gudalupe orellana   los angeles ,ca

Posted: 04:38 pm [PST] on July 23 2010

I AM SAD AND OUTHRAGED ABOUT THIS INJUSTICE ,THIS IS BIG SITUACION THAT AFFECT ALL OF US IN CALIFORNIA, I DEFINELY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Jackie Hernandez   Virginia

Posted: 08:20 pm [PST] on July 09 2010

Please if any one would like to join in with me to contact White House ,United Nation etc to get the Courts in CA investagted please contact me at jackieos49@yahoo.com in subject put Mr.Fine Thank you

Jackie Hernandez   Virginia

Posted: 02:07 pm [PST] on July 09 2010

I'm woring on getting the Goverment to investagate Mr.Fines case if you can give me any info I would like to help Mr.Fine I have been working on this for 4 months jackieos49@yahoo.com

Gerard Ange'   Palo Alto, California

Posted: 09:31 am [PST] on June 12 2010

~ The Right to Justice ~

Justice is a right of every citizen... it is not an option. A Judge is an employee like any other employee of the county or of the state and is given paid a wage to provide a service for which he is entrusted to provide. A Judge is neither a God nor a King. He has a prime responsibility to see that all citizens are administered a fair and equal Justice under the law; as written in our constitution. His schedule, the courts schedule, personal ego and granted power of discretionary judgment are all secondary to the supreme act of overseeing that every citizen receive their constitutional rights and equal justice under the law.

~ Gerard Ange'©2009


My name is Gerard Ange' I wrote that (above "The Right to Justice") after my long six year journey after we were targeted by crime and witnessed blatant Judicial Corruption in Californian Superior Courts. So, Yes... I know first hand what Richard Fine is going through....

My journey into the judicial system began after we were targeted by theft after being attacked by multiple thefts. We demanded justice for the crimes committed against us. and called our local police and were instructed to file a case with the FBI for interstate Wire Fraud. The FBI filed the case and instructed us to to also file a civil case, which we did. After six years of legal maneuvering and stalling s in Federal and State Court, then catching this his Pennsylvania based corporation with destruction of key evidence. Seeing a corporation continue to blatantly violate the law throughout the six years of litigation, without fear from prosecution of fear from the FBI... But, unknown to us... finally in the end... the ultimate theft was yet to happen... The theft of our constitutional rights.

I was born here but, today I don't even feel like citizen anymore. This was like a bad movie unfolding in front of our eyes... It all started when a new Judge appeared!!! Judge True who was mysteriously substituted into our case after six years just before our Jury trial was to begin. Replacing our Trial Judge the Honorable Barbara Miller. Judge John M. True III took all that all away from all of us when he ruled his own special version of the law by (first), denying our Constitutional Right to our attorney and then (second) ordered that I represent my own case in court as Pro Se. " I told Judge True "That I couldn't do that because first, I am not an attorney and (Second) that we already had an Attorney-!" Judge True III replied: [quote] "That if I SAID THAT YOU would have to represent yourself in court - Then... that's exactly what you will have to do!... So, Deal With It-!!!!" . [end quote]. By doing that Judge John M. True III denied our right to trial and right to equal justice under the law.


JULY 20th HEARING RESULTS & "JUDICIAL SURPRISE":
We hired another law firm HogeFenten Jones & Appell to fight back to have our Trial Attorney represent us. We had a skilled Constitutional experienced litigator fighting a corrupt Judge toe to toe. After three hearings: WE WON THE MOTION TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY REPRESENT US IN OUR CASE. >> But it was then that events got even more blatantly corrupt... It was no more than "2 MINUTES" after winning our ruling... That Judge True revealed his Next "JUDICIAL SURPRISE": Judge True moved forward to have a SECOND HEARING " And this new hearing was without our trial attorney present". In Strong Protest from myself and from our Motion Attorney, Judge John M. True III ruled that I was "Pro Se in attendance." [ I OBJECTED ] and Whereas ~ Judge True then ruled to dismiss all charges and damages against the Pennsylvania corporation and all the defendants. By doing that Judge John M. True III denied our Constitutional Right again to our attorney and our Constitutional right to Trial for the crimes committed against us.


WHY DID THIS HAPPEN TO US?
Because of a Corporation based in Pennsylvania with deep government connections felt "that they were above the law". http://www.gapinternational.com/clients.html A corporation who wanted Property that we legally owned and property that wasn't for sale! " But, regardless, this Pennsylvania based corporation felt they had the all the money, all the power and all the connections to make sure were they would get away with it! So, they felt... they could do what ever they wanted {even commit theft} After we showed that we would pursue our property through legal means....three hours later we were attacked again and our win-tv corporation was also targeted along with our all our email by the defendants.


