Feedback on Dr. Charles Lincoln's third amended complaint regarding foreclosure and eviction (California)
See introduction here: Introduction
In summary, the pleading seeks to achieve remedy and relief from a wrongful foreclosure and eviction for you and several other plaintiffs in the United States District Court of David O. Carter in Santa Anna, southern California, case 09-cv-01072-DOC.
It complains of racketeering by attorney Stephen Silverstein and fellow conspirators who actually stole real estate through a fraudulent, unconstitutional non-judicial process apparently fully embraced and endorsed by California law and California Superior Courts.
Basically, it alleges that Silverstein used a form of lawyer immunity to foreclose and evict the Plaintiffs who did not make house payments properly, and then to dispossess them through intimidation, ruse, harassment, and color of law use of police force. It complains that state courts ignored several efforts to remove the case to federal court for civil rights violations, and thereby denied Plaintiffs access to courts and due process.
Your pleading attacks the mechanism by which banks allegedly lend alleged money they do not have, engage in fraudulent contracting for note/mortgage, and take profits through securitization without fulfilling fiduciary duties to the borrower, such as accounting for profits made.
It explains how the lenders don't have privity of contract and therefore the note/mortgage have no validity.
Essentially, it charges the bank defendants with running a racket of selling loans that cost them nothing and then receiving payments from debtors while selling security certificates to investors.
It explains how these activities separate the note from the mortgage and make the mortgage unenforceable. And it explains how Silverstein and fellow racketeers went ahead and tried to enforce them anyway in spite of not functioning as a party in interest or holder in due course, all fraudulently.
Your pleading asks the court to declare several California laws unconstitutional because they deprive foreclosure victims of a day in court to protest against wrongful foreclosure, sale, and eviction, and they let scurrilous attorneys collude with fellow investors and functionaries to steal the associated properties and deprive legitimate owners of rental incomes.
It also seeks compensatory damages and declarations that nullify the associated notes and mortgages.
As for my review comments below, I intend them only as my reflections that arose while reading the complaint, and I caution you that you might find inaccuracies, and certainly will find personal musings, there. If I have erred, I ask that you correct me by return email.
As for my distribution of these comments, I ask all who read them to feel free to interact with me or Dr Charles Lincoln as appropriate to correct errors and improve the pleading and its supporting information, and to provide feedback to Dr. Lincoln, cc to me.
As for any apparent denigration of Mr. Silverstein and associates in my comments, I intend no libel or slander, but respond only to the pleading of Dr. Lincoln. I do not know Mr. Silverstein personally and have had no business or other association or communication with him. I wish him no harm and bear him no ill will. I merely hope to God he gets just what he deserves as a consequence of his actions.
As for the actions of unintended readers, I encourage you to spread the attached pleading far and wide. Every state has bad laws that diminish rights of one group while feather-nesting rights of another group. Some California laws need excision or revision as the attached pleading makes clear. If you face a foreclosure or eviction there, Dr. Lincoln can add you to the lawsuit, and perhaps should, particularly if you have an adversary like Mr. Silverstein breathing down your neck to take your property. If you face foreclosure and eviction in another state, you might find the attached pleading's attack on the underpinnings of the non-judicial process useful in formulating a similar complaint in your case.
Also, note the notice of waiver to California's Attorney General appended to the bottom of this message. It suggests that the government has taken a position against "novel" legal arguments. Pity. This pleading contains a bunch of them.
Suggestions, Notes and Opinion by: Bob Hurt and Un-Named Others
Item 31, page 9. I hope you elaborate somewhere. The statute language confuses and has limited application. It seems to imply that whites have rights non-whites don't have. In this day of reverse discrimination intended to force equality upon the masses, whites have less rights than non-whites. Clearly that makes the law mean government should suppress non-whites the way it suppresses whites.
And then there's the question of what all national citizens must give up to become national citizens, as though their state citizenships don't matter or have second class status. Supreme court rulings (like you must pay into the national coffers if you derive any benefit (such as SSI) from the nation) turn EVERY state citizen into a national serf, and that has caused the courts to impose obligations upon state nationals that they should not have.
The 14th Amendment and associated laws has utterly confused most of the populace about what US, USA, citizen, and Citizen, and citizenship mean. It has destroyed the ability of the people to hold the national government accountable for debt WHICH the people would never agree has validity 150 years later. And it should clearly extend ALL of the bill of rights protections to all of the states and obligate state governments to enforce them under peril of punishment for not doing so.
Charles, I do not like your use of passive voice in your legal writing. I encourage you to excise that and all to be verb forms, for clarity. DISCIPLINE yourself. Look at the ambiguity passive voice inflicts upon 34. The sentence should clarify WHO infringes, particularly since that underlies the purpose of the lawsuit. "Defendants, particularly debt collectors, infringe mortgagors' civil rights under color of law, particularly the right "..."
35 - did you mean curtailed?
37 - sloppy use of passive voice / to-be verb. Revise to this form: "This suit names Holder and Brown in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1"
38 - you protest too much. The discrimination against whites and non-whites alike, with no apparent distinction between them justifies imposing a color blindness upon 42 USC 1982/3. However, clearly, most non-whites in America have nearly or more than a standard deviation lower IQ than whites, making them easier targets of opportunity for the WASP Defendants. I'd like to see the actual numbers of whites and non-whites in the target base of foreclosure victims.
