Tag Archives: non-judicial foreclosure

Do Securitization Audits Ever Work to regain lost homes in California? YES? Maybe?

CEL NOTES: this looks good—I cannot verify the terms of the final disposition or settlement of the case but it appears to be real—I will update if I can confirm.  The Federal Docket for the case number provided in the article does not show a final disposition of the case.

The Shelley Report – Foreclosure Press

by Deadly Clear

Los Angeles Man Wins Property Back After Foreclosure and Eviction [[[http://justiceleaguetaskforce.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/los-angeles-man-wins-property-back-after-foreclosure-and-eviction/]]]

Los Angeles, CA — (SBWIRE) — 08/07/2013 – Homeowner Mike Cohenshad lost his investment home to foreclosure and was also evicted. A securitization audit company and Pasadena law firm helped him get it back.

Mike Cohenshad lost his investment home in foreclosure and also lost the accompanying Unlawful Detainer Hearing. He was then evicted from the investment property which was sold to a 3rd party at bank auction. Cohenshad hired the Law offices of Art Hoomiratana, a foreclosure defense firm in Pasadena, to seek out damages for wrongful foreclosure. Mr. Hoomiratana’s office immediately hired Paladin Securitization Auditors to conduct a securitization audit to investigate the lender’s standing to foreclose.

The securitization audit found that there were grounds for a Fraud and Wrongful Foreclosure Case based upon statutory violations, promissory estoppel, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Business and Professional Code 17 200. Using the securitization audit as evidence, The Law Offices of Art Hoomiratana litigated on these matters and won the home back, post-foreclosure, from the third party who purchased it. The judge found the foreclosure to be illegal and a wrongful foreclosure thanks to Paladin’s audit. The bank was forced to rescind the Trustee’s Sale and agreed to settle out and restructure the client loan including $188,000.00 in deferred principle reduction. His monthly mortgage payment was reduced from $4,981.43 to $2,492.59 and the interest rate was also reduced from 6.75% to 4%.

For reference, the court case is US. District Court Case No. CV13-00722-R (FFMx).

Or visit their site at www.securitizationauditservices.com

***********************************************************************

2013 WL 597283 (C.D.Cal.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, C.D. California.
Mike COHENSHAD, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Vericrest Financial, Inc.; US Bank, National Association; and Does 1-100, Inclusive, Defendants.
No. CV13-00722 MMM(FFMX).
February 1, 2013.
Diversity Jurisdiction
Demand for Jury Trial
Notice of Removal
Russ M. Fukano (SBN 114166), Email: rfukano@troygould.com, Annmarie Mori (SBN 217835), Email: amori@troygould.com, Troygould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067-2367, Telephone: (310) 553-4441, Facsimile: (310) 201-4746, Attorneys for Defendants Vericrest Financial, Inc. and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association).
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, for the reasons set forth below, Defendants Vericrest Financial, Inc. (“Vericrest”) and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association) (collectively, “Defendants”) file this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, requesting removal of this action from the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship and removal is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The plaintiff in this action is Mike Cohenshad, an individual who is domiciled in the State of California. The defendants are as follows:
1. Vericrest is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas;
2. US Bank Trust, N.A. is a national banking association, with its principal place of business in Delaware;1
3. US Bank Trust, N.A. is acting as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2, which is a trust. In the Ninth Circuit, a trust has the citizenship of its trustee. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. Alaska 2006) (For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a trust has the citizenship of its trustee or trustees.”); Wells Fargo Bank v. Mayes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35344 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2012) (citing Johnson, supra, to explain that trust has citizenship of trustee). Therefore, Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 has the citizenship of US Bank Trust, N.A.; and
4. Defendants are informed and believe and thereupon allege that CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”) is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.
The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
In support of the Notice of Removal, Defendants state as follows:
1. On or about December 3, 2012, plaintiff Mike Cohenshad (“Plaintiff”) commenced an action against defendants CitiMortgage, Vericrest and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011 -NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association) in the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles entitled Mike Cohenshad v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al. with a Civil Action No. of BC496711. True and correct copies of the pleadings served on Defendants are attached hereto. A true and correct copy of the Summons (which was not served on Defendants but a copy of which was obtained online) is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Complaint served on Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Lis Pendens served on Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
2. Pursuant to a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt, Vericrest was served with the Summons and Complaint on January 2, 2013.
3. Pursuant to a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt, US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association) was served with the Summons and Complaint on January 28, 2013.
4. Defendants are informed and believe, and upon that basis allege, that CitiMortgage has not been served with the Summons and Complaint.
5. This Notice of Removal is being filed on or before February 1, 2012, and is therefore timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” No defendant is therefore a citizen of California:
(a) Vericrest is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas;
(b) US Bank Trust, N.A. is a national banking association, with its principal place of business in Delaware; Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 has the citizenship of US Bank Trust, N.A.
(c) Defendants are informed and believe that CitiMortgage is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.
7. Plaintiff is an individual domiciled in California. Plaintiff is therefore a citizen of California.
8. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his home was improperly sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Plaintiff seeks a judgment quieting title back to him. His also seeks general, special and punitive damages in connection with causes of action, including fraud and negligence, relating to the purported wrongful foreclosure and related causes of action alleging an improper refusal to modify Plaintiff’s mortgage prior to the foreclosure sale. Plaintiff alleges the loan in connection with the purchase of the property was in excess of $500,000.00. The amount in controversy is therefore greater than $75,000.00.
9. As there is a complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
10. Therefore, this action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which states that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
11. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles, and written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal will be given to counsel for Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the action now pending in the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles be removed to this Court and that this Court accept this Notice of Removal for filing in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants hereby make a demand for jury trial.
Dated: February 1, 2013
TROYGOULD PC
By: <<signature>>
AnnMarie Mori
Attorneys for Defendants Vericrest Financial, Inc. and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank. National Association)
Appendix not available.

Footnotes

Plaintiff erroneously sued US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 as “US Bank, National Association.” Plaintiff alleges that “US Bank, National Association” is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Oregon. Complaint, ¶ 4.

Civil Rights Removal: To Limit Removal to Cases involving Racial Discrimination on the basis of Statutory Schemes to enforce racial inequality is to make a travesty of Civil Rights—either we all have real rights or none of us do!

Lori G. McDonald now tests the waters with the best and most comprehensive Notice of Civil Rights Removal filed to date.  Why are so many eviction cases, when removed on grounds of diversity alone, remanded for the reason that the claims of dollar amounts in a Plaintiff’s case (no matter how illusory or illogical those amounts might be) is absolutely controlling for diversity jurisdiction?  Plaintiffs in limited jurisdiction “unlawful detainer” cases only claim “back rental” (if anything) in dollar amounts, but a huge amount of jurisprudence supports a completely different angle of analysis of “amount in controversy” and such claims as to value are always frivolous, fraudulent, and designed precisely to avoid the rigors of federal court. Lori has now addressed these issues in her Notice, filed November 28, 2011, in Santa Ana, Orange County, California, based on the legal research and ligation support which only the Charles Lincoln Trust for Tierra Limpia  provides to pro se homeowners….. and those who have been wrongfully deprived of home ownership.  California Civil Code §2924 et seq. is an “equal opportunity destroyer,” and there will be no peace until the entire process of non-judicial foreclosure is wiped from the face of the earth and declared unconstitutional, never to be raised from the grave again.  The lawyers, such as Steven D. Silverstein and their allies the corrupt Superior Court Judges such as Cory Cramin, who knowingly enforced that unconstitutional and immoral statute and took pleasure in the infliction of misery on millions must be punished, as must politicians such as Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Edmund G. Brown who smiled and used their positions and influence to uphold the special privileges, grossly inequitable and immorally granted rights and blatantly unconstitutional powers of the Banks while it was all going on.

