complaint are substantially the same as those in the original complaint. Gauna fails to demonstrate that she can amend her first amended complaint to state a cause of action for fraud and deceit, breach of contract and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Gauna’s appellant’s opening brief “seeks the right to add claims for Promissory Estoppel, Intentional Misrepresentations, Negligence, and Tortious Interference.” We need not consider her request because it is not supported by legal analysis and citation to authority. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.)

VII

Gauna further contends the trial court erred in hearing defendants’ demurrer before her discovery motions. She filed motions to compel further discovery responses and for monetary sanctions against defendants after the trial court sustained the demurrer to the original complaint. The discovery motions were set to be heard after the deadline for Gauna to file a first amended complaint. But the parties stipulated to continue the hearing on the discovery motions as they attempted to resolve the issues raised in the motions. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the action when Gauna failed to file an amended complaint, and it took all hearing dates off its calendar. The trial court subsequently vacated the judgment of dismissal.

In the meantime, defendants notified the trial court they would demur to the first amended complaint and asked that Gauna’s discovery motions not be re-calendared until after the trial court heard the demurrer. Gauna asked that her discovery motions be re-calendared. The trial court directed the court clerk to file Gauna’s first amended complaint and set a hearing on her discovery motions for September 26, 2014. But defendants filed their demurrer to the first amended complaint and the hearing on the demurrer was set before the hearing on the discovery motions. After sustaining the demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, the trial court dropped the hearing on the discovery motions as moot.

We review the trial court’s scheduling decisions for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130; see Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974, 1004.) Here, the record does not show that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the order in which it would hear the parties’ motions. There is no reporter’s transcript or other document indicating the trial court’s reasons for scheduling the hearing dates. Gauna fails to demonstrate error. (Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1228-1229; Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed regarding the wrongful foreclosure cause of action. It is also reversed regarding the cancellation of instruments cause of action as it pertains to the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. In addition, the judgment is reversed regarding the slander of title cause of action as it pertains to the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. Gauna shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(3).)

/S/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/S/

DUARTE, J.

Voter Fraud: 670 Ballots Cast in Georgia Precinct with 276 Voters (There’s No Place Like Home!)


Image Credits: Joe Raedle / Getty.

Voter Fraud: 670 Ballots Cast in Georgia Precinct with 276 Voters
Voting irregularities come as state investigated other instances of voter fraud
Katherine Rodriguez | Breitbart – August 8, 2018 0 Comments
Voter Fraud: 670 Ballots Cast in Georgia Precinct with 276 Voters

Voter Fraud: 670 Ballots Cast in Georgia Precinct with 276 Voters

Six hundred and seventy ballots were cast in a Georgia precinct with 276 registered voters in the state’s primary election, according to the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

A northeastern Georgia precinct located in Habersham County had 276 registered voters before the state’s primary elections at the end of May, but 670 votes were recorded—indicating that 276 percent of voters turned out in Georgia’s primary election, McClatchy reported.

The recently publicized voting irregularities come as the state investigated other instances of voter fraud—including one where an Atlanta City Hall staffer claimed she had to “print and deliver 500 blank absentee ballots” to an advocacy group staffer and pick up additional ballots from the Atlanta mayor’s campaign office to drop them off at an office in Fulton County.

Millions Trust Ancestry.com With Their Genetic Code: What Could Go Wrong?


Millions Trust Ancestry.com With Their Genetic Code: What Could Go Wrong?
By Editor June 8, 2018
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/science/millions-trust-ancestry-com-with-their-genetic-code-what-could-go-wrong-2/
By Zero Hedge

Millions of semi-conscious consumers, most of whom were probably outraged and appalled by recent privacy scandal outbreaks involving companies like Facebook and Equifax, have been casually shipping away the most precious keys to their genetic code and helping ancestry.com compile the worlds largest DNA database. More than 5 million people have already “spit into tubes” and mailed it into ancestry.com’s database, according a recent report by the Tampa Bay Times.

These 5 million people were the basis of a brand new investigative report published by the Tampa Bay Times, which detailed how ancestry.com, marketing itself as a family friendly and wholesome way to discover ones ethnicity, is actually possibly setting itself up for the largest and most complex security breach of all time.

That’s because ancestry.com is compiling a database, not just of personal information like your Social Security number or date of birth, but also of your DNA. As the report notes, your DNA is arguably the most complex and sensitive form of identification that you can have as a human being.


