Tag Archives: Orange County

Secret Securitization is the New “Mode of Production”—the Key to the Modern Economy—the vehicle for the change in “mode of production” which the Communists have been waiting for, planning, for 165 years since 1848

Writing today from Mantoloking, Ocean County, New Jersey

My thanks to Savvy-Gal Michelle for alerting me to the latest monstrosity to be handed down by a California District Court of Appeal.  The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (based 601 West Santa Ana Boulevard in Santa Ana, Orange County, California 92701) has “certified” its May 17, 2013, opinion in Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (G046121)(Super.Ct.30-2011-00438159) “for publication” and hence for precedential value and citation as “the law of the land” of the People’s Republic of California (available on-line at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm?Courts=G and attached here: Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA).

To say I am surprised would be a lie.  To say that I am angry and deeply troubled by this country’s seemingly inexorable March Towards Pure (Marxist) Communism would also be a lie.  The Jenkins opinion does nothing new except to build upon outrageous judicial statements of the “lack of rights” of the people of California to know or even ask with whom they are dealing with, over the past two years.  Among the most pernicious of these decisions are Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 (2011) and Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 205 Cal.App.4th 1495 (2012).   (Gomes v. Countrywide, 121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011).

The repeated and practical crux of it all is articulated in these two paragraphs from Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase:

“Importantly, the provisions setting forth California‘s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme (§§ 2924-2924k) ― ̳cover every aspect of [the] exercise of [a] power of sale contained in a deed of trust.‘ ̳The purposes of this comprehensive scheme are threefold: (1) to provide the [beneficiary-creditor] with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting [trustor-debtor]; (2) to protect the [trustor- debtor] from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.‘‖ (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.) ―Significantly, ̳[n]onjudicial foreclosure is less expensive and more quickly concluded than judicial foreclosure, since there is no oversight by a court, ―[n]either appraisal nor judicial determination of fair value is required,‖ and the debtor has no postsale right of redemption.‘‖ (Id. at p. 1155.)

Although a defaulting debtor is free to pursue a judicial action for ―misconduct arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when [such a claim is] not inconsistent with the policies behind the statutes‖ (California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1070, italics added), due to the ― ̳exhaustive nature‘‖ of this scheme, California appellate courts have refused to read any additional requirements into the nonjudicial foreclosure statute.‖ (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154, fn. omitted.) As one appellate court stated: ―It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive and exhaustive statutory scheme regulating nonjudicial foreclosures to incorporate another unrelated cure provision into statutory nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.‖ (Moeller, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 834.)”

The secrecy (and non-accountability) afforded by this approach to non-judicial foreclosure in California is appropriate to the essentially clandestine nature of securitization, which I think we can now safely call “Securitization” the new post-capitalist mode of production to be used for transforming ownership of all private property into government-sponsored corporate-collective ownership “in common.”   Under securitization with rapid foreclosure, no one ever really owns property, but everyone owes a debt to everyone else in society.  I think this really is the communist formula: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the Critique of the Gotha program was published 27 years after the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and a mere 8 years before Marx’ death in 1883 (Marx died on 14 March of same year as Richard Wagner, who died one month earlier on 13 February).  The slogan “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in “The organization of work”.  At that time, in May of 1875, it was probably unforeseeable how perfectly the concept of securitization of private property would lead to and fit with communism, but it seems clear that Marx would have applauded the “genius” of securitization as a tool to abolish private property.

However, the complete paragraph included as part of Karl Marx’ May 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program is particularly relevant to the path down which 20th Century and now 21st Century Corporate Communism have led us.  Offering perhaps Marx’s most detailed pronouncement on programmatic matters of revolutionary strategy, the document discusses the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” (whose name we now know to be “Barack Hussein Obama” the period of transition from capitalism to communism (almost over as of 2013), proletarian internationalism (*which we have come to call “Corporate Globalism”), and the party of the working class (which we have learned to accept as divided, in the USA between Democratic and Republican “factions” or “flavors” or “Labor” and “Conservative” in Great Britain).

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

(“Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”) As Karl Marx here prophesized, Corporate Communism (in Western Europe and North America, at any rate) aims to bring down the “division of labor” in society and “therewith” abolish “the antithesis between mental and physical labor.”  

Of course, this is one boundary that can never really be crossed—someone or something (robots?) will always have to do physical labor—and once robots are capable of doing all our physical labor, they may well see fit to do away with us and become non-consuming communists themselves (as so many science fiction scenarios have already envisioned).  

