This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Oh, It’s On Like Donkey Kong | MICHAEL T. PINES v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, PAUL EDMONSON, CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
- AIG
- American International Group
- Asset-Backed Securities
- Bank of America
- Bank of America
- Bank of New York
- Collateralized Debt Obligations
- Credit Default Swaps
- Credit Suisse
- default
- Deutsche Bank
- Fail
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Federal Home Loan Bank
- Foreclosures
- Mortgage Loans
- New Orleans
- None
- Rating Agencies
- ratings
- Real estate
Now, this is how it's done...
For those of you that do not know the term, "It's On Like Donkey Kong" I provide the definition below...
"A
phrase to denote that it's time to throw down or compete at a high
level; something is about to go down. The use of the comical video game
character Donkey Kong provides comic relief but the phrase itself has
greater or more significance than simply its on."
For more on Michael Pines see here...
Personally sent to us from one of our fighters from the trenches...
MICHAEL T. PINES, an individual;
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CARLSBAD, PAUL
EDMONSON, CITY OF SIMI VALLEY,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO
Defendants
Now pay attention to the text from the complaint...
Read it, understand it, and share it with everyone...
This post is longer than the norm but for good reason...
We will start with the OVERVIEW...
OVERVIEW
The
financial institutions and their co-conspirator loan servicers, real
estate investors, real estate brokers, and attorneys (Collectively
“Banks”) have turned law enforcement into criminals. Law enforcement
knowingly engages in a common practice of violating the law. People are
being wrongfully evicted from their homes in the millions. Instead or
protecting citizens from this criminal conduct, law enforcement aids and
abets it and even arrests the victims instead of the criminals.
Plaintiff
is a public figure and reputed to be one of the original experts in
foreclosure and related law and one of four attorneys that originated
legal and public movements against the “Banks”.
He has been arrested on numerous occasions for perfectly legal activities and never prosecuted.
Plaintiff was also the subject of proceedings by the State Bar which is corrupt and conspired with the Banks.
Now let's take a look at the FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS...
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The
core of this action arises out of the biggest criminal fraud in history
– predatory lending, the unlawful securitization of real proerty loans,
and criminal fraud in real estate loan servicing and collection.
Predatory Lending
It
is of such common knowledge that the Court can take judicial notice of
the fact that the entire nation was victimized by Pedatory Lending.
The
specific facts are set forth in, “The Monster, How A Gang of Pedatory
Lenders And Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America – And Spawned A Global
Crisis, Michael W. Hudson, Times Books, Henry Holt and Co. LLC., 2010
(“Monster”).
Monster is complete with legal citations, annotations, and irrefutable legal proof.
Securitization
Real
property loans throughout the United States were securitized in the
“RMBS” market (Residential Mortgage Backed Securites) and the “CMBS”
market (Commercial Mortage Backed Securites),
As is typical when a
loan is securitized, the funds Property Owners borrowed did not come
from any source that Property Owners could readily identify. Instead,
the money came from “Investors,” the identity of whom was concealed by
those involved in originating the loan (“Originators”). Notably,
Investors all over the world who actually loaned Property Owners money
in the first place have filed countless of their own legal actions based
at least in part on the very same allegations of predatory lending
Property Owners were subjected to. Some examples are: New Orleans
Employees’ Retirement System et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, et al., United States District Court, Western District of
Washington at Seattle, Case No: 2:09-cv-00134-MJPE. Even quasi-federal
agencies that invested are filing actions. See, e.g., Federal Home Loan
Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse, CGC-10-497840 and Federal Home
Loan Bank of San Francisco v Deutsche Bank, CGC-10-497839, San Francisco
Superior Court (collectively all of the above investor actions are the
“Investor Cases”). The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, reputed to be
the largest and most powerful banking institution in the world has
publicly it’s intention to file similar suit against Bank of America.
The U.S. Government has also filed suit.
Even before the loans
were made, the “Securitizers” had planned and arranged to securitize the
loans. In the course of securitizing the loans, Securitizers had a
practice of taking more money from the Investors than was loaned to the
Property Owners and the Investors. In addition, there were usually
“credit enhancements” which could take several forms including such
things as “excess spreads”, over collateralization, reserve accounts,
surety bonds, wrapped securities, letters of credit, and cash collateral
accounts. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_enhancement for a
more detailed description). The well-known problems with American
International Group (AIG) relate to credit enhancements. Both the
Property Owners and the Investors have claims to the credit enhancement
funds as well as undisclosed fees taken by the Originators and
Securitizers and possible credits and offsets for other items.