If elected to the United States Senate, I will filibuster to eradicate the requirement of race-based classifications and even “protected group” analysis from equal protection jurisprudence: All must be free or none can be free, because some animals are NOT really more equal than others…..  

11-28-2011 Lori G McDonald & Mark Privitera Removal of Wells Fargo Case to USDC CDCA re 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E ; 11-28-2011 Civil Cover Sheet for Lori G. McDonald & Mark Privitera Notice of Civil Rights Removal ; 11-28-2011 Lori G McDonald Certificate of Interested Parties for Notice of Removal

Federal Civil Rights Legislation and litigation simply did not exist before the War Between the States of 1861-1865.  Such legislation and litigation were only necessary because the Military dictatorship which arose after the War made certain that the newly emancipated slaves actually had the upper hand (for a few years, anyhow) before the Compromise of 1877 obliterated what little integrity was left in the Union’s claim to the moral highground.  After a couple of decades of dormancy, “Civil Rights” became the most divisive issue in the nation again, starting almost immediately after World War II (for which the war of 1861-65 in America was a very clear and plain rehearsal).   Now the Banks have allied themselves with the United States government in a manner analogous to the alliance between Carpetbaggers and Union Troops in the South (also, coincidentally, with full bank-establishment backing….) and are wreaking havoc all over the country.  Millions are losing their homes and seeing their savings and security wiped out.  Now the whole nation knows what it was like to be a Southern White Farmer in the late 1860s.  And ironically, blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians are all being turned out of their homes without regard to race, creed, or color, but it could not have happened without the Civil Rights Laws’ having been expressly applied by the Courts ONLY to protect the rights of one race against another, and not of all people together. 

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

A Streamlined Outline of a Complaint for Constitutional & Common Law Mortgage Foreclosure & Eviction Litigation in California

I think the attached four page outline pretty much summarizes everything that we need to say in a complaint which could be copied and duplicated everywhere and adapted, adopted, and filed by every affected person in every U.S. District Court in the State of California to attack the current regime of Non-Judicial Foreclosure followed by Summary Judicial Eviction with neither respect for due process nor any Protection for Civil Rights whatsoever, supporting massive racketeering enterprises involving attorneys, servicers and “purchasers” in support of Banking & Securities Fraud and the infliction of almost immeasurable, irreparable injuries to individuals, families, children, and destruction of their lives and private property.  I would appreciate all constructive criticism, suggestions, and feedback.

 REFRAMED & STREAMLINED OUTLINE of COMPLAINT 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E

REFRAMED OUTLINE OF COMPLAINT—8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E

In light of Judge Carter’s extension of our deadline until January 17, 2012, to get the Constitutional Case going, and after my second meeting with Attorneys Donald MacPherson & my 4th with Nathan MacPherson, I am persuaded that it is essential to try to reorganize and “slim down” the complaint before inviting further support and intervenors in.

This is something that we had TALKED about doing last with Diane Beall and/or Dennis Russell, but it obviously never happened.  Judge Carter has shown amazing tolerance and interest in our case, I believe, and we should honor him by really getting our act together to make this case change history.  I think we could streamline the case by outline as follows (I would like input from all co-plaintiffs and supporters about what needs to be added by way of specific detail):

SECTION I:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES

(1)      We ask this Court to declare Non-Judicial Foreclosure, as authorized by California Civil Code 2924 et seq., and all related statutes, declared unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(2)      We ask this Court to declare California’s statutory system of Summary Judicial Foreclosure also unconstitutional under each of the same grounds. [We need to collect a complete inventory of all related and relevant statutes to itemize under each section: Richard Mendez & Lance Francis, this is probably your job primarily, although I certainly would not resist any help from Jackie Figg….or anyone else with a passion for the topic].

(3)      We ask this Court to declare the California Statutory system authorizing and empowering the Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction to be declared unconstitutional under each of the same grounds, unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(4)      1714.10 (Attorney Immunity for Fraud committed on behalf of or in agreement with clients) should also be declared unconstitutional

(5)      405.21 (Attorney Required for Lis Pendens without Leave of Court) should also be declared unconstitutional: 

§ 405.21. Prerequisites to recording

An attorney of record in an action may sign a notice of pendency of action. Alternatively, a judge of the court in which an action that includes a real property claim is pending may, upon request of a party thereto, approve a notice of pendency of action. A notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless (a) it has been signed by the attorney of record, (b) it is signed by a party acting in propria persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section, or (c) the action is subject to Section 405.6.

SECTION II:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

FEDERAL STATUTES

(6)     The words “White Citizens” should be stricken from 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982:

42 U.S.C. 1981: (a) Statement of equal rights: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined:

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairmentThe rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. 1982: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

(7)     The language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 being colorblind and neutral on its face, all Supreme Court rulings that Civil Rights Removal depends upon racial discrimination should be stricken, reversed and overturned in light of Regents of U. Cal. v. Bakke, City of Richmond v. Croson, Adarand v. Pena, and Grutter v. Bolinger.

(8)     All Supreme Court rulings that Mortgage Notes be exempted from Securities Regulation should be stricken, reversed, and overturned as unconstitutional denials of due process of law.

SECTION III: ACTION FOR DAMAGES

under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): Racketeering by Eviction Attorneys & Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

(9)         Steven D. Silverstein (Silverstein Evictions), BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER, TREDER, & WEISS, LL.P, and other attorneys and law firms engaging in mass processed evictions ________, ______,________, _____________,_________,___________have committed multiple predicate criminal acts in the process of each eviction, and they have done so under the protection of the Orange County Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Orange County Sheriff’s Office.   As repeat-reinvestors in Racketeering Activities), Silverstein and other eviction attorneys such a decisive hold on the Judicial Officials, Clerk, and Sheriff’s Deputies of Orange County (and other counties in California, to wit:_______), that the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in Orange County operate as a single unit corrupt organization with a list of Judges Cory A. Cramin, ________,______,_______,_____and named or unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies ________,_____,______as individuals who either derive income or employment or engage in conspiracy for racketeering activities (Lance Francis & Richard can elaborate on reasons for waivers of immunity, as well as the list). (This is a section which intervenors could add to and alter/modify with their own lists of defendants, with dates of actions taken illegally).

SECTION IV:  

COMMON LAW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:

SALES OF HOMES BASED ON POOLED and/or

SECURITIZED NOTES ARE VOID

(10)    We ask this Court to declare all sales of our homes void if and whenever foreclosured auctioned sold by “Debt Servicers” or by or on behalf of Banks/Federal Financial Institutions who held only derivative rights to notes which had been securitized.

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS’ & INTERVENORS’ PROPERTIES: _____________,_______________,___________________,__________________,__________, ________,________ (This is another section which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties).

Section V:

COMMON LAW

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE

(10)     We ask that this Court grant to each Plaintiff QUIET TITLE to his/her home & Lists:____________________

SECTION VI:

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & EVICTION

(12)    We ask this Court to award to each Plaintiff DAMAGES for wrongful foreclosure & eviction, including relocation costs, rental, damages to homes, etc. (Sections V, VI, & VII are all sections to which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties). (Should all servicers, banks, and purchasers be listed as Defendants along with the attorneys?)

SECTION VII:

DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY & PERSONAL INJURIES

(13)        Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for their losses of personal property, and personal injuries including emotional distress to adults and children.  Foreclosure of real property carries with it no right, title, or interest in personal property, but Plaintiffs have all lost considerable amounts of personal property as a result of foreclosure, and all this lost property should be compensated for tort damages in Conversion and Trebled Damages under R.I.C.O..  Further, the dislocation of lives and especially of children’s well-being should be compensated.  No immunity should be allowed for any defendant to the Pattern of Racketeering which Created the Eviction Epidemic and Foreclosure Crisis.

