Monthly Archives: July 2010

How Judge Cory Cramin Recused himself from Renada’s Case in Orange County, California

CCP 170-6 Peremptory Challenge or Demand to Remove Judge Corey Cramin for Cause RNM 7-26-10

RENADA NADINE MARCH

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Tel: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

DEFENDANTS IN PRO PER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE COUNTY – LAGUNA HILLS

\Harbor Justice Center, 23141 Moulton Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA 92653

MEGLODON FINANCIAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RENADA NADINE MARCH,

Defendant,

And

FAY E. MARCH

(Intervener formerly named in

Complaint as Defendant John Doe or Jane Roe)

Defendant.

Case No.  30-2009-00312382-CL-UD-HLH

MOTION AND DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF HONORABLE JUDGE

CORY CRAMIN ON EITHER PEREMPTORY BIAS OR FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP

§170.6 OR OTHERWISE FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242

HON: Corey Cramin

DATE:  JULY 26, 2010

TIME: 9:30 AM

DEPT: LH04

COME NOW THE Defendants RENADA NADINE MARCH and Defendant in Intervention (formerly named only as a “Jane Doe” Defendant) FAY E. MARCH with this Motion and Demand for Removal of the Honorable Judge Corey Cramin on either peremptory bias grounds pursuant to California Civil Code §170.6 or otherwise “for cause” pursuant to California Civil Code §§170.1-170.5.

California Civil Code §170.6 states in part:

(a) (1) No judge, court commissioner, or referee of any superior court of the State of California shall try any civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that thejudge or court commissioner is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.

(2) Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement under oath that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending or to whom it is assigned is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of the party or attorney so that the party or attorney cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee.

Defendant Renada Nadine March (and her mother Fay E. March)  charge and would show that that on and after March 4, 2010, under color of law, Honorable Judge Cory Cramin sought to deprive the March Defendants of their liberty and property interests in 7 Bluebird Lane contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.  In so doing the Honorable Judge Cory Cramin acted with malicious intent to favor Plaintiff Meglodon Financial, LLC, and/or its attorney Steven D. Silverstein by unlawful exercise of jurisdiction after properly noticed and served removal by the Defendant Renada Nadine March to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern (Santa Ana) Division. Eviction from her residence during March would have rendered Intervenor Fay E. March homeless, and because of her advanced age would have put her at risk of loss of life, and therefore Judge Cory Cramin’s conduct, together with that of Steven D. Silverstein, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these two parties in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an attempt to kill Defendant Fay E. March within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242, quoted below.

To wit, after having been properly served with Notice of Removal, Judge Cory Cramin entered an order of final judgment and issued a writ of possession in favor of Meglodon Financial, LLC, at the behest and request of Plaintiff’s attorney Steven D. Silverstein, utilizing documents prepared by Silverstein, who had also been served with the Notice of Removal and was fully are of its legal significance under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Defendants Renada Nadine March and her mother Fay E. March further charge and would show that this conduct on Judge Cory Cramin’s part constituted, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear, direct, intentional, knowing, and premeditated violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, which states as follows:

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Here set forth in Laguna Hills Harbor Justice Court, State of California, in County of Orange, and cause of PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDGE PURSUANT TO CCP 170.6 or DEMAND FOR REMOVAL PURSUANT TO CCP §§170.1-5 for Judge Cramin’s violations of 18 U.S.C. §242 (and possible conspiracy with Meglodon Financial LLC and Silverstein in violation of

18 U.S.C. §241):

Renada Nadine March, being duly sworn, declares under penalty of perjury, deposes and says that she is a party to the the present action, Meglodon Financial LLC v. March, in which she is a Defendant, alongside her other of advanced years, Fay E. March.   On March 4th, 2010 the Judge, Cory Cramin, purported to exercise his authority in which he violated jurisdiction acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. That Cory Cramin the judge, before whom the hearing aforesaid action is pending is prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that she cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

26th day of July, 2010.

(officer of the Clerk administering oath)

Signature of Clerk/Notary:________________________________

My Business Address is:_______________________________

My Commission Expires:______________________________

Respectfully submitted,

Monday, July 26, 2010

By:___________________________________

RENADA NADINE MARCH,                                         Pro se/in propia persona

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-748-0396

PROOF OF SERVICE

I the undersigned ______________________ do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing:

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CCP § 170.6 or DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CCP §§170.1-170.5

on and delivered the same to:

Steven D. Silverstein, Attorney-at-Law

sdevictions@hotmail.com

Silverstein Eviction Law

14351 Redhill Ave., Suite #G

Tustin, CA 92780

FACSIMILE: 714-832-7781

Served by the Defendant and Respectfully Submitted to the Court,

Monday, July 26, 2010

By:  RENADA NADINE MARCH

While she was successful in removing Judge Corey Cramin,Renada failed to recuse Judge Margaret Anderson who noticed that her request for recusal was not verified as required by CCP 170-3—so don’t forget to verify your CCP Rule 170 Motions, regardless of whether you’re going for peremptory disqualification or recusal.  Of course, I’ll never forget how the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas once sanctioned me and my at that time quite heroic civil rights attorney Francis W. Williams-Montenegro in 2003 for failure to verify a Motion to Recuse under the Texas Rules, when in fact both he and I had separately verified the Motion to Recuse one of Texas’ and Williamson County’s worst, Judge Michael Jergins.  (I say “at that time” quite heroic only because Frances could not withstand the pressure of ten-time more severe threatened sanctions in 2006, and succumbed to pressure from Texas A.G. Greg Abbott when the sanctions against him, as an attorney, were suspended as a “constructive bribe” provided Frances never represent me in any future litigation, which he did not).  We had also attached evidence in support of the recusal as Exhibits to the Motion which the Third Court of Appeals said was missing.  All the court’s sequential and compound “errors” were spectacularly documented and published at 114 S.W.3D 724 (Texas 3rd DCA 2003).  Courts DO tend to see whatever they want to see.

Is District Court Federal Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331 Unconstitutional in regard to District Court Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Constitutionality of State Statutes? (Further Evidence that a Little Knowledge can be a Dangerous Thing)

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Explosive-new-evidence-shows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal

Oh, with all due respects to our learned Canadian student of jurisprudence at the Conservative Examiner, if only it were that easy, to assert that “no suits against the constitutionality of state statutes in U.S. District Court, only the Supreme Court,” well, if it were THAT easy, things in this country would definitely be different. This is what’s known, I think, as an example of how “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”  There are MANY problems with the Arizona lawsuit, which I happened to be studying precisely because I am interested in the “state of the art” of how to litigate against the constitutionality of state statutes, but failure to bring this case in the United States Supreme Court is NOT one of those problems.
28 U.S.C. Section 1331 would seem to be a pretty much irrefutable basis for jurisdiction, unless 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 itself is unconstitutional, and I’m guessing that would be the subject of a separate lawsuit, and to outlaw “Federal Question” jurisdiction in the Federal Courts would probably be deemed frivolous quicker than you can say, “Rule 11.”
So application of Federal Question jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause seems appropriate.  If not, maybe the State of Arizona should simply be dismissed as a party, and the Arizona A.G. and Governor left in. (Compare “Ex Parte Young“….where the State is immune from suit under the 11th Amendment, State Officers must take responsibility….the 11th Amendment doesn’t cover Federal-State lawsuits, and neither does the 14th, but there have been literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lawsuits during MY lifetime alone questioning the constitutionality of various statutes, many millions during Jon Roland’s life (lol!), and I’ve never heard this argument raised before).
So the First Answer is that the Congressional award to the U.S. District Courts of “Federal Question Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331” has never been seriously questioned before, in the entire history of our government and court system.
The Federal Civil Cover sheet that we have to fill out every time we file a lawsuit has a box I’ve checked at least several times: Under Part IV. “Nature of Suit” (Place an “X” in One Box Only) over at the right hand side there is a category called “Other Statutes” and the very last item entry on that right hand column underneath “400 State Reapportionment”, “410 Antitrust”, “430 Banks and Banking”, “450 Commerce”, “460 Deportation” (hmmmm…. that’s interesting), “470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” (everyone’s favorite?  If not, it’s mine)….way down at the bottom of the list under “893 Environmental Matters”, “895 Freedom of Information Act”, and “900 Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice”, is “950 Constitutionality of State Statutes.”  Obviously, somebody in the clerk’s office thinks that U.S. Courts have jurisdiction—in EVERY clerk’s office in EVERY district, that is.
So no, I think the answer is more prosaic: in this case, the State of Arizona is not REALLY a party; no penalties are sought against the state, no fines to be imposed, no diminution in the state boundaries.  (Seems as though every few years there are boundary disputes under the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court between California and Arizona over the Colorado River or some change in the course of the Mississippi or Ohio).
Under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a State Attorney General (and/or Governor) are entitled to NOTICE of a lawsuit involving the Constitutionality of a state statute, if they are not named as parties.
That’s the second answer—and it is somewhat surprising that the attorneys for Arizona have not asked for the State to be dismissed as a party.”
“Prospective relief is always relief, even against parties otherwise immune from suit” would be the third answer.
When I first saw this article, I almost cried because it seems like, my whole life all I have seen is one after another state statutes being stricken down and replaced by forceful fiat and Federal welfare-related coercion and “revenue sharing” bribery into “from the top” conformity with Federal Law, so that there really is no such thing as independent state law anywhere, anymore, except for a few weak protests in Montana, Arizona, and a few other Western states (including California’s and other Pacific States’ stand on Medical Marijuana).  I grew up in a combined DAR-SCV-UDC family where the 10th Amendment was a frequent and well-known topic of dinnertime conversation, and if it had been possible to wipe out the Warren Court’s programmatic intrusion into reshaping state law by such a simple expedient, it would have been done back then, because Old Fashioned Southerners pretty much limited their reading to the Holy Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and the Constitution (with a very few forays into Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, or other such “radicals”).
As an aside, it is one of the ironies of Federal “top down” uniformity that the judiciary and police remain protected, up to a point, by a certain perverted doctrine of “states rights” which permits the judiciary and police to advance Federal programs even faster than state legislatures are willing or can be paid to do…….
The basic premise of the argument is specious: the mere mention of a state in a case regarding the Constitutionality of a state statute under the national charter has never invalidated lower court jurisdiction, even before the adoption of the 11th Amendment in the case ofChisolm v. Georgia (1793)(which was a state action or inaction case, default on a contract, rather than a statutory review case) or after the adoption of the 11th Amendment in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) which was clearly focused on a state statutory scheme to tax the Bank of the United States.  My favorite quote from John Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch has always been “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”  Sorry!  But if it didn’t occur to the Supreme Court in either 1793 nor 1819, when signatories to the Constitution of 1787 were still alive and quite active, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 almost certainly, beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be used to invalidate lower court jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state statutes. (FWIW, which is perhaps not much, Australia’s Federal Courts followed McCulloch at the inception of the Australian Federal form of government, in one of the earliest constitutional cases to reach the Australian Supreme Court).
History is a pain; historical fact and experience all too often, like gravity, really “gets us down and keeps us down”, when we’d all rather be flying……
From my perspective, there are much more recent historical cases when the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court WOULD have been raised if it COULD have been raised……
I imagine that we all have our own special litigation heroes in this group.  One of my special heroes is John W. Davis of West Virginia, the 14th United States Solicitor General and the 6th United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, who argued over 140 cases before the United States Supreme Court, including one of the most stunning judicial rebukes ever delivered to a sitting President of the United States (prior to Nixon in relation to Watergate, anyhow) namely: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer in May of 1952.
Representing the Steel industry, and protesting President Truman’s seizure of the nation’s steel plants, Davis stated that “Truman’s acts were an usurpation of power without parallel in American history.”  In a 93 minute oration worthy of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Davis was asked only one question by the justices—this may have been the last such uninterrupted oral argument in U.S. history.  I have cited Youngstown repeatedly over the past two years as the forgotten precedent for overturning 100% of Obama’s socialistic seizures and interventions in national industries from finance to automobiles to real estate
Two years after winning Youngstown, we can be fairly certain that if the defense existed, which our Canadian colleague suggests, John W. Davis would surely have raised the simple and straightforward Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 objection to the mass of cases he faced again in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953-54.  Obviously, NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall knew all about Ex Parte Young and knew that it was better not actually to NAME the states as defendants when attacking the constitutionality either of state action or state statutes.
Indeed, if John W. Davis did not raise this jurisdiction defense when arguing on behalf of the State of South Carolina against integration in Brown v. Board of Education’s basically forgotten companion case Briggs v. Elliot, and if neither 1922 Harvard Law graduate Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, effective chairman of the Southern Resistance’ “Brain Trust” of distinguished constitutional lawyers, nor any other Senator or Congressman in the signing the “Southern Manifesto” of 1956 ever raised that objection to the Warren Court’s program in the Senate, I think it is safe to say that the objection is a hopeless one to raise now.  There was never a stronger constitutionalist and “States Rights” movement in the 20th century than Senators Harry F. Byrd, Price Daniel, Sam Ervin, Walter George, John Stennis, Strom Thurmond, and all the rest of the Southern intelligensia who joined together in that fight, even so politically incorrect as their position now seems to most.  These Senators were not unthinking racist bigots (one of John W. Davis’ earlier Supreme Court cases invalidated the Oklahoma “Grandfather Clause” which had all but disenfranchised all Oklahoma blacks, most of whom had the unusual distinction of being the last slaves legally held in the United States, in that it was not initially clearly established that the 13th Amendment applied to the “removed” Southern Five Civilized Tribes who by 1865 were all living in Oklahoma, with their slaves.
Rather, men like Texas’ Price Daniel, North Carolina’s Sam Ervin and John W. Davis were all  constitutional civil libertarians who opposed the break down of privacy and civil rights which “liberals” like Kennedy and Johnson pushed for—Ervin was particularly famous for his opposition to “No Knock” police break-ins during the 1960s and ’70s.
If these genuine “giants among men” who “didn’t like what Earl Warren did to the Constitution” couldn’t find such a simple objection to the litigation that swept the Old South out of existence, it seems unlikely that Arizona will have an easy time objecting to anything other than the inclusion of its name as a party to the Government’s suit.

“Inception”: of Freud, Ford, and Fraud

I had to go back to see “Inception” for a third time to learn the script a little bit better and understand the Freudian overtones better. Freud wrote of “Civilization and its Discontents” and in so doing he sought to destroy or at least undermine Western civilization. Austrian Psychologist Sigmund Freud was all about “instant gratification” but so was his American contemporary Henry Ford.

Within the language and metaphor of the “Inception” script, Freud was the architect of the abolition of civilization through instant gratification of dreams but Henry Ford was the engineer who implemented the first great program of dream fulfillment for the masses: mass production of automobiles, which became the true religion of the 20th century. The Movie “Inception” kind of brings it all together, showing that the architecture of Freudian dream-time can lead to the reality of Ford through the modern equivalent of the money of a modern (Japanese) ersatz “Rockefeller” specializing in energy monopolization and implemented by subconscious manipulation which can only be called Fraud by dream creation “from the inception.”  The whole movie is, then, a metaphor for the revolutionary thinking of the 20th century: dreams can and should be manipulated and changed by subconscious subliminal suggestion, so that sons will not follow their fathers’s dreams, and society will be characterized by impermanence and instability.

Architecture is the eternal metaphor (in civilization) for dreams and ideology.  Designing buildings that last forever was the dream of our forefathers in the United States in Europe.  The ancient Indo-European “Epic” Dream was the dream of immortality.  The Freudian dream is to remake one’s reality instantly in order to achieve instant gratification, and that is the modern 20th-21st century dream.

This movie, “Inception” touches on so many things, I think its analysis will take up a great deal of time.  It all goes back to Plato and Book VII of the Republic, specifically the “Parable of the Cave” to which I so often allude and make reference, and which supports some of the greatest of all literary images in history and modern times: from Calderon de la Barca’s play Life is a Dream (“La Vida es Sueno”) and its rough contemporary Don Quixote de la Mancha all the way to modern masterpieces of science fiction from Total Recall and The Matrix right up through this present Inception.

All traditional or “normal” dreams, according to the movie, like all great Epics, start in medias res—“Vix e conspectu Siculae telluris in altum vela dabant laeti et spumas salis aere ruebant….”  How on EARTH did Aeneas get from Troy to Sicily?  We don’t get back to Aenas’ Father Anchises until Book Six of the Aeneid, when Anchises tells him about the Principio of all things….and that is true mythology.   “Inception” is the process of planting that seed which changes everything else in life, whether that dream inception is the seed: “that the world that we live in is not real” placed by Leonard DeCaprio in his late wife Molly or the seed: “that your father does not want you to follow in his footsteps” which changes lives and accordingly, the world.

Put these two seeds together and you have a pretty good conception of what could be called the twin Pillars of religion of the modern world: there is no absolute truth, no reality, so we should create our own according to our needs and whatever will supply our most immediate and pressing quest for self-gratification.  To believe this way is to “dream cathedrals and cities that never were” (I may be misquoting the movie here, but that was the idea) and to replace verifiable realities with subjective realities.