As
to Property Owners, such funds should be credited against their loans.
But it is even worse. For example, according to Property Owners’ records
they overpaid at least tens of thousands of dollars were not actually
owed. Property Owners allege that once a proper accounting is done and
proper credits applied, it will be shown that Property Owners will owe
nothing on their loans making the unlawful detainer action used to evict
them simply a part of the ongoing fraud. The Defendants had actual
knowledge of this, yet, Defendants decided to aid and abet in the fraud.
Securitization Of Mortgage Loans Including Property Owners
Securitization
is intentionally complex and the details and even some of the
mathematical calculations involved cannot be succinctly set forth in a
complaint.
As set forth in the Investor Cases, the securities that
the “Securitizers” (anyone involved in securitization) sold are
so-called asset-backed securities, or "ABS," created in a process known
as securitization. More specifically, they involved a complex financial
instrument product known generically in the securities industry as
collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”). “Synthetic” CDOs are even more
complex instruments that are “derivatives” based only indirectly on the
CDOs (i.e., Credit Default Swaps).
Securitization begins with the
sale of bonds to Investors (usually they are sold “forward”) meaning
they are sold to the investors before the Investors’ funds are given to
mortgage borrowers such as the Property Owners. Only some of the funds
were then used to fund loans such as Property Owners. Investors were led
to believe all of their funds except for reasonable fees were
forwarded, but this was false.
The entities involved in making the
loans are known as the Originators. The process by which the
Originators decide whether or not to make particular loans is known as
the underwriting of loans. During the loan underwriting process,
representations were made to the Investors that the originators would
apply various criteria to try to ensure that the loan will be repaid.
However, they did not do so and instead, the way the securitization
scheme was structured, it was actually in the best interests of the
“Securitizers” (including Originators) for the loans to fail. They were
clearly not acting with the interests of Property Owners or the
Investors in mind.
Until the loans are
securitized, the borrowers on the loans sometimes make their loan
payments to an Originator, but this may never occur or only be for a
very short time. Collectively, the payments on the loans are known as
the cash flow from the loans.
A large number of loans, often of a
similar type, were supposed to be grouped into a collateral pool. The
Originator of those loans claims it sells them (and, with them, the
right to receive the cash flow) to a special purpose vehicle called a
trust by the Securitizers. The trust is supposed to pay the Originator
cash for the loans. As mentioned, the trust raises the cash to pay for
the loans by selling bonds, in the form of certificates, to Investors.
Each certificate purportedly entitles its holder to an agreed part of
the cash flow from the loans in the collateral pool.
There are
tranches of investment bonds sold. Typically, “Tranche A” is a veneer of
conventional mortgages where the borrowers appear creditworthy. Other
tranches had much less credit worthy borrowers. Using the creditworthy
borrowers, the Securitizers obtained ratings on the bonds that were
inaccurate at best. Securitizers conspired with the rating agencies to
mislead investors. Thus, schematically, these are some of the steps in a
securitization in no specific order:
a. Investments are created for Investors usually in the form of Bonds.
b. Credit Enhancements are obtained.
c. Rating agencies are provided misleading information and paid to rate the Bonds as “safe”.
d. Investors pay money to the trust.
e. The trust issues certificates to the Investors.
f. The trust pays money to the parties up the chain toward the borrower/property owner through the Originators.
g. Only part of the funds are used to fund mortgage loans such as the one made to Property Owners.
h.
The rest of the money is kept by the Originators and Securitizers in
the scheme. In other words, by way of example, the Investors might think
they are funding a loan for $1 million, however, only $500,000 is
actually loaned to borrowers such as the Property Owners, and the
Securitizers keep the rest through a complex series of transactions.
i. The Originator and Securitizers plan in advance for the loans to default.
j. Loans made to persons like Property Owners are purportedly placed into one or more pools.
k.