Note: Over the course of the past year, not only Nathan and Donald MacPherson, but many people have commented that our Third Amended Complaint is just too long and too complicated to be viable.  The above Four Page/13 Part Outline should make the case more readily comprehensible.   How much detail do we need in the Complaint?  How much detail should each intervenor add?  How should we structure all this?  Edit it?  Present it?  I hope each person to whom this outline copy is addressed will provide some feedback.

Thank you,

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

(310) 773-6023

October 19, 2011 (Wednesday)

The Original Third Amended Complaint (Draft only) is attached here, without any of the exhibits or final edits/amendments.A-Third Amended Complaint 09-cv-01072-DOC-E 09-22-2010

The Futility of Individualized Resistance to Collectivization: the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation

I want to deliver a very short and bitter message here: individual case litigation strategies have failed and are doomed to continued failure.  EVERY PERSON who wants to fight in court for his or her family home in Court in California must include a Constitutional Challenge to the Non-Judicial Foreclosure System and all the component statutes, but even this is not enough: the remedy is political action.  Until these statutes and the nation-wide socialistic policies which support them are obliterated, which can be reliably expected to happen ONLY through political rather than judicial action, the institutions of private property and the home-based family will continue to erode and disintegrate.  

Without MASSIVE LEGAL REFORM, there is no hope that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” will not be continually violated as it has been in millions of cases nationwide.  These mass foreclosure and eviction policies have been approved and strategies formulated by the government at the highest levels.  

(That was the short brief and very bitter message—all the rest that follows is an elaboration on these points).

I am writing today to announce firmly that I think that everyone involved in the “Anti-Foreclosure” guerilla resistance is and has been misguided, myself included.  We have to stop thinking, or even looking for ways, to succeed on an individual, case-by-case basis.  We have to organize as a community whose wealth and values are under siege.  Offering potential strategies or hypothetical solutions to individuals is just “wrong” and we’ve got to give it up.  We must organize like the abolitionists before 1861, like the labor unions from the 1880s-1920s, like the real civil rights activists of the 1950s-60s.  All our “gurus” and sources of individual advice regarding individual and isolated action, from the cosmically brilliant Neil Garfield on his wonderful “Living Lies” website, down the hierarchy through local geniuses like April Carrie Charney and Malcolm Doney in Florida, Charles Koppa and Catherine Bryan in Orange and San Diego Counties, California all the way down to Theresa Moore and Robert Garvin in Studio City and finally Peyton and me have just had it all wrong—–we have been doing more harm than good.  

We are all either engaging in false hopes or blindly misleading people to think that we can stop the seizure of homes and property in any sort of systematic way through litigation and the court system.  

Worse than that, by offering false hopes to people and engaging in one losing court-battle after another, we have been bolstering and shoring up the success of the corporate-banking enemies.

What I am writing today is that the individual case-litigation approach is a massive failure even to slowing the rates of foreclosure and eviction in California or anywhere else.  Even in Florida, at best “Anti-Foreclosure Guerillas” like April Carrie Charney, Malcolm Doney and Catherine Bryan can claim very if outright victories other than temporary delay in a small percentage, not even a statistically significant minority of foreclosures or evictions.  

The individual case strategy cannot be used to eradicate what is a society-wide systemic cancer created by the politically tempting bait of “easy credit” which was, after all, the original communist-socialist demand of the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

Because “easy credit” is by definition based on wants and desires rather than actual wealth or production, “easy credit” is the antithesis of capitalism or any sound economic system, but it sure is popular if you’re a politician….  When they said that Communism works through the ways and means of the devil, they weren’t kidding: the theory that temptation has been the path to sin and death since the Garden of Eden is not actually “just a theory” but a fairly demonstrable fact.

Even coordinated constitutional litigation cannot work because I do not think we can every achieve statewide in California, much less nationwide, anything like what I tried and failed to achieve in the family courts in Williamson County Texas in 2005-7.  What I tried in Georgetown, Texas, was to try to arouse and incite enough popular discontent and cooperative participant action among parents that we might close down the system.  I came close enough that Judge James F. Clawson commented on the fact that if he did not ban me from further litigation in the state of Texas, I would have closed down the Family Law Courts.  

But in fact we did not come anywhere close to permanently shutting down the courts by flooding them with protests and constitutionally demanding civil rights motions and litigation maneuvers.  We just got labelled “paper terrorists.”  Ok, Assistant Texas A.G. James Carlton Todd and his boss Mr. Greg Abbott actually called me “the most dangerous paper terrorist in Texas”—but that dubious distinction plus $5.00 is barely enough to buy you a coffee and pound cake at Starbucks these days.

Given the scale of the foreclosure crisis—Millions in California alone—tens of millions nationwide—1.5 million abandoned and empty homes in Florida—we have to recognize this as a problem much bigger than any of us as individuals.  

Slavery was not abolished by helping individual slaves escape through the “underground railroad” or even through individual plantation-owners granting manumission by will to hundreds or thousands of slaves upon their deaths by will.  

Decent wages in factories were never achieved by individualized negotiation for “modifications” of employment contracts—only by COLLECTIVE ACTION on the part of organized labor unions—and that is what we need in the foreclosure arena.  And in doing so we have to recognize that we face, just like the operators of the underground railway did, just as the early leaders of the labor movement did in the 1880s-1890s, the possibility of arrest and even armed suppression of our movement.  (Compare the “Haymarket Riot” in Chicago on May 4, 1886 and the much larger and more widespread Pullman Riots, also centered in Chicago but Nationwide, in the summer of 1894.)

So if we REALLY oppose collectivization of private property we cannot do so individually, we cannot oppose the government one-on-one, unless we do so as “We the People” acting politically and in concert.  To this end I would ask for contributions to take out full – page ads in the Los Angeles Times and advertise on television and radio as well as the internet.  “CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL—TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS BEFORE THEY TAKE YOUR HOME, IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN, TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS AND YOUR HOME.

We must clearly articulate our position that: we know that the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation, and we demand an end to both the governmental policy and the (ironic as it might seem) banks’ confiscation of property by securitization.  

The outward trappings of capitalism have become the instruments of communistic confiscation and expropriation of homes and the destruction of families.  This will only end when the people demand it to end—and the Courts are not the proper arenas to do this. Courts in the United States and Europe, all known judicial systems, really, are designed at best to correct (or compensate) small variant problems and deviations from established norms.  

We who OPPOSE foreclosure and eviction, who DEMAND adherence to the common law and constitutional norms respecting contract and the right to own property according to contractual terms and rights, WE are the deviants now, and it is UP TO US to bring the law into conformity.  It is a tall order, but it is the only way we can reclaim our heritage and our RIGHTS to property—even when so much property has already been lost or destroyed.

Courts can only act as mechanisms for the imposition of widespread social and cultural change when they are expressly delegated this purpose by the political branches, as they have been during the racial civil rights movements 1948-1972 and the less well-publicized but even more historically significant family and domestic relations “reformulations” involving no fault divorce, abortion, and “sexual liberation” generally during the period starting not later than 1962 and continuing until the present time.  

Ironically, for all its internal contradictions, for all that it was an incomplete movement which only raised up one part of society by dragging down another, upgraded some statements of rights while degrading others, some of the best pro freedom statements and constitutional formulations of the law as written today owe their origins to the American Civil Rights movement.  

The civil rights movements of both the 1860s-70s (though mostly constitutional and statutory) and 1950s-60s (mostly judicial) had many positive components and results which were actually pro-freedom and anti-communist (although the movement itself was widely labelled as “communistic” by many opponents during the twentieth century—I often retell the story that among my earliest memories of highway driving in Texas and Louisiana were the “Impeach Earl Warren” signs all throughout the South and Southwest in the late 1960s).  

Again ironically, the “sexual liberation” movement and now the mortgage foreclosure crisis have undone many of the positive, pro freedom, effects of the civil rights movement by creating new forms of oppression (as indeed have some statutory civil rights programs—as distinct from a strong majority of the judicial decisions of the civil rights quarter century noted, 1948-1972).  