39 - why do you not take the matter to the Article III District Court of the United States instead of the territorial Article I USDC? I want a good answer to this one.
39 - Why did you not tell some more specifics of the lessons of those rulings? Looking them sucks such time with little reward, so I have to trust you. What does "strict scrutiny" mean, and what result should it produce?
40 - more horrid passive voice - have been denied? WHO denied them. SAY SO. ACCUSE! CITE EXAMPLES! Levy CHARGES. Few grievances rise to the heights of egregiousness as denial of due process or access to courts. Congress should make it a judge-hanging offense. SAY SO.
44 - more horrid passive voice, and sentence two dangles. Describe judicial racial gloss. Say it this way: Racial language of 28 USC 1443(1) has no modern rational basis and no party has shown that it serves no compelling governmental interest or objective. .... You waste a lot of words with passive voice and to be verbs, Charles. EXCISE THEM.
45 - you should come out and say that Defendants and State judges will contend as others wrongly have that no racial prejudice justifies removal of the case (if you mean that), and that the courts have swallowed this absurdity in the past without rhyme or reason, imparting a racial bias to the law that does not exist in the law. One wonders at the motives of such actors to pervert the only mechanism for escaping the Kangaroo nature of State courts.
Incidentally, why didn't you quote some supporting text from some judicially imposed racial slant on 1443? I find it hard to believe that a non-idiot federal judge could possibly justify any racial slant on the text.
46 - unless you quote judicially imposed racial slant on 1443 in (45), you cannot segue properly into 46's 1981 racial slant. This educational content serves all who might want to join the class, but don't quite "get" the issue. Furthermore, you failed to make the point that since the post-194-Civil Rights Act racial motivation barely exists if at all, 1982 actually serves in its present form to deny civil rights defenses to WHITE victims of racial prejudice and abuse (such as through reverse discrimination). You should hammer this point home because it has become a serious issue. The courts should have stricken down all reverse discrimination statutes as grossly unconstitutional, but it did not. It can only redeem its integrity and repair its negligence by making 1981 color blind.
47. I loathe the term Jim Crow because it means NOTHING to me or millions upon millions of others who have had no knowing involvement in it.
1) A law enacted or purposely interpreted to discriminate against blacks, such as a law requiring separate restrooms for blacks and whites.
2) Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment." It gives no examples or case law.
Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition p. 2447
Who was Jim Crow and why should I care? I thought separate toilets and water fountains and back of the bus seats only made no sense when I was a kid. I just figured society had lost its mind. Toss the word and use the proper term of "racially discriminatory laws."
In point of fact, 1981 and the 14th Amendment both racially discriminate - AGAINST WHITES, while protecting NON-WHITES, particularly now that the courts have done such a good job of curbing indiscriminate discrimination. The overt language of 1981 discriminates against victims of non-racial civil rights abuse by denying them a forum in which to air the grievance and a tribunal in which to achieve relief and remedy.
47 - also, you keep quoting equal rights to make or enforce contracts or give evidence ... From where do you quote it? Why not include a cite at the first use?
53 - you need to flesh out this argument in serious detail. Janet Phelan says somebody pays judges' mortgages after a few months. Maybe judges do it themselves with their early retirement lump sums of several million dollars each. The matter warrants investigation and the federal court should know it, so why not blatantly accuse them of unclean hands here? Also, in point of fact, the CA courts deny removals and deny justice and allow evictions even when conditions warrant a court challenge. Thus, one cannot get justice in CA courts, and the act of bringing an eviction from foreclosure case to them GUARANTEES defeat (do you know of any exceptions). Furthermore, campaign contributors among lender banks have supported the very judges who refuse to allow relief against and remedy from this terrible wrong. Since the net result of state court behaviors amounts to theft of property from rightful mortgagors, in spite of fraud, malfeasance, etc on the part of mortgagees and their lawyers and other minions, no one need propound a reason why, but all should demand relief and remedy in and by federal courts, along with the filing of criminal complaints against CA jurists who violate their loyalty oaths and deny both justice and access to the courts.
54 - need some quoted text in support
55. Hate to rain on your parade, but some discrimination makes sense. Society does not properly protect the stupid who populate half of the black race in the USA and nearly half of the Latino racial groups. Stupid people make bad choices and abuse themselves and others as a consequence. They should not have the same liberties as smarter people. Liberty belongs to the responsible.
57. The texts of 1981/2 belong in the BEGINNING of your pleading, not buried on p 16. As for changes, you ought to recommend striking the words "as is enjoyed by white citizens (thereof)." When you quote the whole thing minus those words, the reader gets confused and has to do word by word comparison of the two versions.
64 seems to have little logical support and conclusion and is presumptuous; back it up with a quote or cite.
65-69 I really like the message in these. Except... you should accuse JUDGES and JUSTICES (by name) of fraud on the court for so constructing 1443/7 Call their actions a HANGING OFFENSE.
70 - your point has merit, but here you should address the massive fraud by lenders which the present laws allow them to commit with impunity - selling loans without funding in a conspiracy to create money from the signatures of mortgagors while pretending to lend money invested in a scam by bond buyers of empty mortgage-backed securities that end up yielding 30 to 50 times the eventual note values, without informing either the loan buyers or the bond buyers.
71 - I LOVE THIS ONE. The courts and supporting law defeat the US Constitution, even though all official actors swore to support it. They have committed the worst kind of treason - betrayal of public trust under color of law. Hang them by their underdeveloped genitals till dead.
