A Streamlined Outline of a Complaint for Constitutional & Common Law Mortgage Foreclosure & Eviction Litigation in California


I think the attached four page outline pretty much summarizes everything that we need to say in a complaint which could be copied and duplicated everywhere and adapted, adopted, and filed by every affected person in every U.S. District Court in the State of California to attack the current regime of Non-Judicial Foreclosure followed by Summary Judicial Eviction with neither respect for due process nor any Protection for Civil Rights whatsoever, supporting massive racketeering enterprises involving attorneys, servicers and “purchasers” in support of Banking & Securities Fraud and the infliction of almost immeasurable, irreparable injuries to individuals, families, children, and destruction of their lives and private property.  I would appreciate all constructive criticism, suggestions, and feedback.

 REFRAMED & STREAMLINED OUTLINE of COMPLAINT 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E

REFRAMED OUTLINE OF COMPLAINT—8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E

In light of Judge Carter’s extension of our deadline until January 17, 2012, to get the Constitutional Case going, and after my second meeting with Attorneys Donald MacPherson & my 4th with Nathan MacPherson, I am persuaded that it is essential to try to reorganize and “slim down” the complaint before inviting further support and intervenors in.

This is something that we had TALKED about doing last with Diane Beall and/or Dennis Russell, but it obviously never happened.  Judge Carter has shown amazing tolerance and interest in our case, I believe, and we should honor him by really getting our act together to make this case change history.  I think we could streamline the case by outline as follows (I would like input from all co-plaintiffs and supporters about what needs to be added by way of specific detail):

SECTION I:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES

(1)      We ask this Court to declare Non-Judicial Foreclosure, as authorized by California Civil Code 2924 et seq., and all related statutes, declared unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(2)      We ask this Court to declare California’s statutory system of Summary Judicial Foreclosure also unconstitutional under each of the same grounds. [We need to collect a complete inventory of all related and relevant statutes to itemize under each section: Richard Mendez & Lance Francis, this is probably your job primarily, although I certainly would not resist any help from Jackie Figg….or anyone else with a passion for the topic].

(3)      We ask this Court to declare the California Statutory system authorizing and empowering the Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction to be declared unconstitutional under each of the same grounds, unconstitutional under the Article I Contracts Clause, as well as the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and utterly incompatible with the rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982.

(4)      1714.10 (Attorney Immunity for Fraud committed on behalf of or in agreement with clients) should also be declared unconstitutional

(5)      405.21 (Attorney Required for Lis Pendens without Leave of Court) should also be declared unconstitutional: 

§ 405.21. Prerequisites to recording

An attorney of record in an action may sign a notice of pendency of action. Alternatively, a judge of the court in which an action that includes a real property claim is pending may, upon request of a party thereto, approve a notice of pendency of action. A notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless (a) it has been signed by the attorney of record, (b) it is signed by a party acting in propria persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section, or (c) the action is subject to Section 405.6.

SECTION II:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE:

FEDERAL STATUTES

(6)     The words “White Citizens” should be stricken from 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982:

42 U.S.C. 1981: (a) Statement of equal rights: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined:

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairmentThe rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C. 1982: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

(7)     The language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 being colorblind and neutral on its face, all Supreme Court rulings that Civil Rights Removal depends upon racial discrimination should be stricken, reversed and overturned in light of Regents of U. Cal. v. Bakke, City of Richmond v. Croson, Adarand v. Pena, and Grutter v. Bolinger.

(8)     All Supreme Court rulings that Mortgage Notes be exempted from Securities Regulation should be stricken, reversed, and overturned as unconstitutional denials of due process of law.

SECTION III: ACTION FOR DAMAGES

under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): Racketeering by Eviction Attorneys & Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

(9)         Steven D. Silverstein (Silverstein Evictions), BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER, TREDER, & WEISS, LL.P, and other attorneys and law firms engaging in mass processed evictions ________, ______,________, _____________,_________,___________have committed multiple predicate criminal acts in the process of each eviction, and they have done so under the protection of the Orange County Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Orange County Sheriff’s Office.   As repeat-reinvestors in Racketeering Activities), Silverstein and other eviction attorneys such a decisive hold on the Judicial Officials, Clerk, and Sheriff’s Deputies of Orange County (and other counties in California, to wit:_______), that the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction in Orange County operate as a single unit corrupt organization with a list of Judges Cory A. Cramin, ________,______,_______,_____and named or unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies ________,_____,______as individuals who either derive income or employment or engage in conspiracy for racketeering activities (Lance Francis & Richard can elaborate on reasons for waivers of immunity, as well as the list). (This is a section which intervenors could add to and alter/modify with their own lists of defendants, with dates of actions taken illegally).