But the mortgage foreclosure crisis appears to be completing what was worst in both the civil rights and sexual liberation movements: the final destruction of the home-based family and stable neighborhood community.  In fact, it is fair to say that, on the populist activist level, it would now be impossible to have a civil rights movement analogous to the one that started after World War II, because NO COHERENT COMMUNITIES OF ANY POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SIZE REMAIN IN AMERICA TODAY—we are truly a nation of transients).

For fifteen years now, since 1996, I have been involved almost continuously in Civil Rights litigation of one species or another against State and Corporate abuses of individual rights and personal autonomy, against takings of liberty & property without due process of law.  I started off fighting the Sheriffs and Police Departments in Central Texas, disputing their claims of “qualified immunity” to abuse the rights and autonomy of people on a random and unsystematic basis, almost like criminals or terrorists.  I then graduated to believing the problem took a more systematic form with a plan to destroy the individual and family regularly and predictably, and that the root of problem lay with judicial immunity and the Court system, especially the Family or Domestic Relations Courts.  I still believe that at both levels, our local, state, and national institutions have betrayed their birthright in liberty.

Since 2006, my focus has been primarily against the mortgage finance and credit systems.  During these five years’ time I have researched and experimented with many varieties of theories or approaches to common-law (and commercial code) holder-in-due-course doctrine, privity of contract, quiet title, securities fraud, and other pro-consumer, pro-buyer, theories.  I have tried and tested such theories at the very least in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, and (most intensely of all since 2008) California.   I know that, logically and rationally, all these theories are either correct in some absolute or historical or logical sense, but they do not work in Court in ANY SORT OF PREDICTABLE WAY. What this means is that, as a matter of any individual’s “reasonable expectation”, there is no adequate remedy at law or in equity, there is only the occasional, seemingly almost random, single decision in a thousand or so that goes the way of the owner consumer.  This is not a matter of “legal victory”, this is a matter of “playing the odds” at Roulette or Blackjack, much worse than betting on racecars, ponies, thoroughbreads, or greyhounds whose mechanical design and/or natural and innate skills can be rated and assessed objectively.

In the past five years, no two cases or situations have ever been exactly alike, but the pattern is always the same: the decks in the courthouses across the nation are stacked against the homeowner/consumer/buyer/ “borrower” or “credit applicant/credit user.”   I feel I fairly competently understand the law in only five states at the present time: California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas (although all the Ninth Circuit States—Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Washington—are by conscious historical design pretty close in design and execution of statutory scheme to California).   In Florida and New Jersey, the law is EXCELLENT, in that foreclosure and eviction are both by the clear requirement of the law judicial in nature, and common law modified by the commercial code is all that counts.  Yet the rate of foreclosure is astronomical in both states.  In Florida, they are dragging judges out of retirement to preside over the foreclosure epidemic in the state with the flimsiest houses (owing to both construction and lack of regular winter weather) and the nation’s longest tradition of continuous real estate fraud.  In New Jersey, there is a moratorium on foreclosure proceedings until the system “can catch up with itself” whatever that means.  

In California, the worst laws in the country are fueling the worst foreclosure epidemic anywhere in history.  I have written extensively about California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., especially 2924a, 2924i, and the related “attorney conspiracy” limitations of §1714.10.  Michigan and Texas are both “mixed” systems where judicial and non-judicial foreclosure are authorized by law, but non-judicial foreclosure has become the norm in the past decade.

It was only when I came to California in 2008 that I began to realize for certain what was really going on, and what is really going on is that the United States Government, and State Governments with more-or-less enthusiasm, are cooperating with banks and finance companies to abolish private property and turn ownership of all private interests to a state-controlled governmental-corporate conglomerate along the lines originally suggested in Karl Marx’ and Frederick Engels’ Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      In some very real ways, the most disturbing results come from Massachusetts.  To the same degree that I believe that the Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loan case (121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011) illustrates the utter futility of fighting within the law of California—(when the law itself is the enemy and unconstitutional wall-to-wall), I had thought that the Ibanez case in Massachusetts showed a glimmer of sanity and light on the East Coast US Bank Nat Ass’n v Ibanez 458 Mass 637 941 NE2d 40 (Massachusetts 2011).  Peyton’s research in Massachusetts last month (May 2011) has brought evidence to my attention that Ibanez in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with securitization and that Massachusetts law appears to expressly permit the separation of ownership of the note and ability to collect on the mortgage, and has done so for approximately 100 years.  In particular, two sections of its general laws make Massachusetts appear as bad or even worse than California in terms of its statutory scheme, although Massachusetts generally has a much “kinder and gentler” set of consumer protection laws § 9-609 Secured Party’s Right to Take Possession After Default UCC 106 Art 9 GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS and § 9-607 Collection and Enforcement by Secured Party (these are all part of the “gentle, gradual” transition to socialism which deceptively gives the—entirely false— appearance of respect for individual rights).  The “Uniform Commercial Code Comment” for 1999 Main Volume appears to confirm that the note and mortgage may be separated in Massachusetts by stating: 

“6. Relationship to Rights and Duties of Persons Obligated on Collateral. This section permits a secured party to collect and enforce obligations included in collateral in its capacity as a secured party. It is not necessary for a secured party first to become the owner of the collateral pursuant to a disposition or acceptance.”

In other words, Massachusetts Law addresses by editing the Uniform Commercial Code what would otherwise is and should remain one of the strongest common law (and in fact, “normal” commercial code) explanations for why securitized mortgages are (everywhere else) facially illegal. It is widely known that Massachusetts and California are two of the most “socialist-tending” states in the Union—so the Ibanez case as originally (apparently, COMPLETELY misinterpreted) was a major surprise.  See also the Boston Bar Journal Comment on the case: Boston Bar Journal US BANK v IBANEZ THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY’S DOCUMENTATION PRACTICES IN FOCUS, and for the disconnection between Massachusetts law and the rest of the United States Concerning the necessary that “note and mortgage travel together” see the Westlaw Journal Article published on Valentine’s Day: 02-14-2011 IBANEZ A 19TH-CENTURY DECISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.  

Now, regardless of whether California or Massachusetts has the WORST foreclosure law “on the books” the simple truth is that the law, and the way that the law is consistently applied by the courts—is the primary problem—NOT “robo signing” by the banks, NOT any of the faults or practices of the banks at all in fact—because if the Courts would enforce the common law and constitution against the financial industry, criminal and civil violations would be recognized and dealt with as such.  The problem is that the law and the Courts have effectively IMMUNIZED the Banks and financial institutions pursuant to an express government policy—very succinctly and clearly, and unambiguously identified, articulated, and described in the California Gomes opinion attached above, from February 18, 2011, that California public policy favors quick and easy foreclosure.  Foreclosure has thus become a kind of “kindly manner” of execution in this “Brave New World” in which we now live.  (Compare G.B. Shaw’s Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism” which explains: 

…under Socialism…..you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.  If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”)

One repeating mantra of the “easy credit” society is that “living well is the best revenge” but appears that in a Socialist Society—others (namely the Corporate/Governmental Intelligencia) has the power to decide on our behalf what constitutes good living.  Obviously, the choice to live austerely in the desert and contemplate truth, like the early Christian monastics known as “The Desert Fathers” would be off limits/impermissible.  I suppose “living well” means buying at shopping malls, living in government/corporate allocated housing which will be awarded based on the degree of your conformity with government/corporate policy—whatever that is—which determines whether you have or have not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble.”

Getting to these conclusions and understanding what’s going on has been a long and fairly painful process…..