72 - Get into cognovits and the reason for its essential illegality, in spite of the fact that many laws seem to embrace it. One cannot rightly embrace conviction (judgment) in advance of a trial of the facts and application of the law, including the law of the contract. This plunges America into lawlessness and disrespect for the mechanisms of government, particularly the stop gap - the judiciary.
72 you should quote the statute, Charles. I don't have ESP and don't want to look it up. Midden heap? Rich, very rich language you use.
73 missing end parenthesis.
74 - flesh this out with a quotation of the law and discussion of the errors in it, specifically.
76 passive voice makes this ambiguous. may and frequently are controverted? Huh? how? by whom? why? in what way? Last sentence makes point well. You should not only indict but blatantly say no jurist of education, conscience, and loyalty to oath can idly ignore without endorsing the implicit treason and war against the Constitution. In my opinion every judge who reads this should feel the approach of the guillotine to his own neck, for the very same reasons Louis and Marie met their ends.
77 you need to make the point here about cognovit and its illegal nature and the reason therefore, to connect some history and backing to your argument. Every judge's rubber stamp of a foregone conclusion constitutes a miscarriage of due process and abortion of justice.
line 17 omits the word to as in seems never to have (and of course the ugly to be verb, ugh). Say the next part like this: This Court MUST apply the law review as..." Not SHOULD, but MUST, if loyal to Anglo-American principles of law and judicial integrity.
78 explain why. For example, the eviction victim suffers massive loss in numerous ways, including loss of equity because of the market collapse which sophisticated investor lenders engineered through greedy and profligate lending policies, lender fraud in creating the loan by lending assets the alleged lender did not own or possess, defeating efforts by the eviction victim to reengineer a loan so as to make it affordable, lender knowingly and fraudulently approving a loan on an appraised property value 2 to 3 times its actual values, lender/servicer attempting to foreclose without having standing as a real party in interest, Lender/servicer pretending that the borrower's unpaid debt has more importance than the lender's effort to steal borrower's home outside the scrutiny of the judicial process which could and should highlight the lender's numerous frauds and send the lender away without day. After all, fraud vitiates contracts (provide cite). Furthermore, the loan balance, even if proper at the time of closing, evolved to unconscionable status as lender shenanigans drove down market values of real estate, rendering the loan balance in contrast to the property value utterly unconscionable, wherein NOBODY IN HIS RIGHT MIND would agree to pay 150% of the actual value for the property. The lender knows this and intends, after evicting the borrower, to sell the property at auction for a fraction of its replacement / income value, leave the borrower with a confiscatory judgment lien, and then flip the property for a massive profit, all to the detriment of the suffering, homeless eviction victim. The court MUST NOT, CANNOT let this happen and still claim justice interests it.
82 this should go to the beginning of the pleading. It constitutes the central theme of the complaint.
83. Explain what limited case and limited jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases MEANS.
84 ACCUSE THE JUDGES of CAL and of the federal courts of this lawlessness and say THEY MUST NOT ENGAGE IN IT ANY LONGER, AND MUST SUFFER PUNISHMENT FOR ENCOURAGING IT.
87 - cumbersome wording, rewrite. Stop using acronyms without first defining them. What does UD mean? Don't assume the reader knows.
88 ACCUSE. Say WHO did this heinous
89 - you should cite some examples. surely you have some.
92. I hate to say this, but eviction seems like the creditor's effort to take that possession. So why do you complain? Just joking.
94, so what does this mean? What should one conclude from it. SAY IT.
96. encumbered by passive voice - WHO DENIED THEM THE RIGHT? SAY IT.
Page 28 footnote 1. What relevance does this have? SAY IT.
97 - you obviously seek a fist fight here, so why not set it up properly. You have not proven that actual ownership depends upon possession, and in fact I do not believe it does, so you'll have to prove this. You have reminded me of your effort to snatch poor Claire's vehicle and abscond with it. Big difference between stealing a car by keeping it when the owner rightfully demands its return, and quibbling over the nuances of real estate ownership seriously encumbered by fraud on one side and contract violations on the other. I would only carefully assert that ownership depends upon possession. That notion only applies in uncivilized disputes between families, tribes, nations where an invading army can take your property and you can't do anything about it.
So you could accuse the judges and courts of reemploying a kind of feudal barbarism on the land by showing that the tribal chief courts rubberstamp wrongful evictions by Conan the Barbarian in the guise of Silverstein. That kind of disregard for the actual law and rights merely encourages people to murder judges in their sleep. SAY THIS because it lies at the heart of this issue and it reeks with awful, terrible truth. You cannot accuse the thief of treason for stealing, but you can damned sure accuse the judge of treason for violating his oath to protect the constitutions (AND civil rights) when the thief tries to steal. SAY THIS. You cannot make the point without ACCUSING THE JUDGES (not merely the courts).
98 EXCELLENT ACCUSATION. ABOUT TIME Now, remember here to command the judge to the effect of THE COURT CANNOT AND MUST NOT ALLOW THIS descent into barbarism, lest the people go on a general rampage and burn the judges out of house and home in reprisal for their obvious, blatant racketeering.
99 horrid passive voice - WHO TOOK YOUR PROPERTY? SAY IT! Don't make the reader ask this question or wait for its answer. ACCUSE DIRECTLY, IMPUGN, ATTACK, DENOUNCE, EXCORIATE.