In the meantime, it is counties like China, Vietnam, Korea, Bangladesh and India where the consequences of the Corporate abolition of the “division of labor” in society have taken root.  SLAVE LABOR of the masses of billions of Asians to serve the tiny elite of the Communist Party and its allies is the modern reality of East, Southeast, and Southern Asia generally.    

Communism fulfills the dreams of (for the rich and developed nations) abolishing the antithesis between manual and physical labor. But for the rest of the world, the lavish and leisurely life of the beneficiaries of communism in the first world visits all the most nightmarish scenarios of inequality—inequality of wealth, inequality of physical labor, inequality of leisure time, inequality of environmental quality and comfort—it goes on, on the original populations who were slaughtered into conformity with “Communism Triumphant” before Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger first sold America’s soul to the PRC.  

But in spite of this disconformity of reality, the west is constantly emulating the “eusocial” life of the East.  Even in that bastion of “Capitalism” known as “Corporate TV advertising and Corporate Culture) icons of modern American life from the red -T-shirts of Bank of America Employees to the round (quasi-Asiatic) expression and look of the Progressive Insurance Girl, who announces triumph after triumph of the workers’ progress and program….consciously emulate, import, and trans-substantiate the spirit of Maoism into America.

What is the answer? the antidote? Only full understanding of where we are in history and cultural evolution will permit us to make a choice.  We are not lost in a yellow wood finding a place where two roads diverge.  We are on a superhighway towards world-wide slavery and self-destruction, and we will have to drive over the grassy median (i.e. violate the traffic laws) to get off.

One way to cross this divide is to challenge securitization directly, as one litigant has chosen to Carrie It Forward in the Middle District of Florida.  Carrie Lynn Luft’s May 13 2013 FINAL Draft Second Amended Complaint with CLASS ACTION for Predatory Lending & Securitization

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

ALL FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLIES, AND LEGAL IMMUNITIES FOR WRONGFUL TAKINGS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY MUST END, WITH FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE ILLEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES AND TAKINGS.  Government licensing and government regulation of the economy are inherently destructive to the public welfare they seek to protect.

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again.  Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts.  The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts.  Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms.  This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”.   ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace.  Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief.   Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of  corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”;  here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively.   The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers.   Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle.  The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation.   In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger.  “Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people.  As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s.   But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-“diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins.   All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems.   “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws.   A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws.   “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad.  In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations.  I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth.   I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers.  Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl.  Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.”  Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments!  In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM

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

Can I recommend any attorney that is “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues” here in California? No, not without gagging, I cannot.

Dear Charles, Question:  Do you know an attorney that you can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California? We are in the Santa Barbara Central District.