       It is still less than ten years since, on my son Charlie’s tenth birthday, California Attorney Deborah S. Gershon, then Vice-President and General Counsel of AAMES Home Loan, Inc., informed me that AAMES could not modify any Home Loans because the notes at all been pooled and securitized.  Following up, I now find that Deborah S. Gershon (according to her profile with the California State Bar) is employed by and affiliated with another subprime lender: “Signature Group Holdings, Inc.” (owner of “Signature Capital Advisers, LLC, Fremont Credit Corporation and Fremont Investment & Loan Bank of California).  This is very interesting because Fremont Investment & Loan went through bankruptcy reorganization a couple of years ago as a direct result of some early “foreclosure crisis” litigation in Massachusetts relating to predatory lending in the sub-prime field.  See, e.g., http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/452/452mass733.html (452 Mass. 733, 2008) and also, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s press release on her $10MM settlment http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_06_09_fremont_agreement&csid=Cago   In short, Deborah S. Gershon has dedicated her life to the securitization of mortgages and related financial and legal endeavors.  It is apparently a very good business, and a very good line of work.  Those who had the foresight to join in that movement deserve the same respect as those who saw that the Bolsheviks were destined to rule Russia after the 1917 Revolution, that Mao Tse-Tung would triumph over Chiang Kai-shek (aka Jiǎng Jièshí or Jiǎng Zhōngzhèng in Mandarin), and that Saigon would ultimately fall to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam (for the Vietnamese aftermath, seehttp://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default.aspx?cat_id=513&news_id=12053#content “Scientific seminar on President Ho Chi Minh and the road to national salvation”).

AAMES was a pioneer in home equity loans, starting an advertising program in the late 1970s (Carter Administration) which included some fairly interesting and or amusing ads, see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjTzEzNT7_M&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgB335zLfc&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5STpiAwt0.  AAMES is thus one of the earliest criminal enterprises which insinuated the concept of Easy Home Credit through the Yellow Pages into the American Consciousness as a vehicle of expanding credit regardless of productivity and wealth or REAL need—and AAMES’ was a mover in reshaping Federal and State laws to allow for the extension of such loans and the consequent expropriation of homes without due process of law.  

In one sense, the American people bear full responsibility for and complicity in this crisis up to the present time.  More certainly even than that the Germans voted Hitler and the Nazi Party into power in not one fluke but two successive national elections in 1932 and 1933, the Americans have repeated voted the supporters of easy credit and punitive and confiscatory policies leading to the expropriation of property into power.  The destruction of Germany under Hitler and during World War II, then was guaranteed by only two elections.  

The Americans have been voting soft-sell corporate socialists into power continuously for 76 years since 1932, with increasingly express enthusiasm since at least 1970 (the last “real” anti-communists to receive any electoral votes for the Presidency were Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968).  The election of 2008 saw the first election of the first avowedly, admittedly socialist President in U.S. History, and major magazine articles discussed his commitment to socialism with fanfare as “Cover” articles, but little actual controversy.  And the greatest irony was that there was not one IOTA of difference between the “avowedly socialist” policies of President Barack Hussein Obama and the “Conservative Republican” policies of George Walker Bush—Obama has yet to introduce a single policy without precedent in his predecessor’s administration more significant than his “cash for clunkers” program.  (“Obamacare” has actually been “in the works” since 1993 during Hillary’s first term in the White House….. yes, if Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky made anything clear about Bill Clinton, it was that if anyone was wearing the pants in the White House during the first term, it certainly was NOT him….and in fact Hillary’s support for health care reform back then was well-known and publicized).  

The highly controversial “individual mandate” for healthcare has been a socialist threat since the 1920s.  Samuel Gompers, an early American union leader, founder of the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.) and contemporary of Eugene Debbs, argued against the individual mandate as early as January 22, 1917:

“Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty.  The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty.  Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.”

If Gompers could see the “individual mandate” coming in January of 1917, it is not so surprising that we now HAVE IT as enacted law today, in June 2011, despite considerable resistance in the courts and public mind.

And the general proposition that socialism would be imposed by stealth on the United States people without their realizing it has been around since at least 1947, when Harvard’s famed professor of history (and CUNY “Albert Schweitzer Professor of the Humanities”) wrote in an oft-quoted essay:

IF SOCIALISM (i.e. OWNERSHIP BY THE STATE OF ALL SIGNIFICANT MEANS OF PRODUCTION) is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law, and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend.

         That is, the transition must be piecemeal; it must be parliamentary; it must respect civil liberties and due process of law Socialism by such means used to seem fantastic to the hardeyed melodramatists of the Leninist persuasion; but even Stalin is reported to have told Harold Laski recently [remember this was written in 1947] that it might be possible.  . . . There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.  

        Socialism, then, appears quite practical within this frame of reference, as a longtime proposition.  Its graduate advance might well preserve law and order…. the active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working classes, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians, and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal.  

Quoted in John A. Stormer’s 1964 None Dare Call it Treason, Ch. XIII, Economics & Government: 199.

I submit to you that we find ourselves in a critical moment of history.  I oppose collectivism because I want to own my home and all its contents.  If people steal my home and all its contents under any pretext which violates my common law contractual and constitutional rights, I want them to be held liable as thieves and compelled either to restore my property to me or to compensate me very richly for the loss of the same.  I have in fact lost two homes and their valuable movable content to such “predatory lending practices”, once in Texas and once in California, both times in 2009.       I don’t think it is a coincidence that these criminal acts happened during the first full year of the first term of the first openly socialist President of the United States.  Expropriation and confiscation and destruction of private property are, in essence, a core part of the socialist way of life, mandated by the express terms of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      How do you feel about your homes and property, if you still have them OR if you’ve already lost them?  Do you believe that those who oppose collectivism are routinely discredited by smears as I and so many others have been?  Do you believe that we should all accept that we “can’t fight city hall” as our philosophy and settle down to “exist” within the framework of a completely-controlled, federally dominated economy and culturally decimated way of life?  Do you feel that politicians should avoid genuine controversy, and focus on emotionally “hot” issues which are tangential to the choices we have to make that will define our own and our children’s way of life for hundreds of years to come?  

Should we all just look to our own individual interests or should we band together and fight until the laws which permit Collectivisation of our Society and the Confiscation and/or Expropriation of all that we own are repealed and or overturned?

NONE OF THESE THINGS WILL EVER OCCUR THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CASE-BY-CASE LITIGATION.  NONE OF US WILL EVER REALLY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAIN UNTIL ALL OF US CAN OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY and, within the words of the Fourth Amendment, know for sure that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” either by the Federal Government, the State Government, Local Sheriffs, or Privateering Real Estate Pirates Like Steven D. Silverstein and all the other marauders like him who operate “under color of law” in California and nationwide.

Racial Inequality and Irrational Preferences in Application and Enforcement of Certain Key, Historic, Civil Rights Laws

28 U.S.C. Section 1443 states as follows:

“Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.”

On its face, this statute is color-blind, makes no reference to race, and is absolute.  In practical application, the Federal Courts have rendered this statute all but nugatory.  Anyone who wishes to exercise civil rights removal in the United States today must be prepared to fight to overturn one of the oddest relics of Jim Crow segregation imaginable: Civil Rights actions are still, in large part, said to be available only to cure RACIAL discrimination, and all other kinds of civil rights abuse are largely left immune, literally immunized, and untouched by the Constitution, unlimited by any constraints imposed by fundamental rights or human dignity.

Litigants interested in denials of equal access to the courts and denial of due process, or the existence of statutory economic classes, must ask the courts to analyze the 44 year old judicial construction and application of Civil Rights Removal (28 U.S.C. §§1443(1), 1447(d)) by application of the “strict scrutiny” test applicable all race-based schemes (even those called “benign”) and give that statute the full breadth and strength implicit in the plain language enacted by Congress.  28 U.S.C. §1443(1), a statute tracing its history back more than a hundred and thirty five years, as written, adopted, and codified by Congress into the positive law of the United States, ought to be one of the most powerful engines of civil rights enforcement under the constitution.  The language of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) is inclusive, rather than exclusive, but it was given an unbelievably narrow construction by the United States Supreme Court in 1966, from which the court has never retreated.  I would submit, and urge all others to argue as well, whether pro se or assisted by counsel, that the racially unequal application of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) is an affront to all recent U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence since Regents of the UC v. Bakke in 1978City of Richmond v. Croson in 1989, and Adarand v. Pena in 1995.