If Cambridge Analytica would pay top dollar to see what TV shows and books you frequent from your Facebook account, we’re guessing that ancestry.com’s database could be targeted for top dollar and potentially used nefariously, if sold.
RELATED: DNA Website MyHeritage Hacked; 92 Million User Accounts Exposed

But even if the database isn’t sold, that doesn’t mean that your data is 100% going to go uncompromised. As the article notes, ancestry.com has already dealt with its share of security breaches in recent history, including a breach of 55,000 Ancestry customers and reports of the company changing the terms of its agreements with customers on the fly:

Unidentified hackers last year accessed an Ancestry website, RootsWeb, compromising the sign-ins of 55,000 Ancestry customers who had the same log-in credentials with RootsWeb. The site has since been shut down. The incident received little attention, but revealed how customers’ personal information could be accessed and exploited through Ancestry’s partnerships and acquisitions.

AncestryDNA, a subsidiary of Ancestry LLC that markets genetic testing, pledges to safeguard people’s private data. But the company has a history of changing the terms of its agreements with customers. In the most high-profile example, Ancestry in 2014 shut down MyFamily.com, a social networking site where more than 1.5 million users had posted family memories, photos and conversations. Numerous customers said they lost treasured family history because of inadequate notification from the company, which decided not to back up the data.

The company assures that the data is being held securely because when it ships to have your DNA processed by a third-party, they use barcodes instead of names. Then, not unlike the NOC list from the first Mission:Impossible movie, it matches the barcodes back up with the names once the genetic testing results are provided back to the company. From there, it delivers the results to the customer. But those results aren’t just the customers; they also contain data on the customer’s family.

Additionally, customers may not even understand the severity of handing over their DNA to a third party, as opposed to providing an email address or other types of less intense personal information:

Many consumers, he said, have a limited understanding of how DNA is such a unique personal identifier, even more than a fingerprint or social security number. DNA determines the color of a person’s hair and eyes, their skin color and propensity to inherited diseases – information that employers or insurers might want to obtain.

And when someone takes a DNA test, the results not only provide information about that individual, but close relatives as well, said Marcy Darnovsky, director of the Center for Genetics and Society, a biotech watchdog group based in Berkeley, Calif. “You are not just taking the test for you. You are taking it for the whole family,” she said.

For this risk, consumers don’t even seem to be getting a quality product/analysis in return:

Ancestry claims to beat its competitors in accurate analysis of a person’s ethnicity. But interviews with company officials reveal that Ancestry has wide gaps in its ethnic markers for Asia and other sections of the world. Outside geneticists and anthropologists say that Ancestry and other companies are making misleading claims about the accuracy of their ethnic analyses.

And the rights that consumers may ultimately be giving up could be alarming. Ancestry acknowledges the obvious in one of its disclaimers, that “that customers could face various risks if their DNA data and other personal information is made public or somehow obtained by third parties.” The article notes that law enforcement and insurance companies could both theoretically have access to these DNA sample databases:

Law enforcement also has various ways to access people’s DNA data.

To make an arrest in the East Area Rapist case, Sacramento investigators created a bogus account on a open-access DNA database, GEDmatch, and then found a lucky match to DNA taken from a crime scene.

Officials for Ancestry, 23andMe and other leading DNA-testing companies say it would be impossible for law enforcement to use similar surreptitious methods to find suspects on their sites, which only allow customers to send in saliva, not DNA results from an outside testing service. But DNA-testing companies could be forced to hand over genetic data in response to a court warrant or subpoena, as they generally disclose.

“It may be used to identify you, and may negatively impact your ability to obtain certain types of insurance coverage, or used by law enforcement agencies to identify you if they have additional DNA data to compare to your Data,” the company notes its informed consent clause, which testing companies use to shield themselves from future liability.

But you have to hand it to the marketing team at ancestry.com – they’ve done a tremendous job. As the article notes, it has basically convinced consumers to entertain its DNA testing services as a fun and safe way to learn about your ethnic history. Surely, you have met someone or are related to somebody who has used such a service and willingly share the results with you, excited to learn about their potential background.

However the other side to the story needs to be looked at very closely. Not only should it be alarming that ancestry.com is creating a database of people’s most sensitive genetic information, but the company’s history of security breaches should leave investors cautious about who and why they willingly provide their DNA to.

All the while outrage about privacy has been the mainstream media’s focus for the better part of the last couple of months. However, ancestry.com has slipped slipped through the cracks and could arguably be setting itself up to set a new standard – not only for willing invasion of privacy, but the potential for a serious identity breach on a scale of severity we have yet to see.
RELATED: DNA Website MyHeritage Hacked; 92 Million User Accounts Exposed

This article (Millions Trust Ancestry.com With Their Genetic Code: What Could Go Wrong?) was originally published on Zero Hedge and syndicated by The Event Chronicle.