SECTION IV:  

COMMON LAW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:

SALES OF HOMES BASED ON POOLED and/or

SECURITIZED NOTES ARE VOID

(10)    We ask this Court to declare all sales of our homes void if and whenever foreclosured auctioned sold by “Debt Servicers” or by or on behalf of Banks/Federal Financial Institutions who held only derivative rights to notes which had been securitized.

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS’ & INTERVENORS’ PROPERTIES: _____________,_______________,___________________,__________________,__________, ________,________ (This is another section which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties).

Section V:

COMMON LAW

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE

(10)     We ask that this Court grant to each Plaintiff QUIET TITLE to his/her home & Lists:____________________

SECTION VI:

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & EVICTION

(12)    We ask this Court to award to each Plaintiff DAMAGES for wrongful foreclosure & eviction, including relocation costs, rental, damages to homes, etc. (Sections V, VI, & VII are all sections to which intervenors can add to and/or alter/modify with their own list of improperly sold properties). (Should all servicers, banks, and purchasers be listed as Defendants along with the attorneys?)

SECTION VII:

DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY & PERSONAL INJURIES

(13)        Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for their losses of personal property, and personal injuries including emotional distress to adults and children.  Foreclosure of real property carries with it no right, title, or interest in personal property, but Plaintiffs have all lost considerable amounts of personal property as a result of foreclosure, and all this lost property should be compensated for tort damages in Conversion and Trebled Damages under R.I.C.O..  Further, the dislocation of lives and especially of children’s well-being should be compensated.  No immunity should be allowed for any defendant to the Pattern of Racketeering which Created the Eviction Epidemic and Foreclosure Crisis.

Note: Over the course of the past year, not only Nathan and Donald MacPherson, but many people have commented that our Third Amended Complaint is just too long and too complicated to be viable.  The above Four Page/13 Part Outline should make the case more readily comprehensible.   How much detail do we need in the Complaint?  How much detail should each intervenor add?  How should we structure all this?  Edit it?  Present it?  I hope each person to whom this outline copy is addressed will provide some feedback.

Thank you,

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

(310) 773-6023

October 19, 2011 (Wednesday)

The Original Third Amended Complaint (Draft only) is attached here, without any of the exhibits or final edits/amendments.A-Third Amended Complaint 09-cv-01072-DOC-E 09-22-2010

One response to “A Streamlined Outline of a Complaint for Constitutional & Common Law Mortgage Foreclosure & Eviction Litigation in California

  1. California adopted Civil Code section 2924 is a Chattel Mortgage (personal property). The following California Supreme Court has never been reversed!
    [No. 19385. In Bank.—January 5, 1895.]
    JOHN D. WORKS ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. GEORGE
    A. MERRITT, APPELLANT.
    105 CAL. 467
    ID.—MORTGAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY—CONSTRUCTION OF CODE.—
    Under section 2924 of •the Civil Code a mortgage may be made by a transfer of an interest in any personal property, other than in trust, made only as security for the performance of another act, and the power to mortgage personal property, without a transfer of pos¬session, is not confined or limited to the articles enumerated in sec-. 2955 of the Civil Code.
    ID.-FORMALITIES OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE–VALIDITY AGAINST STYDSE• QUENT PURCHASERS AND ENOUMBRANCERS.—The provision of section 2957 of the Civil Code, declaring that a mortgage of persona] property is void as against creditors of the mortgagor and subsequent pur¬chasers and encumbrances in good faith, unless the formalities therein prescribed are complied with, are not limited to chattel mortgages upon property enumerated in section 2955, but apply generally to any mortgage of personal property ; and any such mortgage is good as between the parties and as against subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers with notice, though not executed with the formalities required for a chattel mortgage.

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