[[[First: a merely rhetorical question: Why do you want a State Licensed Bar-Card Attorney beholden to the Supreme Court of California and an officer of every court before whom you appeal, would you not rather have independent, non-monopolistic, representation by someone not officially integrated into one of the few expressly authorized State Action exceptions to the Anti-Trust Laws under the New Deal Era “Parker Doctrine?”]]]
So, dear reader, you want “an attorney that [I] can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California?”  I fear there is nobody who fits that bill.  I sadly cannot recommend a single California attorney of whom I have any knowledge who is also “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California.”  I am copying this letter to Catherine Bryan who may have a different opinion, or at least “some” opinion on which way to turn—it generally appears that almost everyone who goes with a “bar attorney” ultimately loses, with a very few exceptions (but then, almost everyone loses, regardless).
          Attorney Michael Pines would be the closest, because he once (exactly a year ago in fact) wrote and filed a complaint (“on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California) which I considered magnificent, here attached “Michael T. Pines NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure”. On June 15, 2010, one of the best complaints ever was filed:  Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action, but then, 96 days later, that case was dead because the Plaintiffs’ California State Bar Licensed Counsel failed to file any responses to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss OR even to the Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions…CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010
So as you can see, that case foundered and died because of Michael T. Pines Voluntary Dismissal 09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Failure to file responses to Steven D. Silverstein’s Motion to Dismiss.  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report
Since that dismal episode, Michael T. Pines would appear to be constantly trying to make the news.  He has been arrested several times for “trespass” or trying to get people back onto their lands/homes.  I’m not sure where all that stands right now but you can probably google it.  His complaint last year was filed against too many defendants on too many issues.  But he didn’t really try at all, in my opinion.  We have a case, 09-cv-01072-DOC, in USDC CDCA-Southern Division (Orange County) which is currently still alive but hanging by a thread…..and we’re unsure what exactly we’re going to do next.
           Then there was Dennis Martin Russell, who responded to my on-line/website-based ad (charleslincoln3.wordpress.com) seeking a Constitutional Lawyer to advance the issue of civil rights removal in Orange County.  Dennis Martin Russell accepted $5,000.00 from Renada Nadine March, which was close to 100% of her settlement from a car wreck, and proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING.  I am considering helping Renada with a malpractice lawsuit against him.  We had high hopes for Russell, but to say he disappointed us would be a cruel understatement: he misled us and deceived us.
        But any such malpractice suit will go up against the precedents set and actions taken by current California Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown while he was attorney General, again last year.  Governor Moonbeam, while Moonlighting as Attorney General Moonbeam, prosecuted several attorneys for….what was the phrase, advancing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loaCEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010n could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.”  See attached letter, “CEL to Edmund G. Brown, AG, 08-26-2010.”  
           To that fairly meaty letter we received a completely content-free reply, namely the attached “09-08-2010 K. Savona Response to CEL Letter.”  09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown
          Finally, Diane Beall Templin is currently working with an enigmatic, New York licensed, Attorney named Paul Nguyen, who won a case against Chase Bank before the highly enigmatic A. Howard Matz here in the Central District of California.   See attached files for reference: 09-cv-04589-AHM Docket Report as of 09-19-201009-04589-AHM-AJW 10-29-2009 Nguyen Motion to Howard Matz for Contempt against ChaseHoward Matz Granted Foreclosure TRO 09-4589 July 2009Howard Matz Supplemental TRO Requiring Authenticated Appraisal 08-03-2009
          Paul Nguyen has since then opened an office somewhere in Orange County and is now supposedly practicing with some success, but I cannot personally vouch for anything except that I met him once in his office and he is very sharp and energetic and MIGHT be as good as he looks—my only reservation after meeting him was that he preached a kind of caution which, although traditional and understandable among attorneys, did not seem quite sufficient or adequate to the task of unraveling the non-judicial foreclosure & eviction morass in California created by legislative statute: California Civil Code §2924 et seq..  
        And then again Paul Nguyen MIGHT just have pulled a special trick on Judge A. Howard Matz, or intimidated him in such a manner as Jose L. Pineda appears to have done—see the lead story on my blog (right after this letter).
          If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know.  On the whole, I am opposed to the State Bar Monopoly and believe that the licensing of attorneys does little more than to insulate incompetent and corrupt practice from challenge.  As I have recently written, I think that Judges such as A. Howard Matz are completely and totally knowing collusion with the banks, and so lawyers like Diane Beall Templin and Paul Nguyen may be as well.
Catherine Bryan, to whom I have copied this letter, has accused Diane Beall of being in complicity with the Banks and their attorneys.  Catherine Bryan to CEL re-Diane Beall April 3 2011 .  We do not know the truth because we see only through a glass, darkly.  We moan like doves and growl like bears.  We seek for the light but live in darkness and grope like blind men along the walls.  OK, so what else  does Corinthians 13 have in common with Isaiah 59 and the allegory of the Cave in Book VII of Plato’s Republic?
          I simply do not know what to say at this stage about Paul Nguyen and Diane Beall, but if Catherine were a lawyer, or if Bar Cards were not required, she would be the first person I would recommend, immediately after myself….. The connection between A. Howard Matz and Paul Nguyen’s victory on the one hand and subsequent migration to California on the other are both….curious and disturbing to me.  
         If you haven’t read my blog, please do so at https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com, especially the lead article on A. Howard Matz and the Jose L. Pineda case, and what it may or may not mean.
After Midnight on June 12, Pentacost Sunday, Jennifer Lee wrote in from Pasadena:
Thanks Charles
As for Paul Nguyen he stole 4 k from my mom and promised an adversarial complaint and never did it and I could give you a list of horrible things he did to her including a chapter 11 bankruptcy that he botched so badly and abandoned her when she had paid in full to him. He then told us he has 100 customers and can’t possibly help them all so he had to pick which ones he is going to let loose and he doesn’t care less if they loose and get evicted. He told us he chose us to loose as our case was more difficult and he doesn’t care. I just spoke to a lady I saw tonight who told me he did the same to her and many more people she knows and she has someone who is going to go after him for her. I was given advice of how to report him. I have been too busy but I really need to report him to the bar and judicial review. Don’t remember off hand the place.he is a con man. Diane beall was upset to hear what he did to us but she told me she was losing all her cases so she needed to learn from him and she needs money even though she didn’t want to be there and she was sick to watch what he did to mom. She tried to confront him for what he did to us and she got in trouble for it.  