100 - you pussyfoot too much here. TELL THE JUDGE YOU EXPECT THE JUDGE TO FASHION A 1988 remedy and say WHAT remedy, in what form, and to what extent, and tell him he MUST DO IT or fall subject to public scorn for abrogating responsibilities under Article III and the first and 7th amendments.
102 you won't deny, you'll swear you never...
103 ACCUSE. WHO denied you. NAME NAMES, DATES, Courtrooms, case number, record.
108 constitution violations, not constitutional violations. klutzy first sentence - rewrite it.
109 - you might bring up 18 USC 1000 or whatever , lying to a government officer, and accuse the defendants of doing that, and attach your affidavit and criminal complaint form AO091 to it for the judge's signature.
100 who is jc?
111 who rewards them and how. Give proofs, examples. This amounts to bribery to toss legitimate claims.
121 Do you make a good point here? So the buyer knew of the litigation. So what? He could not have obtained title insurance, could he. Does any law require protection by such insurance? If yes, CITE IT. If not, say so, and use some other argument or rule to support "THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT" A bona fide purchaser might not care about title insurance or the litigation, feeling confident of winning in the end, or having an ulterior motive (like flippant the property for a song, handing it to a buddy, who reaps a big profit through a bogus title insurer scammer.
122 EXCELLENT POINT in spite of passive voice. TELL THE COURT WHAT IT MUST DO, excellent.
proveit88: Old Republic National Title is refusing to insure Titles from these foreclosures, for ALLY formerly known as GMAC
proveit88: No Title insurance, no seller would touch these Foreclosed properties, especially what has since come to light
124 what gives her any right to demand a modification in lieu of the injured creditor finding another buyer/borrower?
proveit88: Where are you reading from?
126 FINALLY you mention forgeries and document fraud or irregularities. You should have hinted at this in the very beginning of the pleading. In my opinion you cannot win unless you allege and prove fraud on the part of the lender/servicer/security trust/appraiser/seller/mortgage broker/realtor.
132 line 22 actual, not actually. And you should flesh out your privity of contract point.
136 very theoretical, and anyway misses the point of cognovit which you should hammer hammer hammer. Cognovit makes non judicial foreclosure an ILLEGAL, unconscionable violation of due process and access to courts and petition for redress and assistance of counsel. Ooops, you caught the involuntary servitude. Clever. BTW inferior already includes non-equal
137 FINALLY you cite some case law pertinent to the illegality of the CAN statutes
144 in that plaintiff ack's - should it be in Plaintiff Mack's?
149 Charles, can you weasel any criminal complaints out of these offenses? If you can, why not gt AO091 from http://www.uscourts.gove, apply an affidavit, fill in the details, and get the judge to sign them, then hand them to the DOJ and ask for a grand jury investigation pronto?
152 GET RID OF THAT PASSIVE VOICE. WHO took the homes?
155 you should flesh out this and explain how Silverstein managed to to all that, and the manner in which the events occurred. Why did you not seek an injunction? Did you? What happened/
157 Explain how that slandered title.
161 you should charge ex parte comm and conspiracy to defraud by the judge and Silverstein. Have you ever seen more obvious indications? Demand criminal charges..
163 Accuse him of MASTERMINDING the bad policies, not just upholding them. ACCUSE him of warring against the constitutions of the USA and CA.
166 you need to convert this mess into an attack against the perpetrators under CRIMINAL LAWS, state and federal, Charles, and DEMAND that the judge issue arrest warrants (see form AO442)
170 Again QUOTE THE CODE. Put it in footnotes or wherever but INCLUDE it.
171 line 8 tortuous, not tortuous - rewrite the sentence. Badly constructed. Amd ex[;aom tje delict differences
173 I love this one. Illegal to let law protect lawyers while punishing others.
179 -insulate - what do you mean - reword this
181 wish instead of wishes. Anyway, you need to explain this paragraph and why you wrote it.
186 - I don't get your point and I believe anybody could engineer a mechanism like Silverstein's lawfully to acquire distressed properties. They have no obligation to mollycoddle people who default on loans. I'd like an explanation here of what in their operation makes them NOT bona fide purchasers for value. Had you shown reasonable cause for acting for proof (such as by challenging it in some detail), you might have more of a leg to stand on here. As I see it, you offered payment IF they showed proof of holder in due course status, but was your offer hollow or real. If the lender thought you insincere and figured you used the ploy as a means of delaying foreclosure rather than discharging the debt, the lender might have chosen rightly to act as they did. I mean GRE of course, not lender.
187 What do you mean per se denial? I love the point.
188 what does this have to do with anything. Did they block you from discovery? How? Who? When? Give some details. What facts did you need, and why? How did the opponent/court affect you by blocking the discovery?
189 excellent point, but I would accuse much harder and call them conspirators and racketeers. And I would demand investigation into their financial entanglements.
193 FINALLY some actual law.
194 and 196 and 197 Great points. Now not only accuse, but also push for a criminal charge and tell the court that if it declines to charge Silverstein it becomes his witting accomplice.
199 and 200 and 201 excellent. Why not demand ACTION by the court as conservator of the peace to put Silverstein under arrest and charge him with crimes? Hey, I love footnote 145 on p 51. You should sprinkle other criminal statutes throughout, as applicable.
