Monthly Archives: December 2018

THE SYSTEM OF THINGS COMES HOME TO ROOST IN OREGON!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) —  The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosure matters and issues related to the system of “things”. This isn’t legal advice.  It’s the system’s way of telling you something’s wrong. 

PORTLAND, OREGON … Another group of attorneys, accompanied by a non-profit Oregon civil liberties group (made up of lawyers) has decided that the Oregon Bar has violated their civil rights and wants a federal court to stop the Oregon State Bar (a Public Corporation) from mandating that attorneys HAVE TO join their little “club” in order to practice law.

As I explained previously in GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 8, two Oregon attorneys filed a challenge to the Oregon State Bar’s public statement containing political views the two didn’t agree with nor subscribe to as part of the dues they pay the Oregon State Bar, claiming their civil rights have been violated.

Instead of simply suing the Oregon State Bar, Daniel Crowe, Lawrence Peterson and the Oregon Civil Liberties Attorneys have filed civil rights claims against the Bar’s Board of Governors, its President, its President-elect, its CEO, its Director of Finance and Operations and its General Counsel, claiming they all had a hand in the violation of their freedom of speech, freedom of association and for damages caused by charging them attorney fees to belong to what we in the mainstream like to call “the good ‘ol boy club”.

It stands to reason that every State of the Union has a Bar Association, which regulates the professional behaviors of counsel that practice law within its jurisdiction and to protect the public from unscrupulous behavior caused by them or the people who work for them who are non-lawyers.  These same bar associations also go after non-lawyers who hold themselves out as if they were lawyers in order to collect fees for writing pleadings and advertising their services at a discount, hoping to gain an income, which in effect, deprives lawyers of their income.  It’s what they called the unauthorized practice of law.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten into the act, its citations abound, as noted within the pleadings, which you can read here:

Crowe et al v Oregon State Bar et al, U.S. D. Ore No 3-18-cv-02139 (Dec 13, 2018)

For those of you who need some background, here is the original suit originally filed, that contains the actual political speech as an attached exhibit:

Gruber, Runnels v Oregon State Bar, US D. Ore No 3-18-cv-1591 (Aug 29, 2018)

It also stands to reason that every other major profession that operates within each state (insurance salesmen, credit service organizations, hair stylists, architects, engineers, etc.) also be regulated to prevent public harm, which an argument has also been made that this licensing entity should include lawyers (in other words, when we have the State doing it, why should we even have a bar in the first place?) under its governing umbrella.

Why am I not surprised that political advocacy-based litigation was prompted when the Oregon State Bar decided to publicly post a statement containing political undertones shortly after the “push back” occurred in downtown Portland?   This has brought “the system of things” to its opposite extreme … challenging the constitutionality of the “bar association” altogether using the Oregon State Bar as a poster child, specifically citing the April 2018 Bar Bulletin, which included two statements on alleged “white nationalism”, one of which specifically criticized President Donald Trump, attached as an exhibit to the pleadings.

I think we can all agree that the two-party system of things we have currently in place in America has screwed us all in one way, shape or form.  Each one of you have a bone to pick with the way things operate in America, right?  We all want America to be a better place, but instead, thanks to politics of all shapes and sizes, all of our civil liberties have been trampled on … and we sit idly by doing nothing while both sides promulgate their agendas upon us while wasting our tax dollars.  So it’s not just the Bar that’s in play here, it’s our whole system of things.

If we take away the Bar’s right to discipline its own membership, then how can we stop the bank’s attorneys from lying to judges and screwing all of us over in courts all across America?  How then can we stop law firms from participating in the creation and execution of documents that are recorded in our land records, particularly assignments of mortgage and deed of trust, that create standing for plaintiffs who have no enforcement rights to notes and mortgages, from continuing to come into court and illicitly rape Americans of their wealth with no consequence to them or the judges with their agendas that give them what they want (your homes)?

To some of you, this may be nothing more than airing dirty laundry before the American public in federal court; however, this is where you go when you want to go after a State Corporation, because the “state” will circle its wagons when attacked … and you’ll get nowhere … which is why we have State Tort Claims Acts.  While this suit is not posited as such, you get my drift.

While this is a blatant challenge to the State Bar’s right to mandate that attorneys belong to it so that if they “step outta line, the men come and take you away” (to quote Buffalo Springfield) … remember the chorus to that song?  It just got replayed in your mind … I see this thing settling out of court with the Bar agreeing never to do that again.  However, what if there is retribution against all the attorneys who brought these actions?  What then?  Where does it end?  Why shouldn’t every State Bar across the land be prevented from engaging in political speech?

