Monthly Archives: June 2011

Atten: Michael T. Pines, Please Call Lincoln for California, 310-300-4088, 949-276-1970, or 512-968-2666

One of the most interesting people on the foreclosure resistence scene over the past few years has been California Attorney Michael T. Pines.  Like the author of this blog, Mr. Pines is now no longer entitled (“active” or “licensed”) to practice law in the State of California.  His Complaint filed last year in the Northern District of California Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action was excellent and came closest to showing him a blood brother of mine as any (licensed or unlicensed) attorney’s or lawyer’s work I have ever read, as I have several times stated, but he abandoned it without much of a fight 09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report.  Since then, he has moved south into Ventura, Orange and San Diego counties where he has both preached and practiced civil disobedience.  I found this order (“prejudicial preliminary judgment”) on-line under Pines’ name at the California State Bar Website (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/11-TE-10948-1.pdf) concerning his suspension from practice by my dear old friends at the missnamed State Bar Court of California, (by the cognoscenti, it is more accurately called “The Star Chamber & Bar Court of California”).  

Just a couple of weeks ago (on June 11, 2011 at 9:07 PM—Can I recommend any attorney that is “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues” here in California?) on these blogs, I listed Pines as among the Attorneys “Blacklisted” by the Kokopelli Community Workshop.  I there repeated what some of my most admired allies (e.g. Catherine Bryan) had made by way of disparaging comments concerning Mr. Pines based on his clients’ complaints, and I am now very confused—I simply do not know what to think about Michael T. Pines.  Sometimes the radical approach is hopelessly ineffective in the short run, but necessary for the long-run, and after reading the learned Bar Court Judge’s summary and order, I believe that Michael T. Pines may be lacking in practical wisdom—a charge which has been repeatedly aimed at my own very quixotic self, soul, and career….

Pines’ Complaint filed and dismissed last year  expressed many thoughts near and dear to my heart (attached above).   As I stated on June 11, 2011, and even before that, I cannot understand why he gave up the fight (CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010) and turned to what looks for all the world like a career of guerrilla warfare involving residential trespassing and burglary.  However, he and I now share at least in some regards—a lot in common.  In the State of Texas, one of the most despicable attorneys’ who ever lived (Michael P. Davis of Round Rock, Williamson County, Texas) accused me of living in a “parallel universe” where the U.S. Constitution controls all aspects of court procedure and jurisprudence *(Well, in fairness to myself, I only contend that the Constitution SHOULD control all aspects of court procedure and jurisprudence—I would be daft indeed if I thought I lived in a place where the Constitution DOES actually control or limit the government AT ALL).  

The State Bar’s accusations against Michael T. Pines, that he considers himself a modern day Henry David Thoreau engaging in Civil Disobedience by Walden Pond….  also suggest that he lives in that same parallel universe in which I have been alleged to reside.  So I find I suddenly have a lot of empathetic feelings and sympathy for Michael T. Pines—as one inhabitant of the parallel universe of “American Constitutional Supremacy” to another…. and accordingly…

In the spirit of “ET”, I would ask that Michael T. Pines call me at his earliest convenience so we can talk about the past, present, and future.  

Perhaps we should go Dragon-(or Shark) hunting together….. Not that I would ever harm a flesh-and-blood dragon nor any of the increasingly endangered sea-sharks, except in self-defense of course….. but spiritual poison-breathing dragons/sharks like Steven D. Silverstein… who seek to implement the final stages of perfecting the Communist Manifesto by the abolition of private property in land (as imported either from Russian Soviet or Maoist Communist Chinese origins and Nixon/Kissinger-led introduction to the United States) are a totally different matter….. those kinds of dragons/sharks have no heart or soul…. (As Renada Nadine March as repeatedly noted—Silverstein chooses the Shark for his own alter-ego in the iconography of his pins and ties—and the name of his company that took Renada’s home—Meglodon….)

As Dragons are described and named in German and Anglo-Saxon Silverstein is merely a really gross worm—Ein Grosser Wurm….