SEND THEM A MESSAGE: Vote for Diane Beall Templin for California Attorney General—for the rights of all Middle Class American Homeowners!

http://templin4attorneygeneral.blogspot.com/

Diane Beall Templin has agreed to represent me as lead Plaintiff in 09-cv-01072-DOC-E in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern (Santa Ana) Division 10-26-2010 Document 55 Ex-Parte Application to Substitute Attorney Diane Beall 09-cv-01072-DOC.  It is going to be a big project, but if we can win even part of it, it will change the course of United States and even World (“Global”) financial history forever.  Nothing could be more important or worthy of the “Send them a Message” heritage of the late Governor George Corley Wallace to whose American Independent Party Diane Beall Templin is now a modern heir.  Governor Wallace and General Curtis E. LeMay were the last Third Party Candidates ever to carry any states or electoral votes.   Wallace took the entire Deep South away from Nixon in 1968, only four years after Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater (Radical Southern Democrat Wallace’s Radical Republican Soulmate in so many ways) broke the “Solid South” away from the Democratic Party to which it had adhered loyally for over a hundred years.   When Gov. Wallace ran for President back inside the Democratic Party in 1972, his threat was so great as potentially to deprive Nixon of his second term.

So, it was that on May 15, 1972, the decade of United States Political Assassinations by “lone gunmen” that began in November 1963 with the Dallas, Texas, assassination of the last “Representative Money” (“Silver-Certificate”) President (John Fitzgerald Kennedy) and his replacement with that master of Fiat Currency—“Tax & Spend through Inflation to Support Global Warfare and World Government”—Lyndon Baines Johnson ended with the Laurel, Maryland, near fatal assassination of the Governor of Alabama.

I persuaded Diane Beall (fka Templin) to represent me in this case on a single argument: there is NO solution to the California Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis that does not include the declaration of unconstitutionality of California Civil Code Sections 2924-2924l, together with the abolition of special Unlawful Detainer proceedings in the Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: but on that stage, are courtroom dramas sometimes pre-scripted to produce results and/or social effects? Do these scripts negate due process of law? A Northern California Example.

In the eight years since AAMES Vice-President Deborah S. Gershon in Los Angeles explained to me that AAMES loans could not be modified because they did not belong to AAMES…. strike that, in the 17 years since I first participated in the preparation of an SEC-acceptable registration statement for an MBO (Mortgage Backed Obligation, actually a Mortgage Bundled-Bond, in that case) IPO on Wall Street at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, I have been almost obsessed with trying to understand and undo the evil caused by securitized mortgages.  It’s a lonely obsession, like so many of my interests: from Wagnerian Opera, Gilbert & Sullivan’s operettas, Tom Lehrer’s and Weird Al Yankovich’s “comic pop-cultural folklore”, to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Language, Culture, and Mythology, the calibration of the Maya and Christian calendars by and through archaeological stratigraphy and ceramic seriation, the comparative structural analysis of dual, tripartite, and quadripartite forms of religious and social organization, and then over to the comparative American graveyard organization and iconography of Colonial New England and the South, especially New Orleans, the detailed history of the Oracle at Delphi, the best approximation of Moses’ route through the Sinai Peninsula in Exodus. But of all my interests and obsessions, only securitized mortgages have become not merely a national but a worldwide crisis and obsession as well.   Since my happy days as a young (or at least a much younger) judicial extern clerk for Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, Los Angeles) and later a judicial law clerk for Kenneth L. Ryskamp (Southern District of Florida, Miami & West Palm Beach), on the opposite coasts of America, since those days when I believed that Federal judges all worked late hours into the morning with their clerks sifting through pleadings and motions and agonized over the proper disposition of cases, never “pre-judged” anything, and that federal judges in particular were basically among the hardest working and most honorable members of society at large, never mind the much maligned legal profession, I have learned a lot and become very cynical.

Sadly, I have to say that I repeatedly, and with increasing frequency, see evidence that at least some federal judges either manipulate or fix cases, and that the putatively adversarial attorneys may sometimes participate in this process.   I have neither the time nor the energy to review all the cases where I have suspected this, except that I saw the process directly for the first time in September 1997 in Austin, Texas, when I saw Judge James R. Nowlin take charge of a case (ALL sides), primarily for the purpose of attacking and ultimately destroying me (well, actually, my “ordinary” legal career: which by ending that very ordinary phase of my life began the “extraordinary” phase in which I have been living ever since).  But I’ve seen some evidence of staging and restructuring cases many times since, though no one has ever been quite as outrageously blatant about it as Judge James R. Nowlin of the Western District of Texas (that was one for the Guinness Book of World Records), until perhaps right now, September 2010, in the Northern District of California.