Architecture is the perfect metaphor because the creation of architecture, from the very dawn of civilization, defines civilization.  The oldest of the “Seven Wonders of the World” (as recognized in Ancient Times) were the Great Pyramids of Giza in Egypt: the were dedicated to the immortality of the Pharaohs. Throughout Egyptian history, the concept of immortality was popularized and democratized, until even domestic cats were mummified in Greco-Roman times along with crocodiles…..  the translation of immortality as a unique product available only to kings into something that could be mass produced took 3000 years in Egyptian history—but it is a process that is repeated now with almost every single product introduced into the market anywhere.

All architecture starts off as a dream.  Modern architecture is designed, like the World Trade Center and most other modern buildings, to be brought down easily and neatly by controlled demolition, where one computer-controlled explosion after another causes a building to “pancake” neatly into its own foundation or “footprint”.  So both Modern “Bauhaus” architecture and post-modern architecture is designed, like everything in the modern world, to be “disposable”—like dreams, like the subconscious—it can all be remade and reshaped.

If reality and even the subconscious can be so readily remade, what role is there for “truth” of any kind?  Is “fraud” even a viable concept anymore?  Since all reality is invented and there is no “truth”, then there can certainly be no true “law” or “economic reality.”  And here we finally meet back up with the primary topics I deal with on these pages: of the illusion of economic and monetary practices and reality and the enforcement of those practices and the forcible maintenance of that “reality” by law in the Courts of Justice.  If people BELIEVE that paying their mortgages is an equitable debt or thing to do, then they will pay their mortgages.  If people BELIEVE that the Courts no longer follow the Constitution or the Common Law, then they will no longer respect either the Courts or the Constitution or the Common Law as institutions or documents of integrity.

And here is this other key aspect of manipulable reality: repeating a statement, especially when the repetition passes from person to person, makes the repetition SEEM true, more credible, and hence the VERSION of reality supported more SUBCONSCIOUSLY viable.  Agents of one viewpoint or another repeat that viewpoint and therefore try to convince others to repeat “their side of the story.”

In summary, then, from Plato’s “Republic”,  to this 2010 mega-hit movie “Inception”—two of the great questions facing philosophers and psychologists are, “what is real?” and “How do we know what is real?”  Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which addresses that question, and the Freudian psychoanalytic dimensions of the movie “Inception” raise important questions about political and economic philosophy: to paraphrase a question posed in the movie: “what business [or political] strategy does NOT begin as an emotion?”

For me, the most valuable message of “Inception”, could be this: BEWARE of the Freudian analyses which lead us to demand self-gratification and yet at the same time BEWARE of the illusions we have which appear to change as we are manipulated by the subconscious messages of repetition and broadcast.  Let us all think deeply on the several versions of reality with which modern life inevitably presents us, and let us be discriminating and judgmental in our evaluations.  Perhaps the values of our fathers and forefathers were good: perhaps the question to build lasting things is BETTER than the quest for instant gratification.  Perhaps the quest for enduring truths and long-living realities, for structures of the longue duree, in history, is more important than ever allowing other people to invade our dreams and change our values and minds.

“Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations” offered on Ebay now at a starting bid of $699

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7909432/The-Death-of-Paper-Money.html

The Death of Paper Money

As they prepare for holiday reading in Tuscany, City bankers are buying up rare copies of an obscure book on the mechanics of Weimar inflation published in 1974.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 7:05PM BST 25 Jul 2010

Ebay is offering a well-thumbed volume of “Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations” at a starting bid of $699 (shipping free.. thanks a lot).

The crucial passage comes in Chapter 17 entitled “Velocity”. Each big inflation — whether the early 1920s in Germany, or the Korean and Vietnam wars in the US — starts with a passive expansion of the quantity money. This sits inert for a surprisingly long time. Asset prices may go up, but latent price inflation is disguised. The effect is much like lighter fuel on a camp fire before the match is struck.

People’s willingness to hold money can change suddenly for a “psychological and spontaneous reason” , causing a spike in the velocity of money. It can occur at lightning speed, over a few weeks. The shift invariably catches economists by surprise. They wait too long to drain the excess money.

“Velocity took an almost right-angle turn upward in the summer of 1922,” said Mr O Parsson. Reichsbank officials were baffled. They could not fathom why the German people had started to behave differently almost two years after the bank had already boosted the money supply. He contends that public patience snapped abruptly once people lost trust and began to “smell a government rat”.

Some might smile at the Bank of England “surprise” at the recent the jump in Brtiish inflation. Across the Atlantic, Fed critics say the rise in the US monetary base from $871bn to $2,024bn in just two years is an incendiary pyre that will ignite as soon as US money velocity returns to normal.

Morgan Stanley expects bond carnage as this catches up with the Fed, predicting that yields on US Treasuries will rocket to 5.5pc. This has not happened so far. 10-year yields have fallen below 3pc, and M2 velocity has remained at historic lows of 1.72.

As a signed-up member of the deflation camp, I think the Bank and the Fed are right to keep their nerve and delay the withdrawal of stimulus — though that case is easier to make in the US where core inflation has dropped to the lowest since the mid 1960s. But fact that O Parsson’s book is suddenly in demand in elite banking circles is itself a sign of the sort of behavioral change that can become self-fulfilling.

As it happens, another book from the 1970s entitled “When Money Dies: the Nightmare of The Weimar Hyper-Inflation” has just been reprinted. Written by former Tory MEP Adam Fergusson — endorsed by Warren Buffett as a must-read — it is a vivid account drawn from the diaries of those who lived through the turmoil in Germany, Austria, and Hungary as the empires were broken up.

Near civil war between town and country was a pervasive feature of this break-down in social order. Large mobs of half-starved and vindictive townsmen descended on villages to seize food from farmers accused of hoarding. The diary of one young woman described the scene at her cousin’s farm.

“In the cart I saw three slaughtered pigs. The cowshed was drenched in blood. One cow had been slaughtered where it stood and the meat torn from its bones. The monsters had slit the udder of the finest milch cow, so that she had to be put out of her misery immediately. In the granary, a rag soaked with petrol was still smouldering to show what these beasts had intended,” she wrote.

Grand pianos became a currency or sorts as pauperized members of the civil service elites traded the symbols of their old status for a sack of potatoes and a side of bacon. There is a harrowing moment when each middle-class families first starts to undertand that its gilt-edged securities and War Loan will never recover.Irreversible ruin lies ahead. Elderly couples gassed themselves in their apartments.

Foreigners with dollars, pounds, Swiss francs, or Czech crowns lived in opulence. They were hated. “Times made us cynical. Everybody saw an enemy in everybody else,” said Erna von Pustau, daughter of a Hamburg fish merchant.

Great numbers of people failed to see it coming. “My relations and friends were stupid. They didn’t understand what inflation meant. Our solicitors were no better. My mother’s bank manager gave her appalling advice,” said one well-connected woman.

“You used to see the appearance of their flats gradually changing. One remembered where there used to be a picture or a carpet, or a secretaire. Eventually their rooms would be almost empty. Some of them begged — not in the streets — but by making casual visits. One knew too well what they had come for.”

Corruption became rampant. People were stripped of their coat and shoes at knife-point on the street. The winners were those who — by luck or design — had borrowed heavily from banks to buy hard assets, or industrial conglomerates that had issued debentures. There was a great transfer of wealth from saver to debtor, though the Reichstag later passed a law linking old contracts to the gold price. Creditors clawed back something.

A conspiracy theory took root that the inflation was a Jewish plot to ruin Germany. The currency became known as “Judefetzen” (Jew- confetti), hinting at the chain of events that would lead to Kristallnacht a decade later.

While the Weimar tale is a timeless study of social disintegration, it cannot shed much light on events today. The final trigger for the 1923 collapse was the French occupation of the Ruhr, which ripped a great chunk out of German industry and set off mass resistance.

Lloyd George suspected that the French were trying to precipitate the disintegration of Germany by sponsoring a break-away Rhineland state (as indeed they were). For a brief moment rebels set up a separatist government in Dusseldorf. With poetic justice, the crisis recoiled against Paris and destroyed the franc.

The Carthaginian peace of Versailles had by then poisoned everything. It was a patriotic duty not to pay taxes that would be sequestered for reparation payments to the enemy. Influenced by the Bolsheviks, Germany had become a Communist cauldron. partakists tried to take Berlin. Worker `soviets’ proliferated. Dockers and shipworkers occupied police stations and set up barricades in Hamburg. Communist Red Centuries fought deadly street battles with right-wing militia.

Nostalgics plotted the restoration of Bavaria’s Wittelsbach monarchy and the old currency, the gold-backed thaler. The Bremen Senate issued its own notes tied to gold. Others issued currencies linked to the price of rye.