It is also time for the courts to allow removal so that all defendants in, for example, California eviction (U.D., unlawful detainer) cases following non-judicial foreclosures, will be able to put on evidence (as apparently ONLY the Defendants in Rachel v. Georgia have ever been allowed to do, and that in 1966) showing that all the non-racial or racially neutral criteria imposed on the invocation of 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1447(d) by the U.S. Supreme Court in Greenwood v. Peacock and Georgia v. Rachel do in fact apply to all proceedings, in that these statutes, not quite uniquely, but with discriminatory intent and effect creating disparate classes of litigants more draconian than most, are designed to obliterate the following fundamental Constitutional freedoms: (1) freedom from statutes impairing the obligations of contract, (2) freedom to petition for redress of grievances, (3) freedom from deprivation of private property for public use without just compensation, (4) freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, (5) the right to jury trial in all cases where the matter in controversy exceeds $25.00.

So great is the weight of state statutes forbidding any contest against non-judicial foreclosure prior to effecting an illegal taking of property under color of law that even freedom of speech itself is suppressed.

Litigants in non-judicial foreclosure and forcible eviction cases should be prepared to appeal many a U.S. District Court’s denial of their right to present evidence showing (1) that the outcome of all non-judicial foreclosures and all Forcible Eviction cases following the same is uniformly fixed and predetermined, simultaneously by California statutes, court rules and practices having the force or effect of law relating to non-judicial foreclosure and post-foreclosure eviction, as well as other official customs, practices, and policies of the state of California relating to foreclosure and eviction, and having the force and effect of written law, (2) that the statutes fixing and predetermining these non-judicial and judicial outcomes constitute an infringement of the rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom of contract under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (if construed in a racially neutral manner), (3) that the statutes, court rules, and state customs, practices, and policies relating to non-judicial deprivation of property uniformly deny due process of law and give unbridled and hence unconstitutional discretion to arbitrary and capricious judicial decisions which all tend uniformly to the suppression of constitutional rights to private contractual formation and equality of access to the Courts, ownership of private property, and individual freedom to offer and give evidence under both 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982.

Likewise, the statutory racial language of 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 themselves must be subjected to strict scrutiny and this court should order it stricken, because there can be no compelling governmental interest in maintaining that:

Section 1981:

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,”

and

Section 1982:

“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”

When the consequence of these laws being so written, in archaic, Reconstruction-era, Race-Related concerns, is to allow states to create, and to allow the Courts to uphold and enforce non-racial categories of disfavored persons, such as Respondents in forcible eviction and unlawful detainer cases, who must always lose, there is a great need for removal to Federal Court to preserve these liberties, and racial discrimination in the enforcement of civil rights is counter to all legitimate purposes of government.  When people are reduced to conditions of involuntary servitude by private economic manipulation and judicial strategems implemented in a matter subservient to those private special interests, the people are reduced to slavery.  It matters little that this is done by the stroke of judge’s and lawyers’ pens and word processors rather by than forcible capture and de jure enslavement, the philosophy of equality and the existence of a free society are equally imperiled.

Will Florida be infected and destroyed by the cancer of non-judicial foreclosure?

My Gratitude to Deborah Focht of Sarasota for providing this important information.  Deborah (aka “American Reply”) is another one of Florida’s Great Lady Warriors who fight against creeping Socialist dictatorship in America.  And let there be no doubt, although the state of California has the worst laws on non-judicial foreclosure, non-judicial foreclosure EVERYWHERE is unconstitutional (1) as an impairment of the rights of contract for existing contracts, (2) an abridgment of the common law freedom of contract on which this nation was founded and flourished for about 150-190 years (any relic traces of real economic freedom pretty much ended, for the economy as a whole, about during the middle of the Johnson Administration at the absolute latest), (3) a legislatively engineered taking of property for public purposes (those purposes being the maximization of governmental power against the citizen, and the diminution of individual freedom and stability to maintain and reserve power against the state) without due process of law, (4) a complete abrogation of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the key to universal corporate-governmental co-ownership of property.  It is because of non-judicial foreclosure that I decided to enter politics (too late, too disorganized, and too underfunded to accomplish much in 2010, most probably, but I consider my present WRITE-IN CANDIDACY against Barbara Boxer as just the first step in running against Feinstein in 2012—-and I will have a much better organization by then).
Freitag, den 9. April 2010, 20:46:07 UhrHomeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act HB 1523 – STOP the Madnes!!!! bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original
Von:
“AmericanReply@gmx.com” <americanreply@gmx.com>

Zu Kontakten hinzufügen

An: Undisclosed recipents <americanreply@gmx.com>
18 Dateien  Alle herunterladen
4376.jpg (16KB); emailyourrepresentative.png (4KB); photobutton.png (3KB); 4372.jpg (35KB); 4457.jpg (35KB); 4267.jpg (15KB); 4272.jpg (13KB); 4289.jpg (7KB); 4449.jpg (39KB); 4387.jpg (43KB);4263.jpg (38KB); 4385.jpg (11KB); 4433.jpg (37KB); 4287.jpg (15KB); 4386.jpg (13KB); 4396.jpg (37KB); 4367.jpg (14KB); 4443.jpg (60KB)




HB 1523 – Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act – STOP the Madness of Nonjudicial Foreclosure

Published April 9, 2010 CorruptionFannie MaeForeclosure FraudMERSMortgage Fraudbankruptcycdocdsforeclosurefreddie macmortgage electronic registration systemsecurities fraudLeave a Comment
Tags: 4closurefraudAdam M. FettermanAudrey Gibsonbank fraudCarl J. DominoCivil Justice & Courts Policy CommitteeconspiracycriminalDoug HolderEduardo “Eddy” GonzalezEric Eisnaugle,Florida Bankers AssociationforeclosureForeclosure Fraudhb 1523hb1523Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery ActJames W. “Jim” WaldmanJr.Julio RobainaKevin C. AmblerLuis R. Garcia,Michael B. “Mike” WeinsteinnonjudicialPerry E. Thurstonproduce the noteRobert C. “Rob” SchenckSandra “Sandy” AdamsTom GradyWilliam D. Snyderwrongful foreclosure

SPREAD THE WORD!

The bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original. It is being voted on by the Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee on Monday April 12, 2010

READ BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE AND CONTACT THE REPRESENTATIVES BELOW IMMEDIATELY BY PHONE AND EMAIL PROVIDED BELOW.

The Florida Bankers Association, like a coven of evil banking wizardshopes to commit an act of sorcery by conjuring up three letters “NON” to be placed in front of the word “Judicial” in Regards to Florida’s Foreclosure Process.

In this bill they propose changing the Florida law which currently requires foreclosures to be adjudicated through the courts to a new law which would allow foreclosures to bypass the judicial system altogether to become a NON Judicial foreclosure state.

Why? Perhaps the gravy train has foreseen a few obstacles on the track ahead (legally strong foreclosure defenses, educated judges, wiser populace, state mandated mediation requirements). These Florida Bankers may be trying to ease their way on the path of least resistance to confiscate more homes and more wealth from both the homeowners and the investors who funded these loans.

Or could it be the Florida Supreme Courts new Rules?

First, rule 1.110(b) is amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suitsbrought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.

OR MAYBE ASSET BACKED SECURITIZATION MEANS NO NOTE?

Regardless of the statements above, this bill could be devastating to the millions of Floridians facing foreclosures caused bybanks selling loans connived to a well planned default, bundling the bad debt, and betting against it to ensure a win for the banks and foreclosure for homeowners.