204 seems muddy to me. So what if it should not be upheld. DEMAND that the COURT STRIKE IT DOWN.
207 Finally, some law that Silverstein uses. Thank you. About time. You failed to mention that this law flies in the face of the UCC.
210 What is a conclusive presumption and how does that phrase impact the NJF?
212 and 213 Anyway, excellent point abut the unconstitutionality of 2924.
2219 If you would quote the law, it might become easier to comment. I do not see the application of anti-SLAPP except to prohibit Silverstein from blocking your challenge. Silverstein abused anti-SLAPP and the court helped him do it. ACCUSE.
222 California, not Californian
223 What is the code and why do you claim it irrational?
227 It does BOTH, not either/or, and it does so illegally. Bottom line, the contract IS the law, provided it IS a contract, and unilateral adhesion contracts constitute an aberration because they violate major elements of an agreement. such as the ability to negotiate the terms. They unfairly bind one who has virtually no alternative.
230 I disagree with your assertion and suggest you investigate further; see Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 971
Adhesion contract. A standard-form contract prepared by one party, to be signed by the party in a weaker position, usu. a consumer, who adheres to the contract with little choice about the terms. — Also termed contract of adhesion; adhesive contract; adhesory contract; adhesionary contract; take-it-or-leave-it contract; leonine contract.
Cases: Contracts 1. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 2–3, 9, 12.
Some sets of trade and professional forms are extremely one-sided, grossly favoring one interest group against others, and are commonly referred to as contracts of adhesion. From weakness in bargaining position, ignorance, or indifference, un-favored parties are willing to enter transactions controlled by these lopsided legal documents.”
Quintin Johnstone & Dan Hopson Jr., Lawyers and Their Work 329–30 (1967).
Dangers are inherent in standardization ... for it affords a means by which one party my impose terms on another unwitting or even unwilling party. Several circumstances facilitate this imposition. First, the party that proffers the form has had the advantage of time and expert advice in preparing it, almost inevitably producing a form slanted in its favor. Second, the other party is usually completely or at least relatively unfamiliar with the form and has scant opportunity to read it — an opportunity often diminished by the use of fine print and convoluted clauses. Third, bargaining over terms of the form may not be between equals or, as is more often the case, there may be no possibility of bargaining at all. The form may be used by an enterprise with such disproportionately strong economic power that it simply dictates the terms. Or the form may be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, often called a contract of adhesion, under which the only alternative to complete adherence is outright rejection.
E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 4.26, at 296–97 (3d ed. 1999).
231 Did I fall asleep and just wake up in the twilight zone? What happened to your prayer for relief? Don't you want to strike something down here?
233 Reads like nonsense. Restructure the paragraph and make your point better. I don't even know what you mean by this.
234 titles of nobility and along with them, the stigmata of implied titles ignobility for non-nobles...or the UCC laws which apply to commerce even though contracts omit the provisions, but don't apply if contracts specifically defeat such laws.
In footnote 1 cite your source. I have already taken some exception to it.
235 John Nash's mathematics proved this in his development of the Nash Equilibrium, a games mechanism in which adversaries reach a point in negotiations that they all help the other get what the other wants, and thereby maximizes the ability to achieve what they themselves want - any action to which the others do not know and agree worsens one's position. You should bring this up. See John Nash's Nobel prize summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sh_equilibrium
A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she remained with her current strategy. For games in which players randomize (mixed strategies), the expected or average payoff must be at least as large as that obtainable by any other strategy.
If you want to test for a Nash equilibrium, simply reveal each person's strategy to all players. The Nash equilibrium exists if no players change their strategy, despite knowing the actions of their opponents. For example, let's examine a game between Tom and Sam. In this simple game both players can choose: A) received $1, or B) lose $1
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp
Logically, both players choose strategy A and receive a payoff of $1. If you revealed Sam's strategy to Tom and vice versa, you will see that no player deviates from the original choice. Knowing the other player's move means little, and doesn't change behavior. The outcome A,A represents a Nash equilibrium.
235 - I like this expression
237 Excellent point
238 I LIKE THIS ACCUSATION - succinct, sensible, provable, concrete. Need more like it.
239 - what relevance/significance does this have?
240 I like this. How did the Defendants interfere and fail to cooperate?
242 as landlords did they have an obligation to tenants who did not pay rent? Did you pay rent? Could they expect it from people who did not make house payments?
247 Good idea, OUGHT to. Say MUST, not Ought.
257-262 This begins to look like a real lawsuit for torts You ought to come out and declare him a mobster no less pernicious than the Russian Jewish Mafia.
266 - sloppy wording and a little unclear. Alongside? The title cloud is the business of the title company, isn't it? Buyer normally makes seller provide title insurance, but does not have to. What law governs this?
267 in what way does the sale constitute a RICO activity?
272 back this up with a rousting bar complaint and attach it to the pleading. I like the threat, but put some teeth into it. Can you rely upon a judge unilaterally to act when you give allegations but no demand that he act?
274 reads a little like whining/pandering "He simply thought" ASSERT filing MUST constitute sufficient public notice, PARTICULARLY when any number of unknown attackers like Silverstein might design to steal real estate through ruses such as he has used.
