Here is the latest production: a complaint which only addresses questions of statutory or systemic constitutionality at the heart of the fight over the California mortgage & eviction crisis, and the relationship between Civil Rights Laws and California Non-Judicial Foreclosure and Forcible Eviction Laws. It was filed today in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge King with case number CV10-6688 GHK (RCx). 09-08-2010 Harrison Hoyman & Hoyman & Lincoln Complaint. This case is now the Los Angeles County Companion to the Second Amended Complaint in 09-cv-01072-DOC lodged with Judge David O. Carter. On Thursday, Thomas Harrison, Joan & Jennifer Hoyman filed their Notice of Removal from state to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(1). 09-09-2010 Harrison Hoyman & Hoyman Notice-of-Civil-Rights-Removal-. Finally, a Notice of Notice of Removal was filed on Friday in California Superior Court in and for the Glendale Divison of Los Angeles County. 09-10-2010 Defendants’ Notice of NOTICE OF REMOVAL from GLENDALE. Anyone considering removal might want to look at the case law citations included in the Notice of Notice of Removal. Apparently, many California Superior Court Judges are unfamiliar with the laws and procedures surrounding removal, and reports from the frontlines in San Diego County on Monday, September 13, 2010, suggest that orally asserting and citing case law and statutory law to the Superior Court judges has much more effect than merely filing the documents: so always be prepared to ARGUE ORALLY everything (EVERYTHING) that you have filed in writing. We are still anxious to publish EVERYONE’S California Unlawful Detainer Horror Stories as well as success stories. We would like to make a list of the worst judges in California who care more about abolishing private property and eviscerating families than about due process of law. The vast majority of Superior Court judges in the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in California appear to care only about their seemingly mandatory duty to create a homeless population dependent upon governmental welfare. These same California Superior Court judges of limited jurisdiction consider it somehow beyond their jurisdiction or against their state job descriptions to allow defendants to assert common law contractual rights as defenses to foreclosure or eviction. These same judges would rather create chaos, misery, and instability in the population than to use their power and jurisdiction to build (or protect) a stable world safe for free and independent children and adults, who value the interests of mortgage servicers and foreclosure agents at the expense of equal protection of the law and equal access to the courts. California Superior Court Judges, in short, need to be educated regarding equal protection of the law being available to ALL Citizens under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982, as well as under the “freedom from impairment of contractual obligations” provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, together with the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Amendments, all incorporated to and made applicable against State Infringements and Abuses by the Fourteenth Amendment.
State Court Unlawful Detainer Defendants should also keep in mind the unqualified language of