This is not a picture of America, or Britain, or Europe in 2010. But we should be careful of embracing the opposite and overly-reassuring assumption that this is a mild replay of Japan’s Lost Decade, that is to say a slow and largely benign slide into deflation as debt deleveraging exerts its discipline.

Japan was the world’s biggest external creditor when the Nikkei bubble burst twenty years ago. It had a private savings rate of 15pc of GDP. The Japanese people have gradually cut this rate to 2pc, cushioning the effects of the long slump. The Anglo-Saxons have no such cushion.

There is a clear temptation for the West to extricate itself from the errors of the Greenspan asset bubble, the Brown credit bubble, and the EMU sovereign bubble by stealth default through inflation. But that is a danger for later years. First we have the deflation shock of lives. Then — and only then — will central banks go to far and risk losing control over their printing experiment as velocity takes off. One problem at a time please.

I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.

Happy Birthday Agent Smith! (from Philadelphia Independent Media Center)

by Janet Claire Phelan | 07.25.2010 July 7, 2010

Today is the birthday of someone you have probably never heard of. The name he goes by—Jack Smith—is as humdrum and unremarkable as is his stated profession—a color corrector at a digital imaging company in Los Angeles, IMAGIC. Smith lives in a two story condo on a quiet street in W. Hollywood at 7911 W. Norton. It is an attractive, older Spanish-type building. At last report, he was driving an older Taurus. But Smith is hardly your everyday techie. Smith is in reality an agent for one of the alphabet soup intelligence agencies and his job at IMAGIC, which according to a Department of Defense source, handles DOD projects, is only one of his professions. He also sets people up to be killed. I was first approached by Jack Smith back in October of 2000, when he answered my personal ad which ran in the LA Weekly. I was forty eight, divorced and looking for something really special. What I didn’t expect was for a killer to show up on my doorstep. On the surface, Smith seemed to fit the bill. Forty-six, smart as a whip, and though certainly not drop dead gorgeous, he still possessed a certain confident charisma. And, as he said in his response, he enjoyed many of the things I did—theatre, ballet, left wing politics—and lo and behold! Came from the same Anglo-Jewish mix as I did. The fact that Smith was tailoring his response to my profile never occurred to me. Yes, I was a journalist but I was on disability, wasn’t working at that time and had not been involved in political reporting up to that point. I was a threat to no one. Yes, my father, James Phelan, who died in 1997, was a prominent investigative reporter who had been a thorn in the side of the establishment for decades. But what did that have to do with me? I was slow in getting back to Smith and didn’t call him until February of 2001. In the meantime, something strange had happened. Driving home late one night I was broadsided by a Volvo, which took off from the scene, leaving me and my car smashed up in an intersection. A Good Samaritan called the police, who rushed to the scene……and left. I had gone into the windshield and told the responding officers that I was too injured to get out of the car. They took my license, went back to the squad car to confer lengthily and then told me that this must have been my fault and took off into the night, leaving me injured and without aid. I was shocked. Only two blocks from my home, I somehow managed to stumble back to my apartment and collapse. That night, I had a dream—that an earthquake had hit me. My second floor apartment had sunk below ground and I was barely able to get out alive. In the dream, I knew that my mother’s home had also been hit. Upon awakening, nearly delirious with what was to be diagnosed later as a concussion, I actually called my mother in Riverside County to see if she was all right. And then, realizing the extent of my injuries, I called a friend who took me to the Emergency Room where I was diagnosed with the concussion. It was a couple of months later that I decided to call Smith. I was still pretty wobbly from the accident but –hey, he sounded nice and I was up for something besides sitting on my rear end waiting for my concussed brains to come back to life. We arranged to have dinner and I met him at a Thai restaurant in East Long Beach. In all honesty, I didn’t find him very interesting. He went on and on about Sudanese politics and I just didn’t feel any connection at all. But then he kept calling. I turned him down on a couple of offers— including to go to a party hosted by someone working for CNN…. that sounded up my alley but I wasn’t eager to spend more time with Jack. But he kept on calling. Eventually, we hooked up again. He dropped the politically astute persona, played classical guitar for me and showed me his collection of photographs. He really was quite gifted, I thought. I began to reassess my original perception of him. To make a long story shorter, I moved in with Jack Smith at his Norton street condo in the summer of 2001. Peculiarly, my landlady had started insisting I move out soon after Jack and I started seeing each other seriously. I couldn’t figure it out. I hadn’t caused any problems but she was leaning on me pretty heavily. I looked and looked and –once again, peculiarly—couldn’t get a bite on another place. Jack and I were getting along famously at that point, so I broached the topic of my moving in for awhile. He was quite agreeable. What happened to my life and to my mother’s life from that point on belongs in the annals of James Bond meets The Bates Motel. But first, I must provide a bit of history here. My mother, Dr. Amalie Phelan, had been residing in Temecula since my parents moved there in 1990. When they moved from Long Beach, my sister, Judith Phelan, moved with them. Judith had had a breakdown of sorts back in Long Beach and had moved back in with Mom and Dad to recover. She never left. She and my father were at loggerheads for most of that time—Judith was very bright and seemed to think that the world—or my parents—owed her the life she had dreamed of having. Two husbands had left her and while she had an LCSW in Psychiatric Social Work, she was unable to hold a job after her breakdown. She didn’t accommodate well to living with my parents nor did she accommodate well to living on a disability allowance. She wanted to get her hair done every week, she wanted brand new clothes from Talbot`s and became increasingly demanding. When Dad passed away of lung cancer in 1997, Judith started stealing from us. She began a check fraud scam, not to be discovered until years later, whereby she would ask Mom for “checks for Janet.” She would then take the checks, forge my endorsement on them, and deposit them into her own Wells Fargo account. How Wells Fargo allowed her to do this is unclear to me, but the evidence is available online. Go to elderabusehelp.org and click on the Open Letter from Janet Phelan. The checks are deep in the documentation attached to the report. At this writing, Judith resides in Oakland. It is clear now that Smith first approached Judith and gained her cooperation, possibly by holding over her head the threat of prosecution for her extensive stealing. And possibly not. Judith had become very bitter and resentful of me over the years, and given the chance to make out like a bandit and have her sister and mother out of the way might very well have appealed to her. So Smith started working me. The fact that money was hemorrhaging out of the accounts had not escaped my attention. Smith urged me to find someone to help out. He ended up steering me into the offices of attorney J. David Horspool, who introduced us to the infamous probate murderer Melodie Scott. Like lambs trotting into the slaughterhouse, we obediently took their direction and on December 2, 2001, my mother signed a nomination for conservatorship, overriding the will and trust and naming Scott as her conservator of person and estate. I have written much about what happened to my mother at the hands of Melodie Scott. If you go to http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/JanetPhelan/ you can scroll down to the section entitled ¨The Assault on Dr. Amalie Phelan by the State.¨ What I have not disclosed prior to this is Smith’s part in all this—what this federal agent did to my vulnerable mother and to me. Instigated by Agent Jack Smith, my mother nearly died at the hands of Melodie Scott and my sister, Judith Phelan and Scott aide Linda Garcia in June of 2002. After I rushed Mom to the hospital where emergency surgery was performed and her life was saved, I called my “boyfriend.” He rushed to Temecula. I had already filed the police report but Smith tried to persuade me to leave behind the evidence, the full undispensed pill bottles–months of cardiac medicine never provided my mother, a heart patient. Mom was never allowed to return home. Restraining Orders were levied against me by Melodie Scott and my attention increasingly focussed on the welfare of my mother, now virtually disappeared. Smith’s behavior began to take an increasingly sinister turn. I discovered that he was in nearly constant covert contact with Melodie Scott. I had become suspicious of Smith after a series of phone calls–over twenty in three weeks– came in from Melodie Scott. Although the caller hung up on me when I answered the phone, I had *69’ed the calls to find them coming directly from her. Something was very wrong. The man I loved was in constant contact, it appeared, with my nemesis. I left Smith in October of 2002. He had become increasingly irrational and threatening and on one occasion physically assaultive. I had confronted him about the phone calls from Scott and his response was denial and threats. I packed up and fled. I filed a police report about Smith’s assault. The police showed up and arrested him. Then they let him go. When I went to retrieve the report, things got stranger. The report, it appears, had no bearing on what I told the police actually happened. Gone was the death threat and gone was the assault. My report, according to the West Hollywood police, was about an argument over a cell phone. The police were adamant and refused to correct the report and prosecute Smith. Smith was “arraigned” and all charges were dropped. A couple of months later, I was looking through some notebooks which I had retrieved from the condo on Norton when I left him. Among them was a notebook belonging to him, which I somehow ended up with. Inside were notes concerning some of his movements on a day in August of 2002, about two months before the breakup. He had dutifully noted a meeting with the very Assistant District Attorney who dropped the charges against him as well as with the head of the W. Hollywood police department, Lt. Goldman. He was apparently greasing the way for his exoneration of charges against him when he became violent and assaulted me. In retrospect, it is clear that the decision had been made to get me away from Smith and to “take care of me” when I was alone. I left Smith and went to live alone in a small house in Long Beach. Almost immediately, I became the subject of a series of breakins, robberies and worse. My documents concerning the plight of my mother started disappearing out of my desk, as did expensive jewelery. My assets and documents were being stolen. And on several occasions, consuming opened food from my fridge necessitated a trip to the emergency room. The police started showing up nearly every day, barging in and making wild accusations. I began to appeal to the system for help. I filed reports with the Mayor of Long Beach, Beverly O´Neill, whom I had interviewed for a story I had written not too long before all this happened. I also contacted Juanita Millender-McDonald, the Long Beach District Attorney’s office, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Boxer and others. My pleas for help went ignored. In late fall my home started to burn down as I slept. I awoke in time and called the Fire department. On another occasion, I came home from a two-day trip to Riverside where I was attempting to get help for my mother to find drugs– little pink pills– strewn all over my floor. While in the process of my cleaning up the mess, the cops showed up, banging on the door and demanding entry. Inside, behind pulled curtains, I froze. When I did not answer the door they left. And on January 3, 2003, after a series of nightmarish incidents, I walked into the Long Beach Police Department around 10 p.m. In desperation, I appealed to them for help. I was met in the lobby by an Officer Loren Dawson, who cuffed me and put me in his squad car. He informed me that this was my final ride. Some negotiation went on between us as to how I was going to die. We agreed on a drug overdose. He was dead set on murder and I was terrified and didn’t want any more pain. He took me to a small room which is underneath Harbor General Hospital. It is akin to a cell, with a barred and enclosed room and an anteroom. There were five or six other people there, awaiting us. I asked several of them if they were police officers and they replied affirmatively. Dawson said he was operating under “Protection of the President” and the intended lethal dose was administered by another man, Asian or Filipino, in his thirties, about five foot seven. I collapsed like a sawdust doll. When I woke up several days later, I was in a Long Beach hospital on a heart monitor. They apparently got the dose wrong. I am not going to regale those reading this with how difficult things have been for me since then. I have found myself a magnet now for federally-funded assassins and wannabees, including Ted Gunderson, David Moreno, Tim White and others. I have survived chemical assassination attempts, I have been shot at, stabbed, poisoned and more. Mom died in May of 2004, following a complicated set -up which should have resulted in a false arrest/another chance for the police to finish the mssion. I have developed a keen sense of impending attack now and was able to make a detour around the scheme. Mom, who had been sequestered away as a virtual prisoner in a private home in Loma Linda, died within a few days, a victim of circumstances which wreak of murder. I was not informed she was dead until weeks after she was buried. I did ultimately have a private investigator research Jack Smith. It appears Jack Smith never existed before around 1990. He apparently dropped out of the sky into that condo on Norton. The PI could find no prior addresses or financial or work records and reported back to me that my ex-boyfriend did indeed fit the profile of a spook. In addition, the PI dug up some hefty financial transactions which were time-linked to the attacks on Mom and me, and which appeared to be pay-offs for Smith. I was living with Jack Smith on September 11, 2001. He was asleep when the phone rang and I picked it up. An anonymous voice said, “Tell Jack they hit the World Trade Center.” I woke him up and he shot out of bed and ran downstairs. Together, we watched the events of that dark day unfold. It only took me about twenty minutes to get suspicious that something was amiss with the reporting of the WTC attacks. I remember turning to him and saying, “Something is wrong here. The Bin Laden bio (which had just flashed up on the screen, as the media attempted to dupe us into accepting the false perpetrator) was canned, Jack.” I remember him looking at me, saying nothing. All day he sat in front of the television set with a funny kind of half smile. Looking back, I can see there were so many clues. I write this now from Merida, in the Yucatan. I left the US in 2008, after more entrapment and aggression by the police. I do not believe it safe for me to return to my country. After what happened to Mom and me at the hands of Smith and his ilk , I made a decision to dedicate my life and my work to reporting on what faces us, as a nation which has been hijacked by eugenicists who prey on our innocence and trust in the American dream—“liberty and justice for all.” It is a sham and a lie. We need to set aside our erroneous beliefs and fearlessly face reality. We have been duped. Our hopes and dreams, the promise of America, will not serve to protect us in the face of the duplicity, double dealing and face it—murderous intent of those who have taken over our country. I have worked to the best of my ability to expose the probate murders, the water weapon, the attacks on other whistlebowers, the degradation of the legal system and more. Along the way, I hosted radio shows on RBN and Liberty News Radio, and worked for a stint as a reporter at The American’s Bulletin. Today is the birthday of the man who opened my eyes by trying to destroy me. While I am grateful for the opportunity to serve the truth, I remain horrified that the USA is using taxpayer dollars to fund ruthless men like Smith, whose sole purpose seems to be to lure innocent citizens to their death. Due to my unwillingness to draw even more attention to myself coupled with the personal trauma associated with the circumstances detailed herein, I have up until now largely refrained from disclosing the above. In an effort to reveal the truth about our country, I have decided it is time to bring to light these personal and painful facts. But isn’t it funny how things work out—if this were indeed a preemptive strike, Smith only created what he was attempting to stop. God works in mysterious ways. Janet Phelan Merida, MX