276 I really like this. You should quote the ALI Restatements whenever you can.
283 Okay, you sue but with No prayer for relief?
288 No parenthetical statement needed. Just remove the parentheses
294 Oh good, you finally asked for money.
306 and 307 - these will fail close scrutiny because the bank will prove that it wired money to the title company bank account and the title company distributed checks from that money to the seller and others at closing. You have to get around this reality, Charles, or the court will toss your argument. You might get around it by claiming that it invented the bank wire out of thin air, or that it did not actually wire the money till after closing, and that the note funded the wire. You will have to prove it. You might prove that at closing the buyer signed the note BEFORE siezing the property. That seems like a fraud in the inducement. The closing officer knew the buyer had no siezed the property yet. And in point of fact, the note claims that the borrower had already received a loan (no stipulation as to a loan of what medium of exchange), another untruth.
311 you should point out that only an implied contract existed, established by the fact of the loan application followed by the binder of the pretend-lender which then triggered the closing. Because of the money amount (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and the duration (20 or 30 years), the statute of frauds made the implied agreement unenforceable. Even though the note supplanted the implied contract, it still relies upon that contract for its basic force - the lender must have delivered a loan, and that requirement feeds into your argument of no detriment and 12 USC 1813(h) where a note becomes a deposit to the lender's benefit. Clearly, unless the lender can show that it used its assets to fund the alleged loan, it cannot prove consideration/detriment or privity, and the whole thing becomes a scam. So while the lender cannot enforce the note, not even with the mortgage (and we have not yet touched on the scam of securitization, a triple-A bond rating for the security, and the emptiness of the security at the time the bank's trust started selling bonds to investors, the real source of funding, if any).
314 Did you show some case law in support of this maxim?
317 - So, you ought specifically to deny that Wells Fargo owned the alleged loan money before lending it or had any right to lend it as an agent of the actual lender, or in the alternative, had no right to become a recipient of repayment money. Somewhere make the point that WF did not lend it, so who did? And pound on the fact that WF has no party in interest character, and knowingly obscured the identity of the real lender, IF ANY, or that NO ACTUAL lender existed at the time of the alleged loan, AND that both the title company and alleged lender defrauded all the recipients of "funds" at closing by delivering fiat money not created by the US Government.
319 leaves this point hanging - who got injured by the defendants making the alleged loans? The practice of lending what does not exist causes inflation, diminishing the value of all money in America. Somewhere I read banks cannot lend credit. I don't know what that means, seems like a play on words, but it seems like banks do this all the time in mortgage transactions. All left the closing table with what they wanted, but the bank left with ill gotten gains that would endure for 30 years, the term of the note, and Americans in general end up paying for it through inflation, and the borrower pays with money of exchange during repayment.
320 You need to explain how the bank gets away with this fraud. For example, how does it perform a bank wire with no money to back it. How does it perform a bank wire when it DOES have money to back it? How do banks physically resolve the accounting and the actual cash when they transfer money of account? How does fractional reserve fit into this? Why not use Modern Money Mechanics or some other Federal Reserve text or expert witness testimony (like Walker Todd, but better) to show the entrenched, systemic, systematic fraud of bankers against Americans. Everybody must create money through labor and fair exchange except for banks. How did the system get like this?
You see, I don't believe it, just as, when I was 12 years old, I didn't believe my parents actually did something as nasty as sex in order to produce babies, and, when I was 9, Santa did not actually exist OR bring presents at Christmas time. I just cannot believe that we live in a day and system where bankers make money out of thin air and lend it to people who blithely trust them.
321 The borrower initiates the mortgage by applying to a broker or lender for the loan, and the lender finishes the initiation by approving the loan and issuing a binder to fund the loan. The borrower then sets the closing date and that also fulfills one of the terms of the real estate contract - that the buyer MUST consummate the purchase IF the borrower gets funding for the mortgage loan. You need to add this to your explanation because it constitutes the beginning of the fraud.
322 the originator (lender) undertakes delivering a bank wire to the title company for distribution to seller and others. That LOOKS like a detriment. Explain why it does NOT constitute a detriment.
3323 glosses over the mechanism of securitization, and you should go into some detail here, including the SEC prospectus 424b5 and other filings to show the scheme carefully planned to cheat investors by selling them an empty bond on which the pretender-lender fraudulently obtained a AAA rating to lure investors.. You ought to discuss the derivatives here too, explaining how the pretender-lender engages in wagers that the borrower will or will not default, thereby encouraging practices that lead to the default.
324 Explain WHAT LAW causes the removal of holder in due course and privity status. If you don't, the jury will not understand it and the opposition will prevail in the argument You also need to show who did what wrong how and what it would take to set things right, and who really is the holder in due course and therefore has the right to foreclose (if anyone does). And demand that the court sanction Defendants and their counsel for the frivolous foreclosure and associated frauds on the court.
327 Something seems missing here for equity to occur. Either the seller has ill-gotten gains or fraud funny money, or you get the house free. You seem to say that you and Hal should owe nothing to anybody for the house, and never did to begin with and never should have made even the first payment, and that you received the house free, even though the seller walked away with a discharged note to his prior lender and a pocket full of equity money after cashing his check at the bank. If in fact the lender lent nothing, then where did that cash come from, who will balance the books, and how will that balancing occur? Your model of fraud does not explain this.