VICTIMS OF CRIME:
As Victims of Crime.... Regardless of over $1000,000.00 in legal costs and winning in federal court and also winning two summery Judgements in California Superior Court against this Pennsylvania Corporation.... our case was quickly dismissed by a substituted Judge with a wink and a nod... for corporation who felt without a doubt....that they were above the law. As victims of theft we were denied our Constitutional Rights to our attorney and also to our right to trial.



More information about corporate theft and Judicial Corruption >> http://www.win-tv.net/GAP_WINTV_Site/GAP_WIN-Tv_Website_Theft.htm



Gérard Angé
President CEO,
G.A.P. International News Service
LIVE-WEB
3879 Magnolia Drive,
Palo Alto, California 94306
Voice: (415) 306-2525
eFax: (415) 962-4113
Gerard_Ange@win-tv.net
http://www.win-tv.net
http://LIVE-WEB.us
http://twitter.com/gerardange
http://www.youtube.com/user/gerardange
http://my.media-match.com/gerard.ange
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gerardange

Bill Thornton   Orange County, CA

Posted: 03:01 pm [PST] on June 01 2010

You are welcome to use as you wish the law notes at http://www.1215.org
No attribute need be given.

Reuben Nieves   Sacramento

Posted: 09:29 am [PST] on May 18 2010

I have attached my petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In an unpublished report, the Ninth Circuit seeks to preserve its prior precedential rulings on non judicial foreclosures by flagrantly evading reference to Supreme Court decisions which are clearly contrary to established Supreme Court Law

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
___________________
The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit as well as other federal appellate courts have decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
Petitioner Reuben Nieves, a homeowner who has been foreclosed non-judicially, and millions in danger of being foreclosed non-judicially, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari be issued to review the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The issue is one of First Impression because this Court has never decided whether a federally chartered bank corporation created under an act of Congress to provide an important public and national purpose could use a non- judicial procedure that allows the taking of a property interest without a hearing thus violating the 5th Amendment. This Court has made numerous decisions which would have been relevant in determining whether non-judicial procedures were applicable given the nature of these corporations. The Ninth Circuit’s decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court Law. The issue involves a provision in a mortgage contract which allows the bank( Wachovia Mortgage fsb), a corporation federally chartered and created to use a non-judicial foreclosure to redeem the property. The issue goes to the core of the nature of federally chartered corporations created under special law for public and national purposes. This case deals with the right of these corporations to put such a provision in a contract. It is an issue which, in the context of the current economic crisis and massive foreclosures, sweeps the breadth of this nation like a plague destroying families and communities as it spreads, swelling the homeless population in its wake. This court is asked, as it was asked in the case of Fidelity Federal S & L Ass’n v Reginald De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982) , to decide upon an issue of great importance on another provision in a mortgage contract involving a right or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution that forms an essential element of plaintiff’s claim. An issue that is greater even than was decided in that case because it involves a constitutional right affecting the lives of millions of families across this nation.
OPINIONS BELOW
The Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff’s petition for re-hearing on March 8th, 2010 and is attached as APPENDIX A.
The Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal was decided on December 8thth, 2009 and is attached as APPENDIX B
The order denying an emergency motion for preliminary injunction or stay was entered September 9th, 2009 and is attached as APPENDIX C.
The Order adopting the magistrates finding is dated August 8th, 2008 and attached as APPENDIX D
The Finding and Recommendations of the magistrate of the District Court is dated 06/24/2008 and is attached as APPENDIX E
JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. 1254(1)
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
AND STATUTES INVOLVED

I. THE 5TH AMENDMENT to the Bill of Rights states :

“No person shall be. . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.”

II. 12 U.S.C §§ 1461 Et seq.The HOME OWNERS’ LOAN ACT

AN ACT To provide emergency relief with respect to home mortgage indebtedness, to refinance home mortgages, to extend relief to the owners of homes occupied by them and who are unable to amortize the debt elsewhere, to amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, to increase the market the obligations of the United States and for other purposes:

III . Sec. 5[12 U.S.C. 1464] FEDERAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATION

(a) In GENERAL—In order to provide thrift institutions for the deposit of funds and for the extension of credit for homes and other goods and services, the Director is authorized, under such regulations as the Director may prescribe—

(1) To issue charters therefore, giving primary consideration of the best practices of thrift institutions in the United States. The lending and investment powers conferred by this section are intended to encourage such institutions to provide credit for housing safely and soundly.