What is the practice of law? Is there any federal law restricting pro se litigants from helping each other?

“Neither statutory nor judicial definitions offer clear guidelines as to what constitutes the practice of law or the unauthorized practice of law. All too frequently, the definitions are so broad as to be meaningless and amount to little more than the statement that “the practice of law” is merely whatever lawyers do or are traditionally understood to do. The definition of the practice of law is established by law and varies from one jurisdiction to another. Whatever the definition, limiting the practice of law to members of the bar protects the public against rendition of legal services by unqualified persons.”

Comment 2 to Rule Texas Rule 5.05 “Texas Legal Ethics”: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/tx/narr/TX_NARR_5.HTM

Compare and consider Nancy Grant’s story (previously described  and featured on this Blog): at http://www.caught.net/prose/upl.htm#grant
but also generally  http://www.caught.net/prose/upl.htm and especially:  http://www.caught.net/prose/upl.htm#case

For me, from my lifetime perspective, and experience with others, the “practice of law” consists of “thinking, talking, and writing about the law” on a regular basis whether you are coming at it from an anthropological, behavioral, Chomskyite, criminological, cultural, dialectic, educational, evolutionary, financial, geographic, hermeneutic, historical, ideological, jurisprudential, Keynesian-economic, Kinseyan sexual studies, linguistic, Malthusian, Marxist, materialistic, morally relativistic, mortgage-finance, mystical, normative, nomological, ordinary daily experiential, personal,  philophical, quantum-mechanical, quasi-intellectual/quasi-pop cultural, radical republican, real-estate-related, revolutionary, royalist, sociological, teleological, theological, urban-rural continuum, vicariously curious, Weberian, world-order, xenophobic, or zoological perspective (or any other alphabet-soup of adjectives).

In daily life, the “practice of law” seems to involve certain very private activities which may be easily shared, either privately or publicly:

(1) the study of law, (2) the sharing of one individual’s study of the law with another, (3) the development of legal theories to apply to practical situations, (4) the utilization of legal knowledge and theory in actual, live controversies in actual, live courts, (5) the dialogue concerning the law between (a) interested parties, (b) disinterested but educated citizens, and (c) the courts.  It has been for many years, and continues to be, my position that any attempt to impose a state monopoly on the exercise of fundamental rights is a violation of the First Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth, and that to claim “Parker Doctrine” exemption for any range of human activities as broadly and indeed vaguely and imprecisely defined as the “practice of law” is itself an infringement on the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

In Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969) the Supreme Court generally approved the practice of “jailhouse lawyers” or “inmate writ preparers.”  Johnson v. Avery 393 US 483 89 SCt 747 21 LEd2d 718 (1969).  It is incomprehensible why the logic used to approve mutual assistance for legal research and drafting among inmates would not allow unlicensed, untrained lay persons outside of prison walls to help each other also.   The “traditional, closed-shop attitude is clearly out of place in the modern world where claims pile high and much of the work of tracing and pursuing them requires the patience and wisdom of a layman rather than the legal skills of a member of the bar.”  Justice William O. Douglas, concurring, 383 U.S. at 492.  “If poverty lawyers are overworked, some of the work can be delegated to sub-professionals.”  Another way of analyzing this is that where there is a right of some to receive assistance, there must be the right of others to provide it.  A person with a 100% knowledge of the law probably does not exist, in any law firm or court anywhere, and if such a person exists, he is probably God-like and generally inaccessible.  Most lawyers probably have what could be described as a 20-30% knowledge of the law, and the ability to research and learn more in any specific circumstances.  But a person with a 10-15% knowledge of the law can almost certainly provide assistance to a person with 0-5% knowledge of the law, and there is simply no reason why such relationships should not be officially allowed to exist, since common sense tells us that people of good will do indeed help each other without asking anyone else’s permission.  Nor should the government be in the business of regulating such mutual assistance under the First Amendment’s “freedom to peaceably assemble” and “freedom to petition for redress of grievances” among other rights, including the residual “unenumerated” rights of the people enshrined in the Ninth Amendment.