It seems to me that the proper solution includes disgorgement of all money paid by Hal and other Plaintiffs, return of the property to the original owners, extraction of the money from those owners which they received at closing, and return of the money of account to the lender. Now everybody has gone back to the beginning, except for losses accruing from expenditure of out of pocket costs and labor. This nasty mess does not obtain a proper cure by leaving you with the house while you pay no money in exchange for it. We get fairness no more from your receiving a free house than from a pretender-lender receiving 30 years of cash flows amounting to twice the face amount of the alleged loan (or more).
You simply cannot ask the court to dream up an answer for this dreadfully confusing debacle. The judge does not have the experience or wisdom to do it, and he will mess it up as judges have throughout recent history. You must impugn the fractional reserve banking technique of lending more than the bank possesses in assets, of lending credit, of lending depositor money, and of classifying bookkeeping entries as money or "deposits." You must identify a method of accountability, built in audit trail that shows the origin of all money to an actual source of printed cash or minted coin by the US Government (not the federal reserve). You have to attack the Federal Reserve system as the culprit, and Congress as its puppet master and evil creator, in the areas of its wrong - the creation of a class of people above government and beyond accountability - the wealthy banking families who own the FED and engineered the destruction of American money and its replacement with worthless paper.
330; more law. You need to define holder in contrast to holder in due course and show how that has relevance through the rights of each, in this issue. Also, you seem to ignore the reality that bulk transactions OCCUR in the ordinary course of transferor's business, so this statute makes it legal. But anyway, what does bulk transaction mean and how does it apply here? You must say what it is and how it applies, and THEN ask the court to agree with you. You could challenge the securitization trust as NOT any ordinary course of business, but created only to stomp this law. You ought to show how the trust hides mortgagor and holder in due course from one another, making it impossible for the holder to enforce the note or invoke the protections of the mortgage in the event of default, and impossible for the borrower to renegotiate with the actual investor, the holder of the security certificates/bonds.
332 line 17 assuming that they (not the). Good. More law. Arcane, though. Maybe you should explain what part of it makes one conclude that the pretender lender does not constitute a holder in due course.
333 explain what "buy for value" means. How does bulk buying not constitute buying for value?
334 "This" transaction? To which do you refer?
335 I do not believe you have proven or even demonstrated thiis allegation Outside of mass transactions? What do you mean by that, and how does it have relevance here? Why does a mass transaction have any bearing on the validity of a note purchase?
336 Here you have a chance to impugn the practice of destroying the original note which many banks have done, and then fabricating a replacement with phony robotically signed authentication done by pantograph or printing press, after the courts began to demand that foreclosure plaintiffs bring the original doc to court with them. Of course, You might also bring up the notarization of allonges by people in a different state from the signer, and incorrect dates on then and court filings, all of which point to fraud against the court and the debtor.
You might also show how your filing of actions in court puts the defendants in violation of provision 2f of 3302.
336 here you should demand the accounting. Why didn't you?
339 You ought to demand the court to declare all mortgage related liens null and void, order them removed from county records, order credit history expunged of hints of wrong doing or delinquency, and order Defendants to go away with prejudice and without recourse.
343 Note that 1813 also defines repayment money as NOT a deposit. Does this have relevance to your point?
345 - what do you mean "deposit was ever paid" and how does it have relevance. DAMMIT CHARLES STOP USING PASSIVE VOICE. You confuse everything with it, unnecessarily. The note has a value today in the amount of the loan ONLY IF the debtor has a reliable nature and stays healthy, employed, etc for the next 30 years. That does NOT amount to spendable cash today because in spite of the deposit, the debtor has not made payments yet. Ask yourself why the law does no require that the deposit of a promissory note have its FUTURE value of 2 to 3 times the face amount.
351 you have not proven yet that they lend without cost. I saw the allegation, of course, but not the proof.
360 what does CACI mean? Note: by signing the deed of trust, plaintiffs did show intent to transfer (in the event they default on payments).
370 what does tender rule mean and what law/rule imposes it and under what conditions?
396 the light bulb just came on with this one, in sentence 2 line 3. I never thought of this as a requirement, that the lender becomes a fiduciary to the borrower by depositing the note and then owes accounting for all profits made. Here lies the key to deception and violation of fiduciary responsibility (provided you can find and show a law making the requirement), and you need to HIGHLIGHT this point in the beginning of the pleading instead of burying it near the end, in the middle of 396.
Now, how does failure to render the accounting of profit injure the Plaintiff?
Does the plaintiff have any right of claim to those profits? See, I question your assertion because I don't believe the pretender lender has any obligation to divulge profits to anyone not dependent upon the pretender lender for any product, service, or value under contract or other right of claim. I don't see that his profit is any of your business, and if it is, then what right you have either to an accounting or a share of it. I want to see some common, statutory, and case law proof of your assertion here.
399 - walking on quicksand here. No law = no remedy = the path to remedy. But will a judge rule intelligently and knowledgably when he knows virtually nothing about these theories. Youi should flesh out this argument and show the path to equitable remedy of rescission, and justification for it. QUOTE THE LAW Here in a footnote. DO IT THROUGHOUT THIS PLEADING (you only did a little of that).