As it stands now, these aggressive, unprofessional foreclosure mills and their Plaintiff clients are still filing fabricated documents by the millions without any respect for the integrity of our official public records or the laws of evidence set by the judiciary system even after they were sanctioned by Judge Olson for these same issues. If this is how foreclosures are rammed throughwhen we have a glimmer of hope of judicial protection, imagine the steamroller effect which will potentially ensue if this bill is passed, the flood gates thrown open, and the judicial dike washed away.

So we ask the following, shall Florida:

  • Join the 37 states which allow non-judicial foreclosures to proceed without any protections whatsoever for the homeowner?
  • Allow the Bankers to smother the judicial branch as they have the executive and legislative branches?
  • Disrespect the serious efforts of the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Foreclosures and the Honorable Chief Justice Peggy Quince’s order mandating mediation for all homesteaded properties in foreclosure?
  • Ignore the contagion of Stockholm Syndrome that has infected most of our local, state, and national politician sycophants who bow with obeisance as the bankers confiscate millions of constituents’ homes?
  • Cost shift the $1,900 foreclosure lawsuit filing fee from the foreclosing entity to the financially stressed, perhaps newly unemployed Floridian family trying to defend their home?
  • Transfer the burden of proof in a foreclosure action from the foreclosing bank which has great difficulty producing authentic, genuine evidence showing its right to foreclose, to the homeowner who has subsistence survival worries?
  • Banish pro se litigants and clients of foreclosure defense attorneys from the halls of justice, allowing entry to only those who have the funds to pay the “cover charge”?
  • Allow to go unopposed the fabricated mortgage assignments, dubious indorsed notes, unauthorized property transfers, and deeply clouded property titles?
  • Trust as altruistic the professed motives of the same bankers who charge egregious credit card interest rates, overdraft and late fees, place holds on deposits, and reward themselves with billions in bonuses while crushing their customers under the weight of usurious loans?
  • Eradicate the right of due process granted by the U.S. Constitution:
    • Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
    • Right to be present at the trial
    • Right to an impartial jury
    • Right to be heard in one’s own defense

The Bankers have taken our jobs, our savings, our 401Ks, our education funds, our public safety nets, the equity in our property, our municipality revenue source, our access to credit, and our credit scores. Florida being a deficiency state, we may lose our home to foreclosure and end up with a garnished paycheck for the deficiency.  Second mortgage holders are freezing bank accounts to get their piece of the action. Now that we have almost nothing left, will we also abdicate to these Florida Bankers our Constitutional rights?

GENERAL BILL by Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Policy Committee and Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee and Grady (CO-SPONSORS) Domino; Eisnaugle; O’Toole

Homeowner Relief: Creates “Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act”; provides general provisions for nonjudicial foreclosures; provides criteria for notice & knowledge; provides for transactions creating security interest; provides for time of foreclosure; provides procedures, requirements, & limitations before foreclosure; specifies right to foreclose; requires notice of default; provides right to cure; provides requirements for notice of foreclosure; provides for meeting & meeting requirements to object to foreclosure; provides period of limitation for foreclosure; provides for judicial supervision of foreclosure; provides for right to redeem collateral; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on foreclosures by auction, negotiated sale, & appraisal; provides for rights after foreclosure; provides for application of proceeds, transfer of title, actions for damages or to set aside foreclosure, possession after foreclosure, judgments for deficiencies, & determinations of amounts of deficiency; provides for effect of good faith by debtor; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on discontinuation of foreclosure; provides for uniformity of application & construction; specifies relation to Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act.

Effective Date: July 1, 2010

Substitiuded bill

Committee Substitute 2

Start Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 1:00 PM

End Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 3:15 PM
Location : 404 HOB
Duration : 2.25

Members of the  Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee that will be voting on this bill are listed here along with their email address and phone numbers.

Call them all then click the links and email each and every one of them

ABOUT THE HORROR STORIES OF A NON JUDICIAL STATE ,

TELL THEM ABOUT ALL OF THE FRAUD THAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN THE COURTS,

and tell them to vote NO on HB 1523

Representative William D. Snyder
District 82
Email Representative Snyder
View  Photo Album
PHONE

772-221-4904

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Stuart
Occupation:
Career Law Enforcement, Retired
Child(ren):
David, John, Laura
Education:
Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., Criminal Justice, 1976; FBI Academy, University of Virginia, 1999; Florida Gulf Coast University
Born:
September 6, 1952, New York City, NY
Moved to Florida:
1954
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Representative Doug Holder
District 70
Email Representative Holder
View  Photo Album
PHONE

941-918-4028

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Sarasota
Occupation:
Real Estate Broker
Spouse:
Shannon Holder
Child(ren):
Channing, Chase
Education:
Middle Tennessee State University, B.S., Political Science, 1990, Former Student Body President, President of Associated Student Body
Born:
December 7, 1966, Marietta, GA
Moved to Florida:
1997
Religious Affiliation:
Episcopal
Recreational Interest:
cooking, family, golf, hunting, music, skiing, tennis, travel
Representative Adam M. Fetterman
District 81
Email Representative Fetterman
View  Photo Album
PHONE

772-873-6500

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Port St. Lucie
Occupation:
Attorney/General Counsel
Spouse:
Mindi J. Fetterman, of Arlington Heights, Illinois
Child(ren):
Noah Louis Fetterman
Education:
Brandeis University, B.A., Anthropology, 1988-1992; Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Lacrosse Club; University of Miami School of Law, J.D., 1995-1998; Editor-in-Chief, University of Miami Business Law Journal; National Mock Trial Team
Born:
October 16, 1970, New Rochelle, NY
Moved to Florida:
1973
Religious Affiliation:
Jewish
Recreational Interest:
camping, canoeing, cycling, surfing
Representative Sandra ”Sandy” Adams
District 33
Email Representative Adams
View  Photo Album
PHONE

407-977-4020

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Orlando
Occupation:
Law Enforcement
Spouse:
John H. Adams, Sr., of Waukegan, Illinois
Child(ren):
John Jr., Sonya, Kathryn
Education:
Columbia College, B.A., Criminal Justice Administration, 2000
Born:
December 14, 1956, Wyandotte, MI
Military:
United States Air Force
Moved to Florida:
1964
Religious Affiliation:
Episcopal
Recreational Interest:
travel
Representative Kevin C. Ambler
District 47
Email Representative Ambler
View  Photo Album
PHONE

813-558-1333

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Tampa
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Mindy Hanopole, of New Jersey
Child(ren):
Jason, Jami
Education:
Cornell University, B.A., 1983, Cornell Interfraternity Council, Judicial Administrator, AFROTC, Phi Alpha Omega Fraternity, President; Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1986, Moot Court Honors Board of Advisors
Born:
March 10, 1961, Los Angeles, CA
Military:
U.S. Air Force Reserve, Major, 1991-2005; U.S. Air Force 1986-1991; U.S. Air Force Reserve, Outstanding Judge Advocate of the Year 1991
Recreational Interest:
sailing, skiing, tennis, travel
Representative Carl J. Domino
District 83

Email Representative Domino
View  Photo Album
PHONE

561-625-5176

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jupiter
Occupation:
Investment Manager
Spouse:
Sharon Domino, of Miami
Child(ren):
Mason Carl, Reagan Deeann
Education:
Florida State University, B.S., Accounting, 1966, Student government, Dean’s List, intramural sports, elected to Gold Key and Omicron Delta Kappa; Harvard Business School, M.B.A., 1972, Finance Club, First Year Honors
Born:
April 15, 1944, Quantico, VA
Moved to Florida:
1958
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
golf, reading, spectator sports, tennis
Representative Eric Eisnaugle
District 40