So, at most, how much of “the practice of law” can or should be licensed?  The Supreme Court has often held that no fundamental right can ever be constrained by a license, or “prior restraint” on what can or cannot be said or done, with regard to the exercise of any fundamental right.  Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances are an inventory of Fundamental rights commonly thought of as “First Amendment” rights.  What part of “practice of law” is covered under the First Amendment?  I submit that 100% of the First Amendment is so covered.

I continue to receive hatemail from stupid people paid to act stupid concerning exactly this point, and I want to quote an example I received on July 20, 2010:

“Hi Charles. Thanks for the update. As always Charles Lincoln III dosier forwarded to Larry Rothman at Larry Rothman and Associates along with a cover letter explaining who is really writing Renada’s filings. Of course in this case I’m pretty sure he (or at least his clients) are well aware of who is really trying to practice law without a licence. Can I just say it is great that you love to write so much into your filings. When people are succinct it can be difficult to identify the true author of filings in different jurisdictions. But of course with you Charles there is no such problem. One particularly easy one (of many) was numbered paragraph 3. Yes Charles you’ve used that before in some of Orly’s filings. I’m not telling you where though but of course I’ve told Mr Rothman and provided him with all the examples that us politijabbers have thus far uncovered. Somehow I think the honorable David Carter is probably going to remember Orly Taitz and maybe even your role in the rubbish brought to his Court Room previously. Even if he doesn’t I’m pretty sure with the help of our dossier that Mr Rothman will be refreshing his memory. Best of luck winning this one loser.”

The signature on this spam was “Mary Loo”—and oh I’m SO SURE that’s her real name!

It’s good to know that even the most evil, low-down, dirty dogs among us still have some friends who’re willing to help them, isn’t it?  The author of this curious piece of terroristic prose goes by the name the British give to their private sanitary facilities, but his or her true name is quite unknown, to me anyhow.  I feel great pity for him/her on the whole, that s/he has nothing better to do in life than to assist the scum of the earth whom Renada Nadine March and I are fighting for our very right to live and breathe with dignity.

Of course, the first question is: who is so concerned with assisting a soulless monster like Rothman to defend an inhuman predator like Silverstein when such scum of the earth are praying on essentially defenseless single women (a mother and daughter) among many others?  Renada and I have been working together since October and I strongly hope and expect we will work together for a lot longer.  Who would care about our alliance attempting to hold onto property in the environment of this modern mortgage crisis?

Well, it would be, I suppose, one of those who despicable creatures who profit and make their livelihood from the constitutionally illegitimate monopoly on the practice of law, i.e., a licensed attorney, one of those whose only claim to legal ability is conformity with chain-gang operating judges.  Second, it would have to be a person who agrees with the status quo on mortgage foreclosures, who believes that the Courts SHOULD lock out all dissent and should FREEZE the law exactly where it is, which is in the pockets of certain financial industry elites and their “retinue of retainers” including licensed attorneys, who know that their sole salvation is to be soulless advocates for the Banks and the Government who are now conspiring, through the coordinate efforts of the Federal Reserve monetary system, the welfare system, and the federal income tax system, to abolish private property, to destroy the family, and to turn the bourgeois state into a “dictatorship of the proletariat” operated by the elite-intelligentsia whom Marx-Lenin-Stalin-and-Mao always envisioned would be sitting at the top of the “classless” social pyramid.

I want to make things very easy for Mrs. British-Slang-for-Potty as she tries to assist Larry Rothman and Steven D. Silverstein: OF COURSE I work closely with Renada Nadine March, just as I have worked closely together with many pro se litigants and attorneys throughout the years.  I believe in absolute freedom of association and do not support the existence of titles of nobility (such as “esquire”) as pre-requisites to providing advice or counsel in the law.

I recognize that there are state laws regulating such matters although they are of extremely dubious constitutionality, as I have argued on many occasions in many cases from Texas to Montana.   Among my closest friends is Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil who has spent his entire professional life fighting the illegitimate bar monopoly.  With Jerry I worked out a corollary which someday I hope to test in litigation: The so-called “Parker-Doctrine” State-Action Exception to the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust laws stops with Footnote 4 of U.S.A. v. Carolene Products: wherever any state action tends to infringe on enumerated rights (i.e. those set forth in the Bill of Rights), the Parker-Doctrine State Action Exception does not and cannot apply under the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine construing the same.

To the great credit of the Federal Courts, there is no FEDERAL doctrine of unauthorized practice of law and in fact, most Federal cases to touch on the subject hold that pro se litigants SHOULD and MUST be allowed to help each other.  I am very proud of my work with Renada Nadine March in California, just as I am proud of my work with Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson in Florida and with Jerry O’Neil in Montana.  I am also (and even) proud of the time I spent working together with Jon Drew Roland on this topic in Texas, even though my friendship with him, which I had expected to last a lifetime, most unfortunately, passed by the wayside when, working together, we won a case much too fast and easily (in 2007) for the beneficiary’s comfort.  (Jon has since attacked me in public and I have to defend myself against him for all his lies and ongoing defamation [lawsuits have been filed] but I know that, deep down inside, he and I agree on just about everything important, especially with regard to liberating the practice of law from the “bars” against its “free exercise.”)

And to the great credit of Judge David O. Carter, Larry Rothman has already tried to raise with him the bugbear of unauthorized practice against me and Renada—and Renada tries to helps others as I have tried to help her—and Judge Carter has deemed this a state issue and refused to allow Rothman any latitude to harass us.  Of course Judge Carter avoids the hard constitutional issues whenever he can, and so on Friday July 23, 2010, Carter remanded Renada’s case to Superior Court—where Silverstein already had a hearing set for the following Monday, July 26, 2010.  Carter’s primary reason for remanding the case this time was that Fay E. March, Renada Nadine March’s mother, had filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the Superior Court (Unlawful Detainer) proceedings on which the Superior Court had not yet ruled.  On Monday, July 26, 2010, when the case was remanded, a Judge in Newport Beach who took over from Judge Cory Cramin after his recusal conferred and agreed (privately, in chambers) with Silverstein and denied Fay March’s Motion for Leave to Intervene, despite the fact that EVERY Complaint for Forcible Detainer names at least five “John & Jane Doe” parties.

TO ANYONE, including Mrs. British-Slang-for-Toilet (who wrote the above-quoted hatemail), I say this: YES, OH YES, I am proud to tell you that I have written a great deal for Renada Nadine March, Jerry O’Neil, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, and Jon Drew Roland (and many, many others) in Federal Court.  Show me ANY law that forbids or penalizes my doing so?  Investigate me ALL you want because I believe that I have a fundamental right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow pro se litigants in Federal Court and utilize so much of my knowledge and brain as may be useful to them.

I do not know or understand the Byzantine California Codes & Rules of Civil Procedure very well and I would greatly prefer to avoid the California Superior Courts like the plague, but I’ll do what I can to help people like Renada avoid and defeat manifest injustice.  With somewhat less trepidaiton, because the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are simpler, more direct, and more resemble the Federal Rules, I would still prefer to avoid the Florida Circuit Courts but I have helped Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and everyone I can in every possible way.   Texas, actually, has some of the best and fairest rules of civil procedure, but I am, of course, banned from direct pro se litigation in the State Courts of Texas because of my activism in favor of the constitution and against the Brave New World of—also First Amendment infringing—Family Courts.   But I have not lost the rights to assign my OWN rights just yet–although I’m sure there’s a committee of freedom-stabbers or anti-Constitutional-jabbers working on it somewhere.

All the injuries I have suffered to my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor from Judges Michael Jergins, James Clawson, and Walter Smith are wounds I bear with pride: they are my “red badges of courage” which I will wear to the grave knowing that I fight a worthy fight: for the right of all citizens of a free society to analyze the law, share their analytical insights with others, subject not to licensing but to the free marketplace of ideas, to speak concerning all grievances and other issues of a legal and/or political nature, to ask what is the difference between law and politics: where is the boundary between them?  and for all those with a 10% knowledge of the law to assist those with a 5% knowledge of the law.  Mutual assistance or “symbiosis” should be at the foundation of civilized society.