400 lawful tender of legal money - you must define this and explain its context. What makes a note deposited in an account suddenly into legal tender or lawful tender, and by WHAT MAGIC does a promise to pay way out in the future become something you can buy beans and corn with today? You can only buy beans and corn when the borrower makes payments unless you sell the note at a discount, and that still does not make it money (which NEVER sells at a discount). And then we have the question of whether you actually HAD the tender money you say you offered. Had the target accepted the tender, how would you have paid, and WOULD you have paid? NO WAY, as that would defeat the purpose of your entire enterprise here, getting a house for nothing (well, nothing further). Now, what keeps anyone from continuing to submit tender offers consisting of other promises to pay, backed by nothing of intrinsic value, including a mortgage? Does such a tender obligate the target to accept it? ONLY IF LEGAL TENDER. And that defeats your purpose. Why not a bill of exchange, bonded promissory note, and other patriot myth nonsensical fraudulent instruments. Speaking of which, why not equate the loan to the BOE or BPN, in order denigrate it and diminish its legitimacy in the judge's mind?
402 GREAT, you connected the dots here - loan modification effort = tender offer, justifying rescission.
404 what happened here. Finish your sentence and your thought.
405 SAY the criteria you expect for a holder in due course to have such status.
You did not attack the paperwork from the angle of bad signatures, forgeries, incorrect timing and dating, bad notarizations, etc. You should have all the docs examined for those flaws and ATTACK THE FLAWS IN THIS PLEADING more rigorously to highlight the intrinsic fraud in EVERYTHING the Defendants do. Surely you have a bad allonge or two in the batch, or an out of state notary witnessing an in-state signature, or something like that. And in the complain, surely you have some kind of fraud, like WHERE THE HELL IS THE ORIGINAL NOTE / Mortgage, and does it bear evidence of forgery, tampering, or duplication?
See the 3rd amended complaint here: Complaint
--------------------------------Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
August 26, 2010
Charles Edward Lincoln
Renada Nadine March
Daniel Christian Mack
Richard Mendez
Joseph Cohen
7 Bluebird Lane
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Tel: 949-742-0436
E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com
Plaintiffs pro se, in propia persona
August 26, 2010
Thursday
Mr. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr.
Office of the Attorney General
1300 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2919
Phone: (916) 445-9555
Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Phone: (415) 703-5500
Office of the Attorney General
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230
Phone: (213) 897-2000
We are pro se litigants in the enclosed case, 09-cv-01072-DOC,
with the Second Amended Complaint we recently lodged in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern
Division, before the Honorable David O. Carter in Santa Ana.
Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
We are providing you with notice of our lawsuit, as we are required to do by Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that we are challenging the Constitutionality of certain California and Federal State statutes relating to the ownership of property and enforcement of contracts (and preservation of common law defenses to contracts) as a civil right protected by the United States Constitution. We note that you have recently sanctioned a California attorney, Michael Roth, according to your own website, because: After collecting up-front fees, 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. http://ag.ca.gov/news alerts/release.php?id=1979&
We are deeply disturbed by the message you are sending out because we firmly adhere to what you call a “novel legal argument” because it is in every way sound. In fact, allowing and enforcing this position will help preserve the family, restore confidence in the financial system, potentially keep millions of Americans independent and off the welfare rolls, and preserve the American dream of homeownership for those who worked hardest to achieve it. Traditional common law rights, protected by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982, required proof of “holder in due course” standing and regular “privity of contract” before contracts relating to the sale of land, homes, and other real estate could be enforced by foreclosure. We demand the enforcement and protection of these our constitutional rights: that the State of California shall neither enact nor enforce any laws constituting an impairment nor abridgement of the rights of contract, or the right to keep and own property, that no law shall be made or enforced which grants privileges or immunities to any one social or economic class of individuals to the unequal disadvantage of other citizens (such as attorneys vs. non-attorneys) Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons.
August 26, 2010; and that the common law shall be preserved except when expressly repealed and abridged, and not merely by implications constituting a taking of rights without due process of law.
We claim that all such processes have occurred and continue to occur in California, as the direct and proximate and therefore legal result of state-enacted and state forced laws or programs, practices, and policies having the force or effect of law.
Accordingly, we ask you to join our lawsuit and assist us in seeking to have California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., relating to non0-judicial foreclosure, and §1714.10 relating to attorney’s conditional immunity from liability for participating in civil conspiracies to defraud, declared unconstitutional, along with §1946 and Code of Civil Procedure §§1161-1162, relating to unlawful detainer or forcible eviction lawsuits following non-judicial foreclosures. We ask to meet with you personally concerning this lawsuit and that you make this lawsuit and its content the very highest priority of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California.
We are all and each one of us
Yours very truly and respectfully, _____________________________________Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
Telephone: (512) 968-2500
lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com
Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
August 26, 2010
_______________________________________Renada Nadine March
7 Bluebird Lane
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Tel: 949-742-0436
E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com
_________________________________________
Daniel Christian Mack
_________________________________________
Richard Mendez
_________________________________________
Joseph A. Cohen
Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
August 26, 2010
COPIES OF LETTER, NOTICE OF LAWSUIT, AND REQUEST FOR
WAIVE OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS WERE ALSO SENT TO:
DEBORAH S. BOWEN
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE
(To Waive Notice on Behalf of the State of California)
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
ARNOLD A. SCHWARZENEGGER
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701, Los Angeles, CA 90013
See Also:
Dr. Charles Lincoln 3rd Amended Complaint 09 Cv-01072
Attorney General In Massachusetts Stops Foreclosures
Bank of America Halts Foreclosures In All 50 States
Fraud Factories Video by: Alan Greyson
Thanks to Bob Hurt.
Contact information: website: http://bobhurt.com/
Phone: 727-669-5511
Mailing address: 2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763