Marcial Felipe Gutierrez’ Rule 59(e) Motion Rejected because Case is Closed??? 06-21-2011

Well, just a few weeks after learning about Howard Matz’ promise to the lawyers for GMAC—I find THIS: a Rule 59(e) Motion is a “Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment” which must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment to lay grounds for an appeal.  In our “Zapotec” (Marcial Felipe Gutierrez) case—the Court has rejected the filing of a Rule 59(e) Motion on the grounds that the “case is closed” (see attachment).  This is almost TOO MUCH—Renada knows how this works—she has done it many times…  What can we possibly do when the Courts are rejected properly filed motions for spurious reasons and this has the potential to prejudice (just for example), Marcial Felipe Gutierrez’ right to appeal?  This drives me totally crazy!  I simply cannot believe that a Hispanic surnamed judge (well, a Judge named “Gutierrez” in fact) has been so completely insensitive to this Gutierrez family—who have been the victims of literally every kind of corrupt oppression imaginable….and now a few that I’ve never even imagined before, much less seen…. like this—One function of filing a Rule 59(e) Motion is to extend the time for filing an appeal until 30 days after the Judge Rules on the Rule 59(e) Motion—and when the Court Clerk improperly refuses to file the motion, well this creates a whole new can of worms/set of problems….  The Courts are MONSTROUSLY corrupt….or SO PATHETICALLY INCOMPETENT that it must be willful corruption…. But I definitely haven’t seen this before….Marcial Felipe Gutierrez’ Rule 59(e) Motion Rejected because Case is Closed—06-21-2011  What could the clerk have been thinking?  Or was this a judicially ordered “hit” to prevent the appeal in a truly outrageous and complicated case?  Or was Judge Philip S. Gutierrez afraid of deciding in favor of a poor eviction defendant named Felipe Gutierrez?  2-11-cv-01478-PSG-MANx Marcial Felipe Gutierrez Rule 59(e) Motion Rejected because case is closed?

Second Circuit: 9-11 World Trade Center-7 Litigation to Go Forward! Consolidated Edison v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Tuesday, Jun 21 2011By Basil Katz

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey can be sued for negligence over the collapse of a World Trade Center building in the September 11 attacks in 2001, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The agency is one of the most prominent issuers in the $2.9 trillion municipal market. Its finances have been strained by the costly rebuilding of the World Trade Center complex.

The lawsuit centers on 7 World Trade Center, which was built just north of the World Trade Center site, above an existing Con Edison base station, the appeals court decision said.

Consolidated Edison Inc and its insurers had sued the Port Authority, owner of 7 World Trade Center, after the building collapsed in a maelstrom of fire on the afternoon of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The order by a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned a decision by Manhattan federal court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who has been handling much of the litigation following the deadly air attacks.

Hellerstein had granted summary judgment to the Port Authority, finding that under the terms of its lease to Con Edison, it could not be held responsible for the tower’s speedy destruction.

“The district court interpreted the lease to preclude Con Edison from maintaining an action against Port Authority based on Port Authority’s negligence in connection with construction or maintenance of 7WTC,” Circuit Judges Roger Miner, Pierre Leval and Richard Wesley wrote. “This was error.”

In a September 2002 lawsuit, Con Edison claimed the Port Authority had improperly allowed its tenants to place diesel fuel tanks used for back-up power, and that the burning tanks had accelerated the collapse of the building late in the afternoon of September 11.

Con Edison also claimed in its lawsuit that the Port Authority could be found negligent in the tower’s design and construction.

“In short, we conclude it was error to read the parties’ lease as precluding claims by Con Edison against Port Authority premised on Port Authority’s negligence in connection with the construction of 7WTC or the installation of the diesel fuel tanks in the building,” the appeals court order said.

But the order upholds the lower court judge on the more general negligence claim, saying Con Edison had not properly notified the Port Authority of its intention to sue on those grounds.

“Claims of negligent design and construction of 7WTC, of which Port Authority was not reasonably notified by the June 2002 Notice, must be dismissed,” the decision said.

In 2006, the same address was the scene of a newly completed 42-story tower, the first new building in the reconstruction of the World Trade Center complex.

The case is Aegis Insurance Services, Inc as subrogee for Consolidated Edison Co. of New York et al v The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-3603.  USCA2 Docket Sheet for 09-3603 (The U.S. Circuit Court Clerk’s Docket Report on PACER was incomplete (including entries only through May 28) as of Wednesday, June 22, 2011.)  The Court’s “Summary Opinion” (marked as not to be published for precedential value) is attached: 09-3603_Summary Order WTC-7 Case Shall Proceed 06-21-2011.wpd

For Aegis: Franklin M. Sachs, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, Iselin, N.J.

For Port Authority: Beth D. Jacob, Schiff Hardin LLP, New York, N.Y.

(Reporting by Basil Katz; Additional writing by Joan Gralla; Editing by Eileen Daspin and Jan Paschal)

© Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or visit: www.reutersreprints.com.