A couple of weeks ago, I became aware that a respected an experienced attorney by the name of Michael Pines had filed a truly extraordinary lawsuit against the foreclosure and eviction consequences against the securitization of mortgages, and in particular against one marvelously slimy fellow by the name of Steven D. Silverstein who operates a rather vicious shark tank out of Tustin, Orange County, California.  Michael Pines’ complaint was, frankly, music to my ears: as eloquent as Wagner while as socially apt, “right on the mark” and stinging as the comedies of Gilbert & Sullivan, or the satires of Tom Lehrer and “Weird Al.”  Everything that Michael Pines said was true, or at least reflected MY version of truth and reality to a very reassuring degree: Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action

Finally, a non-disbarred, currently licensed attorney with community respectability, standing had become so thoroughly acquainted with the truth as even to go record as giving CLE Courses to other lawyers on the topic, see e.g.: http://www.free-press-release.com/news-securitization-in-litigation-workshop-6hrs-mcle-michael-t-pines-esq-certified-forensic-loan-auditors-llc- 1268337159.html

Surely a lawyer like this knows at least as much as a pathetic disbarred attorney such as myself would know.  Inception of a major lawsuit, especially a class action, means that you must design your litigation according to a very careful strategy, frame issues to match your defendants, and you must thoroughly research every topic prior to launching litigation.  Above all, before you file your complaint, you must anticipate vigorous and violent opposition—especially if you’re suing other lawyers, but even if you’re “ONLY” suing certain major banks and loan servicing companies in the largest financial industry in the WORLD in a state (California) whose, by itself, would rank right after that of France and just above Italy’s if California were a separate and independent nation, apart from the rest of the US.  Anyone who goes into Federal Court knows that the first thing to expect is the ALMOST inevitable 12(b)(6) Motion.  Few and far between are the cases where anyone just files an “answer” in Federal Court, when Federal judges, even the good ones, LOVE to throw out cases without allowing a jury trial if they possibly can, because all Federal judges are “judged” and rated by their “case statistics” which rewards a LOW case load (which requires less work) than a HIGH case load (conscientious management of which would require MUCH more work).   Congress has built in some VERY perverse incentives for Federal Judges but that is, as they say, a “Political Question” which we need not address here.

SO how can it be that Michael T. Pines, a distinguished lawyer known for speaking on this topic, had not filed (by September 2010) even a single answer to the motions to dismiss his complaint filed in June, 2010?  CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010 Michael T. Pines did the almost unthinkable: he filed and served a major, complex lawsuit in his special field of expertise and advocacy and then, faced with the totally predictable barrage of motions to dismiss and for sanctions, never filed any responses and finally, on September 21, 2010, VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED HIS CASE.  09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.  The Notice provides no explanation whatsoever why Plaintiffs’ Counsel so utterly and completely failed to file any response or contest to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but only lamely “advised the court:”

2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.

3. Many new party defendants need to be added.

4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this

case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,

New York, and Seattle.

5. In an attempt to further conceal their wrongful conduct, with the exception of a

few defendants, no demand for defense was made to insurance carriers and

plaintiffs wish to make sure this occurs.

6. If the case is re-filed in this court, this action will be brought to the attention of

the court so it can be reassigned here if the court desires such.

Steven D. Silverstein’s lawyer Larry Rothman responded  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report in a more mild-mannered and civilized way than I would have thought possible, because Larry Rothman is nothing if not a fairly consistent shark in the tradition of his client (and mentor?) Silverstein—and yet Rothman pounced on 09-22-2010 THE VERY DAY AFTER Michael T. Pines’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and demanded that jurisdiction to impose sanctions be retained.  Judge Seeborg of the Northern District could do nothing other than comply with Rothman’s request: 09-27-2010—10-2622 McComas order re pending motions—Rule 11 Sanctions Remain.