The Originator was supposed to assign to the trust the loans and in
particular the promissory notes, which were to be placed into a
collateral pool, including the right to receive the cash, but a proper
assignment/transfer was never done.
l. The trust is supposed to
collect cash flow from payments on the loans in the collateral pool;
however it has no legal right to do so even under the lengthy, complex
documents used in securitization.
m. When the mortgage loans go
into default, the Securitizers demand that payment be made to the
Investors by the “credit enhancements.”
n. In “Credit Default
Swaps” the Securitizers also placed “bets” that the loans would not pay
off (as was planned) in order to cover the difference between what was
loaned to borrowers such as Plaintiff and what was funded by the
Investors and make another hidden profit for the Securitizers. According
to some published reports, these unregistered securities were
frequently more than 30 times the principal on the mortgage loans (such
as Property Owners’). Thus, if the borrowers such as Property Owners did
not perform on the loans, the Securitizers would make more money than
if they did.
o. After default, even though the mortgage loan is
technically paid in full if a proper accounting were done, and legally
the Securitizers have no right to collect, the Securitizers, usually
through “servicers”, pretend the loan is still owed by the borrowers.
They pretend and represent to persons such as Property Owners money is
owed on the loans to the original named “beneficiary” on the deed of
trust, and try to foreclose on the mortgage and steal the mortgaged real
property from borrowers such as the Property Owners. The Mortgage
Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) was often used as a part of the
scheme named as the “nominal beneficiary” to pretend it had the right to
transfer the mortgages and/or collect money from the borrowers such as
Property Owners.
p. Securitizers hire law firms such as Defendants
who know or should know collection of loans such as the Subject Loan is
improper and routinely conceal information concerning such to the
courts. (In Re Nosek)
q. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that
these law firms are liable in class actions under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. (Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer
& Ulrich LP, et al., 130 S. Ct. 1605; decided April 21, 2010). 27.
At the risk of being redundant, but also more specific and adding that
the taxpayers are paying for this, the order of things is usually as
follows:
• The first transactions that occurred were the sale of securities to unsuspecting investors.
• The second transaction that occurred was that the investor money was put into an account at an investment banking firm.
•
The third transaction was that the investment banker divided the money
between fees for itself and then distributing the funds to aggregators
or a Depository Institution.
• The fourth transaction was the
closing with the borrower. The loan was funded with the money from the
investor after deducting large undisclosed fees and also because of the
disparity between the interest payable to the investor and the interest
payable by the borrower, a yield spread was created, adding huge sums to
what the investment banker took without disclosure to the investors or
the borrowers.
• The fifth was the assignment and acceptance of
the loan generally into between 1 and 3 asset pools, each bearing
distinctive language describing the pool such that they appeared to be
different assets than already presumed to exist in the first pool.
•
The sixth was the receipt of insurance or counter-party payments on
behalf of the pool pursuant to the documents creating the securitization
structure.
• The seventh was the re-securitization of the pooled assets between one and three times.
•
The eighth was the federal bailout payments and receipts allocable to
the balances owed on the loans that were claimed to be part of the pool.
•
The ninth are the foreclosures by parties who never provided any money
which is often the original named beneficiary on the trust deed.
•
In the alternative fraudulent and forged assignments were made, so it
could be alleged the law firm defendants represent investors
(“robo-signing”) occurred which is currently the subject of criminal
investigations.
• Lastly, attorneys are hired to evict the Home owners such as Property Owners.
•
After eviction, the house is sold to a new Home owner who is also
defrauded since they are told none of this, and no one knows at this
point where the proceeds from the sales go.
• It is unlikely it goes back to the government which has at least indirectly funded all this through “bail outs”.
I'll stop here...
If
you are still with me on this one, you can check out the full complaint
with the criminal loan collections and causes of action in the PDF file
below...
Not sure if this will go anywhere legally, but it sure tells a hell of story on the biggest crime commited ever...
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
One helluva try by Mr. Pines. Kudos.
Unfortunately, this will only be solved with boiled rope and lamp posts. I dont anticipate that happening for at least 3-4 more generations from now where the citizens will be eating shit and being oppressed by "Da Man"
The Pecora Commission got to business in March, 1932. We are about on track for some serious work to bring a lot of folks to task for their deeds (pun intended). When the common fella begins to understand what was done they will support, nay, encourage some action from their elected goobers.
Court Officers work within a structure created by the Banks.
It is the party's lack of understanding not to get the "Company Town" deal from the get go.
citizen = slave, no rights, chattel property.
citizen in Court = monster, insane, meaningless testimony.
A completely flexible method for ignoring whatever does not suit.
Law = whatever they say it is "today."
End of story.