AJC.COM: Wells Fargo pays $108 million on fraud claim by Atlanta whistleblowers

Wells Fargo pays $108 million on fraud claim by Atlanta whistleblowers

Russell Grantham The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wells Fargo story:

Wells Fargo agreed to pay $108 million to settle claims that it defrauded veteran customers and taxpayers.

Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to pay $108 million to the federal government to settle two metro Atlanta whistleblowers’ allegations that the bank charged fraudulent fees on veterans’ home refinancing loans.

The settlement award, disclosed Friday by an Atlanta firm representing the whistleblowers, is the largest so far to result from the 11-year-old lawsuit. Two former metro Atlanta mortgage brokers sued eight banks or mortgage lenders on behalf of the government. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Atlanta.

“We’re glad its over, at least as to Wells Fargo,” said one of the two whistleblowers, Victor Bibby. The second is Brian Donnelly.

In 2012, SunTrust Banks, JP Morgan Chase, Countrywide Home Loans and three other major lenders agreed to pay $162 million to settle similar allegations by the whistleblowers.

Another lawsuit is pending against a St. Petersburg, Fla., lender, Mortgage Investors Corp. In 2013, the lender laid off hundreds of employees and stopped making new home loans, blaming tougher regulations under the federal Dodd-Frank Act.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said the bank changed its methods for handling Veterans Administration refinancing loans several years ago to fix the alleged problems and settled the lawsuit to “put the matter behind us.”

The San Francisco bank, which is metro Atlanta’s second largest bank in terms of total deposits, has been bruised lately in a number of legal skirmishes over its practices.

Last year, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other agencies alleged that the bank’s employees broke the law by opening more than 2 million credit card, checking and savings accounts without customers’ knowledge, in order to meet sales quotas and win bonuses.

Last month, Wells Fargo said it would refund customers after admitting that about 570,000 borrowers may have been wrongly pushed into auto insurance policies that they didn’t need.

In the Atlanta whistleblower case, which affected veteran homeowners across the nation, Bibby and Donnelly alleged that Wells Fargo illegally collected lawyers’ fees and closing costs from borrowers who refinanced their mortgages, even though such charges were barred under the VA’s refinancing program.

The bank hid the fees by mislabeling them, according to Atlanta law firm Butler Wooten & Peak, one of three firms that represented the whistleblowers.

The law firm said taxpayers also lost money due to the alleged fraud. Under the VA loan guarantee program, the agency paid Wells Fargo a portion of any loans on which the borrowers defaulted, even though the fraudulent fees would have negated the government loan guarantees.

Friday, Wells Fargo spokeswoman Crystal Drake said, “Today, we are settling this longstanding lawsuit, which did not seek any refunds for individual veterans, in order to put the matter behind us, and to focus on restoring trust in Wells Fargo.”

She said the bank had previously made compensation available to affected veterans.

“More than six years ago,” she added, “when questions about fees on certain Veterans Administration refinance loans were raised, we resolved those concerns by improving our internal controls to ensure that veteran customers only pay appropriate fees on refinances.”

Under the federal whistleblower’s act, known as the Federal False Claims Act, people with knowledge of wrongdoing by a company can sue on behalf of the government, and collect up to 30 percent of any resulting settlement or jury award.

“Ultimately the government decided not to participate” in the lawsuit, Butler Wooten said in a press release.

Jim Butler, with Butler Wooten, said the whistleblowers’ share of the $270 million in total settlements with the seven lenders is still being negotiated with the federal Justice Department.

MYAJC.COM: REAL JOURNALISM. REAL LOCAL IMPACT.

From Our Friends at Living Lies Weblog


URGENT REQUEST! California Court attempting to Bury Decision!!! Don’t allow Guliex v. PennyMac to go unpublished! Act Today!
7h ago

California Fifth Court of AppealsGuilexguilex v pennymac

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for courts to skirt the rules in order to protect the banks if they can get away with it. It is up to California attorneys and homeowners nationwide to contact California’s Fifth District Appellate court and request that the Guliex case be published. YOU almost didn’t have this opportunity because it appears the court attempted to end the submission window six-days early !

We need all HOMEOWNERS and FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE to HELP get this case published!

Homeowners, PLEASE write the Court at the address below TODAY (or use the template) and request that Guliex v. PennyMac be published. Attorneys and registered pro se litigants can file electronically through the court’s TrueFiling.com system.

