Further Thoughts Paul Nguyen v Chase and on the Impeachment of Howard Matz as a first step towards restoring judicial integrity (see also my post of June 17, 2011)


DktRpt-2-09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Paul & Laura Nguyen v Chase Bank USA 10-04-2011

Does this case history make any sense at all?  Or does it look like a continuing staged farce to give the illusion that this Judge is affording due process of law.  Ever since I first heard of Paul Nguyen’s “victory” in obtaining the nullification of his California Deed of Trust and Quiet Title to his home, I have had this nagging feeling that the history of his case rings so very untrue.

Look at the First Phase of the case, June 25, 2009-January 26, 2010 (Docket Entries #1-105): a hotly contested case, most interesting for the Plaintiffs’ continuing allegations of Contempt of Court, several Orders to Show Cause, and only a partial dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims on November 9, 2009, in Docket Entry #92:

92 “MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 34 . Specifically, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim one for fraud, DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim two for fraud by forgery, GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim three for forgery, DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim four insofar as it states a claim for rescission, GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss claims five and six for RESPA violations, GRANTS Defendants motion to dismiss claim seven for rescission, DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim eight for violations of California’s UCL but only insofar as their claim is predicated on any of Plaintiffs’ surviving claims, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim nine for declaratory relief. Any amended complaint must be filed by not later than 11/23/2009. No hearing is necessary. FRCP 78; LR 7−15. This order is not intended for publication or for inclusion in the LEXIS and Westlaw databases. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2009)”

A Howard Matz is famous for not wanting his opinions to be published on LEXIS or Westlaw….which is to say either he likes to keep an unnaturally low profile for a life-appointed “Article III” judge and/or he knows that his decisions and opinions will not often serve as good, sound legal precedents.

On January 26, 2010, the case comes to an abrupt halt with the following order, in Docket Entry #105:

105 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause why Defendants Should not be Held in Contempt. For the reasons stated below (see attached Minute order for further information), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for an Order Holding Defendants in contempt 99 . However, if in the future any Defendat, especially Loanstar, violates the Court’s 8/3/2009 and 11/17/2009 Orders, the court will be readily inclined to find the basis for a contempt citation and to impose such sanctions. No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7−15. This Order is not intended for publication or for inclusion in the databases of Westlaw or LEXIS. (jp) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

FOR THE NEXT SIX AND A HALF MONTHS, NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS CASE AT ALL, UNTIL AUGUST 16, 2010: and then it is very strange to see how the case comes back to life and reaches apparent resolution “in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye” between August 16 (Docket Entry #106) and September 15 (Docket Entry #127):

08/16/2010 106 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, by not later than noon on 8/20/2010, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Local Rule 12. Should Plaintiffs fail to timely show cause, the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice. (jp) (Entered: 08/16/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-04589-AHM -AJW As of: 10/04/2011 01:32 AM PDT␣ 15 of 21␣

09/15/2010 127 ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT by Judge A. Howard Matz: Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over the Defendants. Default judgment is hereby entered against Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC and in favor of Plaintiffs Paul Nguyen and Laura Nguyen on all claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Deed of Trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007 is wholly voided as to plaintiff Laura Nguyen. (See Default Judgment for further information). FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded their costs of suit, to be paid by Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC, in an amount to be determined by the Clerk of the Court. (MD JS−6. Case Terminated) (jp) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

OK, so the Judge Ordered “Case Terminated” on September 15, 2010, that means it’s over, right?  Well, not so fast, in fact it has just begun and as of today, the Case Docket is up to #204.  The absurd ballet played out in the final ten docket entries as follows (First note how, in Docket Entry #196, Paul Nguyen’s erstwhile “Law Partner” Diane Beall is representing Laura Nguyen in “divorce proceedings” and what the hell is this reference to the state bar all about anyhow???? (I once endorsed the lack-luster-to-stupid candidacy of Diane Beall for California Attorney General and went so far as to hire her to be my own attorney in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Case 8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E case, only to have her vanish into the woodwork and never do anything):

06/29/2011 195 STATUS REPORT in Response to Order Dated June 22, 2011 filed by Plaintiffs Laura Nguyen, Paul Nguyen. (jp) (Entered: 06/30/2011)

06/30/2011 196 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING FAILED MEDIATION before Judge A. Howard Matz: Status Conference held. Mr. Sorich shall submit a status report to the Court. Mr. Sorich shall also file a statement summarizing Defendants analysis of how much money Defendants claim Mr. Nguyen would have to provide them in order to consummate rescission. Mr. Nguyen shall provide the Court with the contact information and State Bar Number of Ms. Diane Beall, counsel to Ms. Laura Nguyen in the divorce proceedings. The pending motions (five total) remain under submission. All previous orders of this Court remain in place. No foreclosure proceedings or any other actions are to be taken against the property at issue. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (jp) (Entered: 07/01/2011)

Now, rumor has it that Chase went ahead and foreclosed on Paul Nguyen’s house, and then evicted him, but I have no direct confirmation of that.   More importantly, Judge Matz has obviously allowed the “five total” pending motions to remain pending before his court through at least Monday, October 3, 2011.