Yet however much people who like to stab patriots and jabber with each other about politics on the web dream of suppressing the human soul and all vestiges of freedom, in this dawning era of the elite-dominated and financial-industry-controlled dictatorship of the proletariat in America, I think we who love freedom and cling to every last remnant we have will ultimately prevail.

We will ultimately wipe all state attempts to monopolize fundamental rights off the map, and we will restore to each individual a measure of freedom and dignity that will revitalize our nation, regenerate initiative and innovation, and will wipe socialism from the map in all forms except that advocated by Jesus Christ: namely that we, each of us, love one another and care for each other with food, clothing, and housing, and that we do unto others only as we would wish done unto ourselves.

Freedom of Choice for Individuals will lead to Maximizing those GOOD choices of charity and mutual assistance on which a moral society is and must be build.  But socialism, by coercing the morality of sharing, is not one iota more effective than fundamentalist religious insistence on chastity before marriage.   In fact, socialism is worse, because redistribution of wealth for purposes of welfare is theft, whereas other forms of religious coercion reflect merely self-righteously obnoxious “busybody” arrogance.

Every individual must be free to determine and govern his own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and this cannot be done where education in, knowledge of, and ability to speak out or advise others concerning the “law” adopted in a democratic society is monopolistically limited to certain groups.  So, Mrs. British-Slang-Term-for-Toilet, I suggest you “get a life” and go try to oppress someone who might be scared of you.  You just inspire me to stand proud and tall for what I do.  And so I thank you, I thank you very much.

No Lawyer Came Forward, so Renada is Buffy—“One Girl in all the World” against the Forces of Darkness (or, at least in Orange County)

I suppose that Renada is now that “one girl in all the world”, like Buffy Ann Summers fighting the Forces of Darkness in Orange County; so that would make me her “watcher” Rupert Giles.  Like Buffy & Giles, our activities are subversive to the “powers that be” and exist outside of the normal realm of law or procedure, because the “powers that be” simply do not recognize the existence of Vampires like Larry Rothman and Steven D. Silverstein.
FAY E. MARCH07-19-2010_RNM_FEM_Supplemental Opposition to Remand 10-cv-00516

RENADA NADINE MARCH

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Tel: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN (ORANGE COUNTY) DIVISION

MEGLODON FINANCIAL, LLC,                           CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

PLAINTIFF,                                                  8:10-cv-00516-DOC-E

versus

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER FEDERAL CODES OF EVIDENCE 901, 902, 1002, AND 803.6,   IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT

RENADA NADINE MARCH,

And FAY E. MARCH (Intervener)

Defendants.

_______________________/

To the Honorable United States District Judge, DAVID O. CARTER:

Comes now Defendants Renada Nadine March and her elderly mother Fay E. March with recently discovered facts circumstances and documentary evidence in support of Debtor’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s  Motion  to Remand To State Court .

1)   Defendants Renada Nadine March and Fay E. March Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to remand to State Court on the basis of new facts and evidence and points of law as set forth below. 

2)   Defendants removed to Federal Court for one reason and one reason only:

[IN ALL UNLAWFUL DETAINER/FORCIBLE EVICTION CASES BROUGHT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOLLOWING A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE]: “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 800, 828, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 1812, 16 L.Ed.2d 1957 (1966)(citing Georgia v. Rachel; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303.”

3)   This Court, in its Minute Order (Document 16) Rendered on June 4, 2010, has authorized supplemental briefing: “the Court will hear legal argument as to why the civil rights removal statute should not be construed as requiring the violation of rights in terms of racial equity.”

4)   The civil rights removal statute should not be construed as requiring the violation of rights in terms of racially equality because, FIRST, such a requirement of what can only be called “racial discrimination” does not exist within the text of the statute.

5)   The United States Supreme Court has developed a race-based scheme for the enforcement of 28 U.S.C. §§1443 & 1447(d) which is consistent with the statutory language of 42 U.S.C. §1981, 1982, but NOT with the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. §§1443 & 1447(d).

6)   Justice O’Connor, in Richmond v. Croson, in 1989, wrote that strict scrutiny must apply to all race-based schemes, even those called “benign”.

7)   Application of “strict scrutiny” to any governmental law, program, statute, or policy means that, in order to sustain the questioned law, program, statute, or policy, the Court must find by a preponderance of the credible evidence that after careful consideration of alternatives, the law, program, statute, or policy is the least restrictive means, the most narrowly tailored discriminatory infringement upon fundamental right to “equal protection under the law”, to achieve a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL OBJECTIVE (Compelling objective = legitimate + lots of other positive value judgments concerning the policy, program, or statutory scheme).

8)   In sum, the law after Croson (confirmed by Adarand v. Pena as covering federal as well as state programs, laws, and policies) is this: all race-based schemes must be subjected to strict scrutiny, such that unless the Court can find a compelling objective and a tight means-end fit, this Court must strike down the offending law, program, statute, or policy as an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.

9)   Defendants submit that, given the absolutely racially neutral, totally colorblind language of 28 U.S.C. §§1443 & 1447(d), there is no possibility that a system of race-based discrimination in the application of this statute serves any compelling governmental purpose.

10)                  Obviously, the Court’s race-based scheme is “benign” in the sense that it is not oppressive to racial minorities, but it is completely irrational and discriminatory against the majority, and does not match the broad inclusive language of 28 U.S.C. §1443(1), but this does not mean that the scheme serves any compelling governmental purpose or is legitimate.

11)                  Much less can this judicial custom, practice, or policy in the racially discriminatory application of Civil Rights Removal be deemed the “least restrictive” or “most narrowly tailored” means to achieving any legitimate governmental purpose.

12)                  If the purpose of the racially discriminatory enforcement of the

13)                  The Civil Rights Crisis of the 1950s-1960s was not greater than the mortgage crisist facing America today.  As a matter of fact, the American Crisis today is MUCH WORSE—and does indeed cross all racial, sexual, and class boundaries: the mortgage crisis goes to the very heart of the rights to enjoy life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

14)                  The question this Court must resolve is whether a judicially crafted construction or policy of statutory interpretation, formulated in the years 1966-1975 prior to the decision and reformulation of the Court’s “strict scrutiny” doctrine relating to equal protection as articulated in the line of cases running from Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 1978, to Richmond v. Croson, 1989, Adarand v. Pena, 1995, and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003, must equally be struck down as “reverse discrimination.”

15)                  If Judges don’t follow the law then who will?

16)                  If the Judiciary cannot apply to its own older doctrines those which are newer, if Judicial decisions such as Greenwood v. Peacock, Rachel v. Georgia, and Johnson v. Mississippi are held to be immune from strict scrutiny analysis, then there is truly no integrity to the Common Constitutional law of the land, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, whatsoever.

17)                  This Court stated on June 4, 2010, that the inquiry whether race-based criteria should apply to Civil Rights Removal was not fact-intensive.  Defendants March & March agree: strict scrutiny requires that the judicial construction or policy of race-based Civil Rights Removal last articulated by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Mississippi (1975) can and must be struck down, plainly and simply, as a matter of law.

18)                  But Civil Rights Removal itself, as described by the non-racial elements of removal analyzed in Greenwood v. Peacock and Johnson v. Mississippi, are legitimate and must be analyzed in relationship to the facts and statistics about the conduct of Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction cases in Orange County, and California generally?

19)                  Does the state statutory scheme, taken as a whole, allow for any defenses once the charge of Unlawful Detainer is brought?  In essence, this is one of those “rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state ” that the answer is NO, Defendants in California Superior Court do not have any readily available statutory defenses once the charge of Unlawful Detainer/plea for Forcible Eviction is brought: they cannot EVEN challenge the standing of a Plaintiff to bring the suit.

20)                  As Silverstein & Rothman repeatedly have reiterated: so long as the Plaintiff has made all the proper allegations, California Superior Courts will not allow any trial of the facts properly alleged—the mere proper (or even the nearly proper) ALLEGATION of standing to evict following a non-judicial foreclosure inevitably leads to eviction, the Defendant “does not have a Chinaman’s chance”, to use an archaic racially charged-metaphor.

21)                  This terrible metaphor reflected, and definitely indicated the existence of a custom, practice, or policy of malignant, non-benign, discrimination which had its origins in the early United States legal history of the State of California.  The phrase dates to the period when Chinese laborers were brought in to the West in the late 1860s and 1870s, after the Abolition of Black Chattel Slavery in the South, when the Chinese “coolies” were treated without respect and without rights, when they had no access to the Courts, or to any form of Justice, when persons or Oriental origin were, quite frankly, uniformly treated like defendants in Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction cases in California in 2010.