Email Representative Eisnaugle
View  Photo Album
PHONE

407-893-3141

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Orlando
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Carrie Eisnaugle, of Minnesota
Education:
Florida Southern College, B.S., 1996-2000; Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., 2000-2003
Born:
February 6, 1977, Arcadia, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Representative Luis R. Garcia, Jr.
District 107

Email Representative Garcia
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-325-2501

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Miami Beach
Occupation:
Retired Miami Beach Fire Chief
Child(ren):
Luis Rene, Jorge Luis, Alejandro Luis
Grandchild(ren):
Nicolas Luis, Tomas Alexander
Education:
National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer, 1997; Miami-Dade Community College, A.S., EMS Management, 1990; Paramedic Certification, 1977; Emergency Medical Technician, 1974
Born:
December 8, 1945, Marianao, Cuba
Moved to Florida:
1960
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
history, sports
Representative Audrey Gibson
District 15

Email Representative Gibson
View  Photo Album
PHONE

904-353-2180

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jacksonville
Occupation:
Public Relations and Legal Liaison
Education:
Florida Community College, A.A., 1976; Florida State University, B.S., Criminology, 1978
Born:
March 15
Religious Affiliation:
A.M.E.
Recreational Interest:
formula racing, horseback riding, music, sporting events (football, basketball), theatre, weight training
Representative Eduardo ”Eddy” Gonzalez
District 102

Email Representative Gonzalez
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-364-3066

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Hialeah
Occupation:
CAC Florida Medical Center; Business Development Leader
Spouse:
Barbara “Barbie” Gonzalez, of Hialeah
Child(ren):
Evan Mathew, Ethan Angel, Sianna Nicole
Education:
Miami-Dade College, Business Management and Administration, 1992
Born:
November 9, 1969, Cardenas, Matanzas, Cuba
Moved to Florida:
1971
Religious Affiliation:
Roman Catholic
Recreational Interest:
boating, football, softball, swimmin
Representative Tom Grady
District 76

Email Representative Grady
View  Photo Album
PHONE

239-417-6200

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Naples
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Ann Grady, of Gainesville, Florida
Child(ren):
Lauren, Ryan
Education:
Florida State University, B.S., Finance, summa cum laude, 1979; Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society, Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, Editor of College Republican newsletter; Duke University, Juris Doctor with distinction, 1982
Born:
May 14, 1958, Fairview Park, OH
History:
Legislative Page for the House, 1972; House Intern, 1978-1979; R.W. “Mac” Grady, father, Rockledge City Council, 1962-1965, Mayor of Rockledge, 1966-1976
Moved to Florida:
1958
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Recreational Interest:
boating, cars, reading, SCUBA, skiing
Representative Julio Robaina
District 117

Email Representative Robaina
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-442-6868

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Miami
Occupation:
AT&T Employee
Education:
Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., 1983
Born:
September 1, 1961, Miami, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
camping, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, SCUBA diving
Representative Robert C.  ”Rob” Schenck
District 44

Email Representative Schenck
View  Photo Album
PHONE

352-688-5005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Spring Hill
Spouse:
Megan Schenck, of Muncie, IN
Child(ren):
Micheal, Isabella
Education:
Pasco-Hernando Community College, A.A., 1995; University of Central Florida, B.S., 1998
Born:
July 8, 1975, Somerville, NJ
Moved to Florida:
1980
Religious Affiliation:
Methodist
Representative Perry E. Thurston, Jr.
District 93

Email Representative Thurston
View  Photo Album
PHONE

954-762-3743

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Plantation
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Dawn Board, of Cleveland, Ohio
Child(ren):
Alison Thurston, Perry E. Thurston III
Education:
Morehouse College, B.A., Finance, 1982; University of Miami, J.D., 1987
Born:
January 30, 1961, Pompano, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Baptist
Recreational Interest:
basketball, football, tennis
Representative James  W.  ”Jim” Waldman
District 95

Email Representative Waldman
View  Photo Album
PHONE

954-956-5600

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Coconut Creek
Occupation:
Attorney; General Counsel, Keiser University
Child(ren):
Jacquelyn, Steven
Education:
University of Connecticut, transferred, 1978; University of Florida, B.S.B.A., Finance, 1980; Nova University Law School, J.D., 1985
Born:
March 21, 1958, Washington, DC
Moved to Florida:
1977
Religious Affiliation:
Jewish
Recreational Interest:
golf, scuba diving, skiin
Representative Michael B. ”Mike” Weinstein
District 19

Email Representative Weinstein
View  Photo Album
PHONE

904-213-3005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jacksonville
Occupation:
Prosecutor
Spouse:
Sara Weinstein, of Florham Park, New Jersey
Child(ren):
Scott, Daryl, Danielle
Grandchild(ren):
Logan, Stryder, Mills
Education:
Hartwick College, New York, B.A., Political Science, basketball and baseball teams; California State University, Long Beach, M.S., Criminal Justice Administration; Florida State University, A.B.D., Criminology; University of Florida, J.D.
Born:
February 6, 1949, Livingston, NJ
Moved to Florida:
1975
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Recreational Interest:
boxing, golf, physical training, working out

Election season is coming up.   We are watching.

Together, we have the power of our collective voices and votes. The Bankers have thrown down the gauntlet. Let’s accept their declaration of war and fight back.

Again, enough is enough.

Contact your representatives today…

You Can Stop Evictions! Call for a Civil Rights Removal Revolution! The Truth about California Non-Judicial Foreclosure is, it’s all based on LIES, LIES, and MORE LIES! There’s one simple reason: California Civil Code Section 2924 Protects the Liars!

NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v BANK OF AMERICA AURORA I DIAZ 12-10-09-BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER

NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v SILVERSTEIN CHRISTYNA LYNN GRAY 11-30-09-SILVERSTEIN

NOTICE OF NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v SILVERSTEIN CHRISTYNA LYNN GRAY 11-30-09-SILVERSTEIN

RN March Civil Cover Sheet v Silverstein 11-06-09

NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v SILVERSTEIN RENADA NADINE MARCH 11-06-09-SILVERSTEIN

Renada Nadine March Response to Order to Show Cause 12-01-09

12-07-2009–1st Amended Complaint Gray-Lincoln-March v Silverstein

The Honorable George Wu’s Order of 12/11/09, U.S.D.C., C.D.CA

Motion for Stay of Remand Pursuant to 28 USC Section 1447(d)

The truth is that you WILL be evicted from your home MERELY by the fact of being brought as a Defendant into any California Superior Court in any Unlawful Detainer Action (UDA) or Forcible Detainer Action filed after or on the basis of any non-judicial foreclosure carried out APPARENTLY under the letter of California Civil Code Section 2924, which is the greatest protection offered to thieves and liars since the U.S. Patriot Act amended the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to erode American Freedoms and destroy individual liberty in this country.

A Federal Judge in Los Angeles has just ruled (December 11, 2009) that Removing Defendants must identify “an explicit legislative enactment that will inevitably deny her [or his] rights.”  California Civil Code Section 2924 is an explicit legislative enactment that will inevitably deny YOUR rights also.  That same federal judge ruled that the Removing Defendant must allege that “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state [] law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in state court.”  It can be CLEARLY PREDICTED by reason of the operative of a pervasive and explicit state law, namely California Civil Code Section 2924, that your rights will inevitably be denied (by liars speaking and writing nothing but lies) by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the California Superior Court system in the aftermath of a non-judicial “Liars Immunity” Non-Judicial Foreclosure.

If you would like further information or help, Tierra Limpia and Deo Vindice stand ready to help YOU make this Revolution Happen!  Call Robert J. Ponte at 860-599-5557 or Peyton Yates Freiman at 512-923-1889 or any of the telephone numbers listed on the pleadings, notices, and motions above.  We are busy fighting the dragons….please be persistent if you want to join our Civil Rights Removal Revolution against Wrongful Evictions following Wrongful Foreclosures in California.  Feel Free to leave your Comments or questions here below, also.