Politics has become embedded within our entire judicial system!  If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have judges with “agendas” that refuse to hear the truth about “whether we made a mortgage payment or not” or “Are you in default?” (as if we’re supposed to know what the term default means).  Half of you out there think that the term default means you didn’t make your mortgage payment, but as the saying goes, “That ain’t necessarily so!”  That WORD has political undertones in today’s foreclosure courts because it gives judges impetus to throw it around like confetti and use it to kick people to the curb with no proof that a default actually occurred … all the judge has to do is to get the borrower to admit he didn’t make his mortgage payment … the WHY doesn’t matter after that.   And the judge just stepped in and did the bank’s attorney a big favor by helping him win his case!  It’s no wonder that in the criminal realm, 92% of all convictions come out of the mouth of the accused!

And here I thought that by disciplining your children, teaching them right from wrong, could be considered “practicing law”.  Now, the system hangs you out to dry for child abuse for even swatting your kid on the behind in public for inappropriate behavior.

This is where conservatism and liberalism have ruined America.

 

 

 

 

6 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

THE MINDSET OF SOME FEDERAL JUDGES IS DISCONCERTING …

(OP-ED) — 

It scares me when I have spent hours upon hours doing research into the behaviors of the American federal judicial system and after fully digesting the U. S. Supreme Court cases of 07-1015_Ashcroft v Iqbal and 05-1126_Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly et al … I find it a bit disconcerting when I talk to attorneys about their experiences in federal court and they tell me that suicide would be a better alternative.

From recent white papers I’ve read on the subject, legal scholars have pegged the federal judiciary as nothing more than glorified “case managers” … and the most recent article posted by the American Bar Association confirms my suspicions when I read that judges now want to eliminate discovery in cases involving less than $500,000!  The average homeowner’s residence in this country is less than that sum, so what does that say for your due process rights in courts of limited jurisdiction, which the federal courts are?

If this was not a significant assertion, made by a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge at a Federalist Society panel last month, I would have dismissed the white papers I read as speculation backed by demonstrative case law.

(Hon. Thomas Hardiman)

This judge received applause for his remark to the panel when he said, “If I were to do something unilaterally, I would probably institute a new federal rule that said all cases worth less than $500,000 would be tried without any discovery.”   Another 6th Circuit judge, Hon. Amul Thapar, another judge said to be on President Trump’s short nominee list to the Supreme Court, said that clients and their lawyers would both be happier if they could get to trial more quickly, to which Hardiman added that because vanishing jury trials in federal courts are more common, judges have put increasing reliance on alternative dispute resolution, stating, “How many clients win, and the judgment they earned was less than the fees they paid their lawyer?  That’s a Pyrrhic victory.”

What then does that say for the idea that banks are so willing to remove foreclosure cases to federal court because they already are aware of the outcome (a 12(b)(6) dismissal)?   Yet, homeowners are so eager to file cases in federal courts using federal questions and statutory violations like TILA and RESPA, when the actual damage suffered has yet to be determined.

Other judges attending the panel discussion also noted that federal rules already require that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case”. Others stated that “discovery is a key element of our current adversarial system, often leading to obtaining evidence of legal violations via admissions in sworn testimony, smoking-gun documents or memos that demonstrate wrongdoing.”

While the federal system has apparently recognized abuse in the discovery process, their roles as case managers appears to be expanding so they can rid their dockets of garbage lawsuits, citing one means of doing so is by implementing a civil Brady Rule, which basically promotes the idea that in civil litigation, the parties would have an affirmative obligation to turn over discovery, even if it’s harmful to them!  Under the status quo, such damning evidence might get buried under a pile of evidence like “a needle in a haystack”.

This would imply (at least to me in my non-lawyer mindset) that I’m not going to get a fair shake in any federal court anywhere in the United States of America because everyone’s simply looking to find ways to chuck my hard work … case in – case out … by applying case management standards, mediation and when necessary, applying the “big stick” of sanctions if I insist on my due process rights to discovery.

It’s no wonder the banks play their crooked games in state court.  They know they’ve got a “back door” if the homeowner responds with removal to federal court or comes forward in the state court action with something that could hang the banksters and their lawyers out to dry. When threatened, the bank’s lawyers remove the case to federal court, because most cases involve an out-of-state lender and/or servicer and an amount necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction ($75,000).  This is why class actions are starting to be frowned upon at the federal level.  Boutique law firms can get rich off the backs of our dilemmas!  Examine the number of FCRA and FDCPA actions being filed singularly versus class action and you’ll see what I mean as to the treatment they get.  And these are statutory violations that mandate federal district level filings!

Lazy man’s way out, I say!

If no one wants to get to the truth, why do we keep supporting this federal justice system by electing folks who nominate and vote them into permanent judicial status, giving them loads of inherent power, when you can’t get a fair shake?   What a waste of tax dollars!

It’s a Catch 22 of “feeding the monster” that at a point in time will devour us! This is why I advocate keeping your cases on the “local level” and letting “the system of things” do what it’s supposed to do.

 

 

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under OP-ED