This story is clearly not yet “over”—it remains to be seen what Judge Seeborg will do about the motions for sanctions and the administration or implementation of Rothman’s California “anti-Slapp” motion in Federal Court.  (The idea that Silverstein’s use of the California Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction [solely to eviscerate the rights and lives of hundreds of thousands of Californians] could be protected against a “Suit to Limit Access to Public Process” [a “SLAPP” is usually conceived of as a harassing lawsuit designed for no purpose except to silence environmentalists or civil rights advocates, or historic or coastal neighborhood preservations—NOT as a vehicle to insulate criminals like Silverstein from very meritorious lawsuits] is beyond preposterous and downright offensive.   I believe and have submitted in two lawsuits of my own that California Anti-SLAPP legislation is the “mother of all First Amendment Constitutional Violations”—even more reprehensible for its vagueness and obviously realized potential for overbreadth than the “Vexatious Litigant” index which I can only imagine Silverstein would like to have me registered on).

It also remains to be seen whether Michael T. Pines actually WILL refile his class action against Silverstein and his cronies and seriously litigate the Complaint once he DOES file it again.

In the meantime, Michael T. Pines has voluntarily dismissed his very fine complaint without even attempting to defend it.  And I have never seen anything this suspicious in my life, except for Judge Nowlin’s conduct towards me in September 1997 [footnote/sidebar: it was a civil case, but Judge Nowlin appointed a very expensive downtown Austin lawyer, a former law clerk of his, to represent the crook I was suing as Defendant, who was proceeding pro se —when I say “crook” I mean Donald Richmond was a forger, an interstate racketeer in real estate before it was even fashionable, and we had the certificate from the North Dakota Secretary of State confirming that he had forged a notary seal—and then he arranged to have me fired as counsel for the Plaintiff by strong-arming my housekeeper into giving outrageously and obviously false testimony against me, and on that occasion expressed his gratitude in open Court, on the record, to her and anyone else who would assist him in procuring evidence leading to my disbarment…..]

I submit that this all looks just a little bit too STAGED to me.   Even if it were true, as Michael T. Pines so weakly claims that:

1. Counsel is working with several agencies including the State Of California to

coordinate proceedings against named defendants and others (and criminal proceedings in other states).

2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.

3. Many new party defendants need to be added.

4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this

case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,

New York, and Seattle.

These facts SIMPLY do not excuse Michael T. Pines failure even to defend himself for filing the Complaint in any way, shape or form.  (Aside from submitting the Complaint, Pines had submitted a TRO and motion for reconsideration of denial of TRO, and no other substantive papers in the case WHATSOEVER).

And frankly, all of it would be pretty inconclusive and not nearly so suspicious if it were not for the judgment obtained in the California Attorney General’s case against a certain Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles in August of this year.   I wrote a critical letter to the Attorney General immediately after learning of the Mitchell Roth judgment, saying that I did not believe that the Attorney General had acted in the best interests of the people of California in attacking Mitchell Roth’s abortive crusade against non-judicial foreclosures and evictions.  CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010.  I feared then and still fear that the end result as far as the public is concerned will be that everyone who pushes the “securitized note” issue, as a defense to wrongful foreclosure and the evictions that follow therefrom will be lumped with “the scammers” and the filers of frivolous lawsuits, such as Roth and, I’m going to predict, Michael T. Pines.  I note in the attorney general’s summary of Roth’s conduct the disturbing sentence: “Roth filed lawsuits on behalf of homeowners, pushing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.” Isn’t THIS suit, by the Attorney General of the State of California, the ultimate “SLAPP” in the face to the movement of which I am apart, the advocacy in which I believe and have fought ever since it effectively cost me my high-paying, high-prestige job at the (they claim) oldest lawfirm in the United States (allegedly traceable back to a law office founded in lower Manhattan near the battery in 1792).

However, even more suspicious and odd, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown had made precisely the same claim against Mitchell Roth as the demonstrable reasons for the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case in the NDCA: “Once the lawsuit was filed, Roth did next to nothing to advance the case and often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines or appear at court hearings.”http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1979

Honestly, it just doesn’t get much more suspiciously coincidental than this: on or about August 12, 2010, the Attorney General enters into a consent judgment with Mitchell Roth preventing Mitchell Roth from “pushing” his novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it”—Mitchell Roth’s alleged “M.O.” was to file lawsuits and then never do anything else about it.

Slightly over a month later, on or about September 21, 2010, Michael T. Pines, supposedly one of the leading advocates AGAINST SECURITIZED MORTGAGES, voluntarily dismisses his very strong complaint against wrongful foreclosures, after having identified the issues correctly, named all the right defendants, after initiating a lawsuit and never filing any other papers or attempting even taking steps towards the serious prosecution of the lawsuit, (i.e. (without ever answering the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or defending his complaint in any way) .  (Perhaps it is significant that Pines’ Complaint named too many plaintiffs and defendents to be practically combined into a single suit, especially one seeking class certification, where “identity of injury and identity of nature of causation of injury” must be proven, but that’s a quibble about strategy).