22)                  The court must consider the constitutional nature of the defendants claims to right of to Due Process of law and their right to a fair and impartial hearing are better suited to Federal Court, than State of California superior Court where ownership and title issues are considered as a moot point and Homeowners are customarily and BY Statutory LAW, classified and treated as ordinary renters,  contractually defaulting tenants who have failed to pay rent.

23)                  Additionally the Court should take under consideration that the Defendants in this case are not representing themselves In Pro Per not by choice!   But rather in desperation, due to lack of the financial wherewithal to retain counsel to protect their constitutional rights to their home and principal dwelling place and consideration of their claims of being unlawfully stripped of their home equity and also consider that the defendant  may be victims of an unlawful conveyance of their title who have  been wrongfully and intentionally taken advantage of by the plaintiffs and their commercial lending business partners and their professional corporate attorneys.

24)                  The characteristic of a defrauded and economically disadvantaged State of California Homeowner, is one that the Court must conclude represents ; like gender, race, and religion a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose judicially differential and biased treatment.

25)                  Defendants submit the question is not WHETHER Due Process of law will be denied, in their exact circumstances, circumstances, as a direct and proximate result of a pervasive state statutory scheme, but rather, Defendants contend that the FACTS WILL SHOW that ion all cases a meaningful hearing WILL BE denied, not in some but in 99.99% of the cases.

26)                  It is no solution to say that a writ of scire facias or other hopelessly obscure non-statutory defenses may be available.

27)                  For most defendants, who will appear in Pro Per, their situation is this: they are victims of predatory mortgage lending fraud and have, by the actions of their “creditors” been deprived of any and all the financial wherewithal to retain the services of an attorney.

28)                  The court should also take into consideration that a great number of the defendants in Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction cases, ALSO sustained  harm  as a result of plaintiff’s direct misrepresentations and  wrongful acts of deceptive lending practiced by unscrupulous sub-prime commercial lenders and their banking/investment partners who now wrongfully claim the right of possession to these defendants home and principal dwelling place.

29)                  In its order of  July 6, 2010, the Court expressed sympathy for Plaintiff’s Counsel for having “been required to appear in this Court five times for hearings on this matter” (July 6, 2010, Document 26).

30)                  How much greater is the onus on the present Defendants, Renada Nadine and Fay E. March who, unlike Plaintiff’s counsel are not otherwise employed or paid to appear in Court, but who are threatened with homelessness following an illegal foreclosure by way of a judicial process in California Superior Court which will not hear their defenses, not even allow a trial on the question of ownership or standing, because California statutory schemes, although “non-racial” create IRREBUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS, even more ironclad than the aforementioned “lack of a Chinaman’s chance” and worse and more certain than that African-American males in the South would be lynched on charges of having sex with a white woman.

31)                  Where is the Clarence Darrow or Atticus Finch needed to defend California defendants here and now?

32)                  Defendants Renada and Fay March suffered severe personal injuries and have been undergoing continual sedation by pain-killers since their one and only car was totaled on July 5, 2010.  They have been forced to seek medical attention and have been unable to seek legal counsel.

33)                  Plaintiff Fay E. March, a senior citizen in her ninth decade of life, was so badly injured in this crash that she developed fluid in and around her lungs and this condition required special testing and attention, in addition to the fact that both of these single women have been living with constant pain and the disorientation of post-traumatic shock for all of the past two weeks.

34)                  These Defendants are simply lacking in full mental or physical capacity to defend themselves at the present time, and they ask this Court to use its broad discretion to appoint counsel for them.  Counsel would be appointed for even the most minor criminal charge, and yet Forcible Eviction/Unlawful Detainer cannot be commuted to “probation” or “deferred adjudication.”

35)                  Defendants pray for justice and equity, and for a hearing to give their evidence.

36)                  The Court should consider that the In Pro Per  defendants in spite of having tired every avenue and having  done their due diligence have been financially unable to secure the services of an attorney to help the defendants avail themselves of their rightful legal remedies of due process of law, as guaranteed by the American Constitution, to defend themselves against suspected crimes of title fraud and mortgage lending abuse as evidenced below, that may have been committed by an unscrupulous corporate investor, for the purpose of stealing the defendants rightful equity.

37)                  The court is under a duty to examine the Pro Se pleading to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory.” Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975), quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1971).

38)                  On or about Friday July 16, as supported by the Declaration of Defendant Fay E. March filed herewith in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion  to Remand To State Court, Defendants  Renada Nadine March and Fay E. March  the Defendants  in this action were provided with a Preliminary Report and Declaration of forensic investigator and document analyst  Charles J. Koppa indicating that certain documents have been recently discovered indicating that the subject property title was not duly perfected by the prior beneficiary and  therefore leading the Defendants to  discover and believe  that the purported October 9th, 2009 Trust Deed Sale  of the subject property by beneficiary may be subject to judicial scrutiny as unqualified and due to suspected  fraudulent activity by the prior beneficiary may be determined to be VOID .

39)                  On or about Friday July 16, As supported by the Declaration of Defendant  Fay E. March  filed herewith  in support of Defendant’s  Opposition to Plaintiff’s  Motion  to Remand To State Court, Defendants  Ranada Nadine March and Fay E. March  were provided with an initial  results of a  indicating that Defendants  Ranada Nadine March and Fay E. March   may be victims of  criminal mortgage lending fraud,  as a result of  an on-going  research by  investigator  Catherine Bryan Ibarra  of  Kokopelli Community Workshop  Fraud Research Project (hereinafter in this document referred to as, KCWFR)  who  actively liaisons with   homeowners who are suspected of being  victims of mortgage lending fraud for the purpose of reporting their findings to the  National FBI Financial Institution Fraud Unit, The Federal Trade Commission, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. KCWFR  has investigated,  uncovered  and reported  more than 1,000  incidences of Mortgage Lending Fraud against multiple commercial lenders and investors,  ranging from  irregularly reported and recoded documents  to violations  of  commercial lending law and  in other cases mortgage servicing fraud violations, commercial financial elder abuse, unwarranted foreclosures and common violations of Trust Deed Sale Laws and Procedures.

40)                  Defendants Renada and Fay March respectfully request that the Court take under judicial consideration of the declarations filed herewith, see Exhibit A by Forensic Foreclosure Auditor and Expert Investigator, Charles J. Koppa, and Defendants Renada and Fay March see Exhibit B, and deny plaintiffs Motion for Remand to State court for 90 days until professional mortgage fraud investigators can complete their investigation and provide testimony to this Court.

41)                  Defendants ask that this Court accept a further Supplement to this case AFTER July 19, 2010, to more fully address and analyze the questions presented by Bankruptcy Removal under 28 U.S.C. §§1334 and 1452, although the same basic issues of fairness and equity do apply: in that the State Courts will neither hear nor allow challenges to the legitimacy or standing of evictions or non-judicial foreclosures.

WHEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND EVIDENCE Defendants Fay E. March and Renada Nadine March pray that this Court, grant an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to State Court .

Respectfully submitted,

July 19, 2010

By:__________________________________

RENADA NADINE MARCH, Pro se/in propia persona

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

And by:___________________________________

FAY E. MARCH, Pro se/in propia persona

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-276-1970

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I the undersigned Defendant do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of this SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER FEDERAL CODES OF EVIDENCE 901, 902, 1002, and 803.6, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT. upon Plaintiff’s Counsel by way of  E-Mail on July 19th, 2010, approximately ______ pm  at: tocollect@aol.com, and delivered to Larry Rothman attorney for Steven D. Silverstein, and to Steven D. Silverstein individually, to:

LARRY ROTHMAN

Larry Rothman & Associates

(Counsel for Steven D. Silverstein)

City Plaza—1 City Boulevard West, Suite 850

Orange, California 92868

E-Mail: tocollect@aol.com

Facsimile: (714) 363-0229

And to

Steven D. Silverstein, Attorney-at-Law

(as counsel for Meglodon Financial, LLC)

sdevictions@hotmail.com

Silverstein Eviction Law

14351 Redhill Ave., Suite #G

Tustin, CA 92780

FACSIMILE: 714-832-7781

Served by the Defendant and Respectfully Submitted to the Court,

Monday, July 19th, 2010

By:______________________________

RENADA NADINE MARCH,

Removing pro se/in pro per

7 Bluebird Lane

Aliso Viejo, California 92656

Telephone: 949-276-1970

E-mail: renadajewel@gmail.com

EXHIBIT A:

Declaration of Charles J. Koppa

EXHIBIT B:

Declaration of Fay E. March