IV. 12 cfr § 560. Applicability of law.
Occupation of field. Pursuant to sections 4(a) and 5(a) of the HOLA, 12 U.S.C. 1463(a), 1464(a), OTS is authorized to promulgate regulations that preempt state laws affecting the operations of federal savings associations when deemed appropriate to facilitate the safe and sound operation of federal savings associations…

V. 12 U.S.C. § 38. The National Bank Act
The Act entitled “An Act to provide a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof,” approved June 3, 1864, shall be known as “The National Bank Act.”

VI. 12 U.S.C. § 24. Corporate powers of associations
Third. To make contracts.
Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law and equity, as fully as natural persons.

Fifth. To elect or appoint directors, and by its board of directors to appoint a president, vice president, cashier, and other officers, define their duties, require bonds of them and fix the penalty thereof, dismiss such officers or any of them at pleasure, and appoint others to fill their places.

Sixth. To prescribe, by its board of directors, bylaws not inconsistent with law, regulating the manner in which its stock shall be transferred, its directors elected or appointed, its officers appointed, its property transferred, its general business conducted, and the privileges granted to it by law exercised and enjoyed.

Seventh. To exercise by its board of directors or duly authorized officers or agents, subject to law, all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking. . .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an action brought by plaintiff for declarative and injunctive relief from a 5th Amendment violation as applied from an impending non-judicial foreclosure for the non-payment of installment payments required under the loan agreement between REUBEN NIEVES, plaintiff and Wachovia Mortgage fsb, formally World Savings Bank fsb, defendant based, in part, on defendant’s election to use a non-judicial foreclosure procedure which would deny plaintiff procedural due process under the 5th amendment, and beyond the scope of a law of Congress. Plaintiff alleges that the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring plaintiff to transfer his interest to a trustee with a power of sale is therefore ultra vires. Plaintiff alleges that Wachovia Mortgage fsb, is an instrumentality of the Federal Government, and as a federally chartered bank serving a public purpose in accordance with a federal mandate. Plaintiff , a 66 year old disabled real estate professional, whose livelihood was damaged by the wrongful acts of all lenders including defendant who befouled the real estate market by their reckless conduct. Defendant, as federally chartered bank, serves a public purpose pursuant to the Home Owner Loan Act(HOLA) .
A related petition[docket # 09-9045] is based on the reckless underwriting standards which defendant, in concert with all lenders who used stated income products, with adjustable rate mortgages and negative amortization and thereafter extended credit to people who could default upon the loan adjusting. The wrongful conduct of defendants had a “chilling effect” on the real estate market with the massive amounts of foreclosures that the lenders thrust unto the real estate market hugely discounting these homes and affecting the value of the surrounding homes to the point where homeowners could not refinance or sell their homes without incurring huge losses. Defendants’ actions undermined plaintiff’s ability to repay his mortgage debt to defendant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s wrongful conduct led to plaintiff experiencing extreme emotional distress, and loss of confidence as well as hypertension. Defendants’ wrongful conduct affected his credit worthiness, subjected him to humiliation in that plaintiff has always prided himself in paying his debts. Plaintiff has been forced to seek food stamps and medi-Cal for the first time in his life.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The facts are not in dispute. Defendant ,WACHOVIA MORTGAGE fsb is a federally created and controlled chartered bank incorporated in a banking system created under an Act of Congress—The Home Owner Loan Act (HOLA) to provide an important public and national function----residential mortgage lending. There is no dispute that a provision in the mortgage agreement provides that plaintiff irrevocably transfer his interest with a power of sale in favor of lender upon default of borrowers installment payments of the loan. There is no dispute that this procedure constitutes a non-judicial procedure which does not allow a hearing.
REASONS FOR GRANTING A WRIT O F CERTIORARI This is a case of first impression because this court has never determined whether a federally chartered corporation, created under an act of Congress,
could use a non-judicial foreclosure(trustee sale) against a homeowner.
Though several cases have come before the Ninth Circuit and other appellate courts regarding the constitutionality of these procedures none have vetted these type of corporations in the context of several relevant Supreme Court decisions which have decided that the activities of these type of corporations are governmental and not proprietary.
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction on grounds that plaintiff’s claim raised serious questions leading to the merits of his complaint regarding the constitutionality of a trustee sale. Although denied, Judge Harry Pregerson dissented stating that he would have granted the preliminary injunction because he must have believed that plaintiff raised serious questions going to the merits of his claim. See APPENDIX C
The arguments of plaintiff in this petition and throughout, challenge the Ninth Circuit’s prior precedential rulings which the court, in an unpublished opinion, seeks to preserve by flagrantly evading reference to the Supreme Court decisions cited and are clearly contrary to established Supreme Court Law.