07/20/2011 197 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/30/11 11:00 am. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg, http://www.cindynirenberg.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter or PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/20/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/18/2011. (Nirenberg, Cindy) (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/20/2011 198 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 6/30/11 11:00 am (Nirenberg, Cindy) (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/28/2011 199 STATUS REPORT in response to Order dated June 30, 2011 filed by Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Home Finance, LLC. (Sorich, John) (Entered:Case: 2:09-cv-04589-AHM -AJW As of: 10/04/2011 01:32 AM PDT␣ 21 of 21␣07/28/2011)

07/29/2011  200  STATEMENT summarizing rescission in response to Order dated June 30, 2011 re: Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion for Relief, Order on Ex Parte Application to Enforce, Order on Motion for Issuance, Order on Motion for Sanctions, Status Conference,,,,,,,,,,,, 196 . (Sorich, John) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

08/12/2011 201 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz. The Court has reviewed the transcript of the June 30, 2011 status conference, the Status Report filed by the Chase parties 199 and the “Statement Summarizing Rescission” filed by those parties 200 . The Court has provided those materials to Magistrate Judge Wistrich. The Court expects to be able to discuss with Judge Wistrich what steps to take next, sometime toward late August. Meanwhile, the parties need not, and should not, take further steps to litigate this action. (kbr) (Entered: 08/12/2011)

09/15/2011 202  MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: Court issues Findings, and orders plaintiffs and Chase Bank to attend mediation as ordered. (se) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/30/2011 203 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: With the parties’ consent, the Court hereby sets a mediation hearing date of Friday, October 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2011)

10/03/2011 204 ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE THIS COURT by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court has agreed to conduct the settlement conference in this matter. TheCourt has a keen interest in helping the parties achieve settlement. To facilitate the settlement conference, the Court hereby orders as follows: Settlement Conference set for 10/14/2011 at 1:30 PM. (See attached Order for further information.) (jp) (Entered: 10/03/2011)

I have to wonder, and ask all readers: why has A. Howard Matz set so damned many settlement conferences, mediations, and similar ADR procedures in this case since granting a default judgment against Chase Bank USA?  Chase Bank USA filed a Notice of Appeal in December 2010 but the results of this appeal, if any, do not seem to have come into the District Court record at all.

This is an almost insane litigation history.  There has never been a trial.  There have never been definitive hearings.  Many celebrated Paul Nguyen’s “win” as a sign of great hope that individuals COULD obtain Court orders of nullification of deeds of trust and of quiet title to their homes.  But if Paul Nguyen has lost his home, is there another intended message here?  Is Judge Matz just setting this case up as final proof, if proof were needed, that the homeowner will ultimately loose in California even if he wins?

On June 17, 2011, I published the record in this case which shows that Matz “knows and understands” the realities of home-loan finance and foreclosure fraud in this country and that he is holding back revealing what he knows to protect the guilty, to keep the fraud and foreclosure and eviction trains running smoothly as we sail on to the abolition of private property in Comrade Obama’s new Stalinist America.

A. Howard Matz once threatened to make a true example of GMAC if they did not follow his instructions and do his bidding.  I have the strong suspicion that A. Howard Matz is now making an false example of Paul & Laura Nguyen in their “battle” with Chase Bank USA.   Only a raving lunatic would manage a case the way this case has been managed—or else a crafty puppet-master designing the perfect setup to show that NO ONE CAN WIN IN CALIFORNIA—NO HOME OWNER CAN KEEP THEIR HOME—EVERYONE LOSES IN THE END.

If anyone has any insight on this, I would just love to hear it.  And what ultimately happened with Judge Matz’ order of reference on Diane Beall to the California Bar regarding her apparent “conflict of interest” representing the wife of her “Law Partner” Paul Nguyen?

The slime and stench of the State Bar Monopoly overseen by Judges, both state and federal is overwhelming.  It is time for all patriots to advocate and endorse a kinder and gentler approach to lawyers—at least kinder and gentler approach compared to Dick the Butcher, a follower of Jack Cade in Henry VI, who famously said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers…”

We do not need to kill all the lawyers, rather, we need to disbar all lawyers, and in the process to empower each man and woman, to make them free to be his or her own lawyer, or to seek and hire whoever he or she wants to represent, assist, or otherwise speak for him in every court and forum from Sea-to-Shining Sea.   What I have realized recently in talking to people that the real reason people hire lawyers is out of fear to speak in public or to authority figures for themselves.  This is essentially a matter of acting then, and of representation.  Some people are good at public speaking and some are not.  The work of a lawyer is simply to speak on behalf of others.  There is nothing to be licensed or suitable for a monopoly in the work of actors, “spokesmen”-“spokespersons”, or agents—and there is nothing that a lawyer does that is not protected by the Freedoms of Speech, Press, Peaceful Assembly, and Right to Petition in the First Amendment, with a little help from the Fifth and Ninth Amendments I would venture, incorporated to the States by the Fourteenth.

So “first let’s” Abolish Judicial Immunity and start impeaching judges, and then prosecuting them for their betrayal of the Common Law and the Constitution.  Simultaneously, let’s Abolish the “Integrated” Bar, and let Law Schools and Bar Exams continue to educate those who wish such education, but have no hold on the lives and fortunes of others as a consequence.

One response to “Further Thoughts Paul Nguyen v Chase and on the Impeachment of Howard Matz as a first step towards restoring judicial integrity (see also my post of June 17, 2011)

  1. Stay on the trail of this. You are on to something big.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s