Yep.
cops are just glorified tax enforcers... button men... that maintain large populations of criminals in case the government ever wants to use them... we dont deal with criminals, they are marketed to us
This link should be sent to every US Representative, every Senator, the President, and his entire cabinet.
Refusal to prosecute these people should itself be considered criminal behavior. I'm sure some of this money is sitting in their goddamned bank accounts as we speak.
They get free money. We get austerity. I say get out the fucking guillotines.
While the facts you state are hardly contestable, in my opinion, the courts that are supposed to rule on these matters have shown consistently that they are at the disposal of the highest bidders, rather than seeking to carry out justice. This leaves the originating criminals, perpetrators, in first position to receive said justice.
Respectfully disagree. Unless Mr. Pines can prove that all homeowners facing foreclosure were legally Incompetent at time of signing loan agreements. Forced to sign under Duress would be another.
Ain't gonna happen.
~Misstrial
he is going to have to do better than that. Was thinking about how it could be done recently. there are several problems... causation of injury... intent... need a very simple tort claim to hang on this. some states have a tort known as "outrage" that is so vague, that it just might work. In state court anyway, if you could keep it there. but who would you sue? The FED, all the lenders? simply too big to handle with a lawsuit. rope and torches...
+5...Excellent Post
Top down control fraud as described by Professor William K. Black...
The last regulator to refer a Bankster for prosecution in what? 1991?
"securitization of real proerty loan"
property?
Thanks for sharing. Cleared up some confusion on my part on how all this worked.
In my opinion, this one, and any part of it, will not withstand an F.R.C.P. 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Best regards,
RF
Isn't the claim a class action regarding Property Owners.
Commander, the plaintiff is an individul and he has joined the assorted defendants in order to cast as wide a net as possible. The Federal court has to use California's laws in the state law claim and Civil Code Section 2924 allows for non judicial foreclosure on terms very favorable to the foreclosing party. And the Federal Court will not entertain the State Bar matter, trust.
This is just posturing which will go nowhere, in my opinion.
Best regards
RF
RF "..allows for non judicial foreclosure on terms very favorable to the foreclosing party.."
Foreclosure Law allows for fraud? ...and deceipt??
Very 'favourable' but there are bigger (criminal) Laws against that
Zero, good day.
If you read the law, it basically allows for non-judicial foreclosure as long as the foreclosing party has properly done the paperwork accompanying the foreclosure. Whatever you think of the law, folks who enter into agreements with their eyes open and then cannot carry out the contract are going to lose their home. Some pretty good attorneys here have attempted to get around the law and I have yet to see any one of them succeed. I am not taking the bait on fraud and deceit because that has been tried here and has failed.
Another Civil Code Section, 2923.5, requires a bank/loan servicer to make an affirmative attempt to contact a borrower who is in arrears in order to attempt a workout of the problem. But there is not (and cannot be) a requirement that a workout be achieved and the bank/loan servicer has only to state they have made an attempt. And that statement does not have to be under penalty of perjury.
I will stipulate that there seems to be a great deal of potential for misconduct on the part of the foreclosing party but it is the law here and the legislature does not seem to sense any urgency with regard to changing it.
With regard to the article above, just because someone alleges misconduct in some conclusory pleading, it does not prove it actually happened, especially when the pleader is a disbarred attorney.
Also, Section 2924 is helpful to sellers who privately finance a real estate transaction. Put yourself in the place of a private party who has to foreclose and I'll bet your misplaced outrage would not be so great.
Best regards,
RF
Agree. btw, has this complaint even been filed? There's no filing stamp or case number number assigned. There's no written signature either.
And, uh...with the "Inactive Attorney" reference, I think Mr. Pines is a bit bothered by his recent disbarment.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=77771
And this pdf of the State Bar's Decision to disbar Mr. Pines:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/11-TE-10948.pdf
~Misstrial
Misstrial, good day.
You are correct to note the lack of a date stamp or case number. Further, even with the relaxed Federal pleading requirements vis-a-vis the State, conclusory statements, such as the ones this document contains, do not state a cause upon which the court can grant relief.
Best regards,
RF
Ahhh technicalities ...can see how your mind works... if a client is clearly a criminal with not a snowball in hells chance of defending the actual case there's always technicalities and due process to weasel out (a lawyers job afterall)
if anyone thinks the Law is a farce wrapped in a sad joke they'd be absolutely right of course ...Justice? ...depends on who you know and how big your wallet is, just like Law was designed to be