Letters should be mailed TODAY or possibly MONDAY if you live in California to be received by the Tuesday, August 1st deadline.

Electronic filings are accepted up until Tuesday.

Originally the court had issued an order stating that no more letters requesting publication of Guliex would be accepted. Apparently after public outcry, the court clerk stated they would now accept requests to publish until Tuesday, August 1st, 2017.

On July 12th, 2017 the California Fifth Appellate Court issued an unpublished opinion in Guliex v. Pennymac Holdings, a case that may potentially benefit homeowners nationwide who are litigating illegal trustee sales and Chain of Title issues.

The Rules of the Fifth Appellate Court permit 20 days for attorneys and citizens to request publication of the case by submitting letters to the court. The court originally incorrectly listed the deadline as July 27th when the deadline should have been August 1st, 2017. Thus, the court clerk shut down requests for publication SIX days prematurely.

The Appellate court also issued the opinion that the Guliex decision, “does not establish a new rule of law, nor does it meet any of the criteria set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).”

WHAT? REALLY? The decision likely doesn’t meet the court’s publication criteria because it actually benefits the Homeowner, not the Bank for a change!! Apparently Homeowners fighting foreclosure and hostile courts must also fight judicial CENSORSHIP if they prevail, in addition to the other abuses and injustices they confront at every judicial juncture.

Unfortunately, this is one more attempt to silence victims of fraudulent foreclosure and the attorneys who defend them. The Guliex case is important because the court actually complies with the rule of law it established in its own jurisdiction.

Common sense decisions regarding wrongful foreclosure are infrequent and typically eroded or overturned. Yvanova, one of the finest decisions on the importance of standing, was decimated by the Saterbak ruling. A favorable precedent that adheres to the rule of law must be allowed to stand. We must be vigilant and our voices united.

Please write a simple letter, or copy the template below and mail it TODAY requesting that the court publish the Guliex decision. The request for publication should not exceed 2 pages.

(Hat tip to Charles Cox for composing the content of this letter). Please edit as desired.

Fifth District Court of Appeal
Request for Publication, Case No. F073142
Attn: Honorable Brad Hill, Presiding Justice
2424 Ventura Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Subject: Request for Publication

Guliex v PennyMac Holdings LLC

Court of Appeal No F073142 filed July 12, 2017

Opinion cited as 2017 Cal App Unpub Lexis 4742

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION

Dear Justices of the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal,

Pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.1120(a) et seq., I am writing to respectfully and timely request certification for publication of the Court’s entire Opinion, or in the alternative, partial publication of Parts I. et seq. and II.B., for the case captioned above.

My interest in this request relates to the engineered attacks upon home ownership by unauthorized intermediaries engaged in self-help that is California’s non-judicial foreclosure process; and the application, interpretation, clarification and addressing of the facts in this instant case by the Appellate Court and its distinguishing other holdings involving legal issues of continuing public interest as well as clarification of certain specifics related to this field of litigation as the Opinion(s) may apply to other cases more readily once published.

The Opinion meets the standard for publication as authorized by CRC, Rule 8.1105(c) which provides that an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division-whether it affirms or reverses a trial court order or judgment-should be certified for publication in the Official Reports if the opinion:

(1) Establishes a new rule of law;

(2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions;

(3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law;

(4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule;

(5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest;

(7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law;

(8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or

(9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law.

I contend the Court’s well-reasoned Opinion contained therein accordingly satisfy sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as referenced above more specifically related to Sections I. sub-sections B, C, and D.

Section I.B. The Opinion clarifies that a homeowner “…has standing to challenge a foreclosure by an unauthorized entity.” Further, the Opinion clarifies that although a superior court may take judicial notice of documents that have been publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office, the “disputed or disputable” factual content of recorded documents is inadmissible hearsay. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(2, 3, 5, 6 and 8).

Section I.C. The Opinion establishes a new rule on the analysis of a chain-of-title as reflected documents publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office; as well as the analysis of each link in the chain-of-title as to whether a document can establish an unbroken or perfect link in the chain. The Opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 6 and 8).

Section I. D. The Opinion establishes a new rule by distinguishing the two illegal types of wrongful foreclosures: procedural irregularities v. unauthorized foreclosure. This is an important opinion for these cases not previously popularized by other opinions clarifying the question of whether and/or when a homeowner must allege tender and/or prejudice. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Court publish the above referenced Opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

We encourage readers to post copies of the letters mailed to the court in the comments section of this post. Just to keep the courts honest!

Thank you to California Attorney Charles Marshall, Eva Sutton and Celia Salazar for their efforts to publish this important opinion.