Two nearly identical case histories, flawed legal strategies, associated with the same legal issue, both leading to potential legal sanctions or stigmatization of the very meritorious legal issues involved in attacking the securitization of home mortgages as the direct and proximate and therefore legal cause of the present mortgage foreclosure crisis.

The end result of both the stories of Mitchell Roth and Michael T. Pines’ case histories, as of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, is that two “seasoned” lawyers in the State of California who wanted to push that self-same “Novel Argument” about securitization leading to unenforceability of mortgages have both bit the dust without adequately developing or examining the legal theories or factual evidence which could be marshaled in favor and support of either Roth’s Complaint or Pines’ Complaint.  This is going to lead to a lot of “See, I told you so” comments which those trying to dissuade homeowners from fighting foreclosure on this issue will now be able to use.   Litigation on the scale of the Pines’ now voluntarily dismissed complaint or (I assume, without ever having looked at an example) Roth’s Complaint supposedly filed (???) 2,000 times without a single genuine litigation is expensive and difficult, and scares away even many serious people, but that is because it must be fought against all odds against such tough enemies—the international banking & finance industry, its attorneys, and its servicers.

In other words, I charge, without any inside knowledge, that Mitchell Roth’s cases and Michael Pines’ case were both staged, fraudulent situations specifically staged to discredit and destroy the causes which I so passionately support: the abolition of securitized mortgages and the modification of the foreclosure and eviction laws in the state of California and elsewhere, especially in those Western U.S.A. states which tend to slavishly copy California Codes, by inertia and gravity, as physical factors relating to size and proximity, rather than virtue or success of theoretical arguments.

And that, therein, is the biggest problem.  In almost all pro se complaints, the systems-loyal state and federal judges all have an easy time throwing out the desperate homeowners who demand to see the note or ask how their property can be taken from them by a party who appears to have no relationship to them or their original mortgage application and promissory note whatsoever.

The continuing lack of argument and exposition of evidence and theories is perhaps the most devastating consequence of the Mitchell Roth judgment and the Michael T. Pines’ voluntary dismissal (with continued exposure to punitive sanctions under both Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ABSURD California “Anti-SLAPP” Motion filed by Rothman for Silverstein).

“Due Process” never occurs on stage.  It is true that the language used to describe and explain legal “representation” and thespian performance is sometimes eerily similar:  the lawyer “acts on behalf” of another by “representing him” as accurately as possible in his “presentation” to the Court.   An actor, like an attorney in court, is to be judged on the “quality” or “accuracy” of his representation of both the character and the “original intent” of the author of the movie, the play, the book (before being made into a movie or play), or of the statutory and constitutional provisions underlying the lawsuit brought to be “put on” in Court—under the best of circumstances to a small, non-paying, poorly paid, “captive” audience of 12, and more often, to an even smaller audience of one judge, one or two bailiffs or courtroom deputies, and one-or-two law clerks.

Meaningful argument, substantial dialogue or “Due Process” on stage is impossible, except of course in completely “ad libbed” dramas (where no preset script is to be followed), because all the arguments and outcomes are normally predetermined (“Shear Madness” is a notable exception).

What aggravates so many Americans who get caught up in one or more aspects or elements of the litigation system in this country is how “pre-set” and “pre-determined” the outcome of all proceedings seems to be.  There is no room for open or free argument or debate—there is no “due process” for the free development of ideas or evidence—there are rote formulas and outcomes which in some courts seem totally fixed—the opposite of freedom.

In Florida for several years now I’ve been working intermittently with Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson on the question of why every divorce litigation must end in a divorce.   Why are there not multiple, possible outcomes, as unique as the individuals and families involved?  Why can one not question the “pre-fixed” outcome that all divorce proceedings must end in a divorce?   There is no such thing as a “not guilty” verdict.  As Kathy and others have said—every marriage is doomed once it goes to court—there are no pardons and no hung juries, every marriage must die.

Likewise, in California Unlawful Detainer Courts—the outcome is even more fixed.  In divorce court, there is at least some diversity of outcome with regard to who gets the house and who gets the house, the shares of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, the kids, the dog, the parakeet, and all those ancient plates inherited from one spouse’s great aunt who collected Royal Doulton (but whose eyesight was so bad in her old age that every set is hopelessly mismatched in the China cabinet).