Reuters 

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or visit: www.reutersreprints.com.

Father’s Day—

A sad day for reflection on the destruction of the family in modern America and the world.  Aside from the abolition of private property in real estate, there was nothing more important to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels than the abolition of the family…. 

Manifesto of the Communist Party

Bond v. United States, Individual Standing to Enforce the Tenth Amendment, and a Short, Succinct, Indictment of the War on Drugs

Yesterday’s unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf handed down by the United States Supreme Court yesterday may give individuals the right to challenge Federal Drug laws as unconstitutional infringements on individuals rights resulting from unconstitutional usurpations of Federal Power in realms reserved to and properly governed by the States under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  This case marks a surprising and unexpected unanimous endorsement of the nearly dormant constitutional doctrine of States’ Rights.  

Hopefully, other suits will follow Bond in attacking other Federal Laws, including the vast number of statutes in Titles 18 and 42 which unconstitutionally control and criminalize possession and sale of a number of drugs and medicinal substances and practices in the United States.  This case could mark a HUGE step forward towards liberty and backwards from totalitarianism—we can only hope.

Once again, GOD BLESS JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY!

When I worked as a Judicial Law Clerk in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the only other Judge besides Kenneth L. Ryskamp in Palm Beach was the Honorable James C. Paine, who passed away March 8, 2010, at the age of 85. The Southern District of Florida is one of the primary “gateways” for drugs entering the United States.  Judge Paine distinguished himself among Federal Judges as a champion of rationality when, going against the grain and the Federal law he was charged to enforce, he spoke out and campaigned vigorously against the war on drugs.  I remember James C. Paine with the greatest fondness and admiration.  “My Judge,” the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, generally opposed legalisation but realized the enormous social and economic costs of the war.  I particularly recall how he emotionally (in court) described many of the convictions according to that war as “national” or even “worldwide” tragedies—I especially remember the case of Michael Wludarczsik, a cold war hero from East Germany who jumped the Berlin Wall and escaped to the West in a hail of bullets in about 1971.  Wludarczsik was a world navigator and expert seaman, an archaeologist, biogeographer, and undersea explorer with Jacques Cousteau, not to mention husband to a beautiful wife with at least two small, beautiful children I recall in the Courtroom.  Many, many decent people and businessmen, upstanding members of the community, including a close doctor friend of my family in Dallas, Dr. John W. Fisher, M.D., have been prosecuted and their lives destroyed needlessly by this government’s pseudo-Maoist, communist-totalitarian war on drugs….  Real Capitalists, real supporters of freedom, oppose governmental regulation of drugs. Unlike Slavery and Alcohol, there was never a constitutional amendment prohibiting any sort of drugs?  How, then, can drugs be made illegal without a constitutional amendment when slavery and alcohol each required such an amendment?  Well, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, of course—as reinterpreted under American Socialism starting with the beginning of the New Deal in 1933—has been construed as recently as Raich v. Gonzalez in the past decade to permit the U.S. Government to regulate absolutely ANYTHING and EVERYTHING under the Commerce Clause—leading to a hopeless perversion of the Constitution and manifold abrogation of individual freedom and states’ rights in the United States.  The War on Drugs, like the War on the Family (“Domestic Relations reform”), and the War on Private Property (“securitization and the Mortgage crisis”) is one of the three communistic diseases eating away at the soul and substance of America in our time.  All three of these “wars on the people” were envisioned by Marx and directly stem from the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

This short video hits some of the high points of why the War on Drugs is a total failure, and needs to be scrapped “in toto.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikLIRqv0wZY&feature=youtu.be

Every American who must register their purchases of such innocuous over-the-counter substances as Sudafed and Allegra-D (including the author of this blog) may well now have INDIVIDUAL standing to sue to challenge the oppressive and intrusive laws authorizing the “schedules” of controlled substances under the commerce clause—Three Cheers for the (so very rarely both UNANIMOUS and CORRECT!!!) Supreme Court in the case of Bond v. United States.  09-1227 Bond v. United States (06:16:2011)

“Terrorist on the Loose” by Steve Coleman: A little bit old and outdated….but nothing important has changed….

Steve Coleman’s rap critique is close to ten years behind the times, focused on the early Bush year’s, but it is a valuable reinforcement of recent history and somehow it reminds me of just how little has changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxh0kS_ttk.  Kudos and thanks to Marilena Samohin for pointing this one out to me, as for her banner motto, which I wholeheartedly endorse and share:

You got enemies?  Good, that means you actually stood up for something in life.