In Unlawful Detainer Court, as in California non-judicial foreclosure, there is no diversity of outcome, and Judges have been known to tell defendants out right that only one outcome is possible—the homeowner must lose and be evicted.  Contractual defenses are not allowed.  Defects in property title are not allowed.  Violations of due process and allegations of fraud are not allowed—or if a good humored judge allows these arguments, the Plaintiff still wins, anyhow.

Accordingly, “due process”, has become meaningless in many American Courts: there is a “prix-fixe” menu of “notice and opportunity” whereby you have notice of some dire event—either your marriage is about to be torn apart or your home is about to be sold (and possession delivered) to the Mainland Chinese and/or Saudi Arabian investors who’ve been stalking your neighborhood or both.

“Due process” is ordinarily defined as “meaningful notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard” but even those qualifying words are extravagant compared to what’s really given in most American Courts of limited and/or specialized jurisdiction (i.e. Divorce/Family/Domestic Relations Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction/Municipal Courts/Justice of the Peace Courts specializing in evictions/foreclosures).   The State of Florida is setting up special “foreclosure courts” just to speed the destruction of private property in that state along at a merry pace.

But then there are the real problems—where the Courts are of unlimited jurisdiction, like the Northern District of California—but a “show” is apparently planned and put on to discredit an idea.   A case is made up and then litigated in such a way that one side must lose.  It is exactly like fixing a boxing match or a baseball game so that the “gamblers” and “bookies” will be happy, or make money, or both.

When lawyers participate in the fixing of cases, they betray their clients and themselves, but they also betray the concept of due process and the constitutional meaning of the courts as a part of government.

When judges participate in the fixing of cases, well, it’s just too horrifying for words.

Did any of these happen either in the Mitchell Roth case in Los Angeles or the Michael Pines case in the Northern District of California?   Similar fact patterns, similar outcomes, identical legal-factual subject matter relating to the effect of securitized mortgages.

I think that “due process” should be redefined as meaningful dialogue concerning all facts and issues.  The Judges would be primarily responsible for enforcing the Court as an arena for such discussions.   Last year I was involved in an unfortunate case of ill-repute in Orange County wherein I worked with a lawyer who brought some very controversial claims of great national interest, and that lawyer then intentionally sabotaged her own claims on several levels by rushing the process, and then by ignoring it once she had a chance to get into court.  The judge granted this particular lawyer an extraordinary opportunity to correct some past mistakes, the attorney made more.  The judge then wrote an opinion outlining everything that this attorney needed to do to make her case and claims stronger, and the lawyer called the judge a traitor on the internet.  It was all just tragic and disgusting, because this one particular judge really DOES get that “meaningful dialogue” is at the heart of due process.  “Due process” is simply not satisfied by summary executions where the doomed defendant has a few words to say by way of complaint before his head is lopped off or he is thrown bodily out of his house.

The world goes faster and faster, and it is time to slow some things down.  Legal process, for instance, should NEVER be streamlined.  It should ALWAYS be slow and deliberate and give adequate opportunity for thought, reflection, and debate both on legal theories and evidence.   Above all, there must be no fixed or pre-determined outcomes.

I hope that Michael Pines did not intentionally “throw” his case by failing to answer the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but I’d say it looks very suspicious.  I hope that there is nothing more than great  and random coincidence between the allegations made (and established by a consent judgment) against Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles and the obvious conduct of Michael Pines’ case in the Northern District of California.

Full and open debate and exposition of evidence is absolutely critical both to resolving important issues facing the country and for the future of the free rights and enforceability of contract and the maintenance of the right to keep and own private property.  In other words, due process, by which I mean “well-developed and meaningful dialogue” (i.e. dialectical reasoning and process) in the evaluation of petitions for redress of grievance concerning impairments of the rights to enforce and maintain obligations of contract, for the benefits of acquiring and maintaining ownership of private property, and the presentation of these arguments to juries, is key to the future of the United States of America, and there is some evidence that such dialectical debate and the adversarial process itself is being regularly subverted in these United States as we teeter on the verge of a major transformation in our country, as one economy, the “capitalist mode of production” gasps for air and tries to survive against creeping socialism and collectivism which deeply threatens our way of life.

In Plato’s Republic, Book VII, men are chained to a wall and never see the sunlight, and they believe that their shadowy reflections in the torchlight is the only reality of life, because they either never knew or have forgotten the sun and how the world looks by day.  We in America are chained in our caves by lack of due process in court, lack of full debate on important aspects of our lives, such as WHERE and HOW we live.  The judicial courts need to be a radiant source of light for all people to see evidence and theories concerning what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false, especially in the economy, especially in regard to the essential elements of life, such as food and shelter.