The petition goes beyond plaintiff’s personal interest which involves millions of homeowners who face foreclosure from trustee sales. The issue is ripe for the Supreme Court to settle this important issue of constitutional proportions. Since no issues of fact are in dispute, a purely legal issue is presented.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Reuben Nieves filed his complaint on May 7th, 2008 in the District Court-Sacramento Division. 2:08-cv-00988-MCE-GGH. On recommendation of the Magistrate the complaint was dismissed for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” on August 08, 2008 whereby plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit on August 12th, 2008. All briefs were submitted by all parties by January 28th, 2009. As of September 09th, 2009 the courts had not made any determination on the merits of plaintiff’s complaint. On August 25th, 2009 plaintiff sought an emergency preliminary injunction or stay pending appeal under rule 27-3 to stop a trustee sale of his property scheduled for September 10th, 2009. On September 09, 2009 the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff’s motion without comment. Justice Harry Pregerson dissented and stated he would have granted the emergency motion for a stay of the foreclosure pending appeal. Wachovia followed through with the trustee sale followed by eviction proceedings before a determination by the Ninth Circuit of the constitutionality of the Trustee Sale. Thus the court’s decision to deny plaintiff a preliminary injunction or stay facilitated the denial of due process in spite of the 5th Amendment protection.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Plaintiff brought this action under 28 USC 1331 alleging WACHOVIA MORTGAGE fsb[formally World Savings fsb], a federally chartered bank, incorporated a provision into his loan agreement which required plaintiff to irrevocably transfer his interest to a trustee with a power of sale in favor of the lender upon default of plaintiff’s installment payments on the loan. Plaintiff alleges that this provision does not allow a hearing before plaintiff’s property interest is taken and is a denial of procedural due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that by virtue of the character as a federally chartered corporation created under an act of Congress Home Owner Loan Act(HOLA) to provide and important public function the corporation is prohibited from applying this provision which would deny procedural due process. Plaintiff alleges that the lending functions of Wachovia Mortgage fsb are governmental and not proprietary. Furthermore, the denial of a preliminary injunction of the trustee’s sale by the Ninth Circuit was clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful.” Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 128 F.3d 1448,1460(Fed. Cir. 1998)
ARGUMENT
I. BANK’S USE OF NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES
IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A LAW OF CONGRESS
To resolve the issue of the constitutionality of a trustee sale by Wachovia Mortgage fsb, we must first identify the nature of the corporation. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, fsb is a federally chartered bank corporation created under an act of Congress (The Homeowner Loan Act (HOLA)) for a public and national purpose---residential mortgage lending. In Conference of Federal Savings and Loan Associations et al v. Alan L. Stein et al. 604 F.2d 1256 (9th Circuit) (1979) the court related the history of HOLA and the reason for its’ creation:
The Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1461 Et seq. (HOLA), was the result of congressional dissatisfaction with state law and practice in the financing of home construction.
….. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board (the Bank Board) was created with extremely broad powers to promulgate rules and regulations. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(a) provides in part:
…[T]he Board is authorized, under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, to provide for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation of associations to be known as 'Federal Savings and Loan Associations' * * * and to issue charters therefore, giving primary consideration to the best practices of local mutual thrift and home-financing institutions in the United States." [bold added]

A. BANKS CAN BE A GOVERNMENTAL
ACTOR IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT
On June 24th, 2008 Judge Gregory G. Hollows issued his FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX E , lns 16-22 in which he stated:

The court dismissed plaintiff’s §1983 claim on the ground that defendants are not state actors and are not acting in conjunction with state actors or implementing state policy, and that national banking legislation does not confer a right protected by the Civil Rights Act. The court dismissed plaintiff’s last claim on the similar ground that defendants are not “federal instrumentalities having a symbiotic relationship” with the federal government but private entities whose conduct is not actionable under the federal constitution. Since no federal claims remained, the court also dismissed plaintiff’s remaining, pendant state law, claims.
On August 6th, 2008 Judge Morrison C. England adopted Magistrate Hollows Recommendation and issued a final Order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. See APPENDIX D Plaintiff contends that the loan agreement signed by plaintiff on Sept. 29, 2006, contains a provision Irrevocably granting and conveying the Property to the Trustee, in trust for Lender, with a power of sale subject to the terms of the Security Instrument for a default in the payments to the lender.(1st amended complaint). As national banks and federal savings banks, Defendants have a symbiotic relationship with the federal government(1st amended complaint)
National banks and federal savings banks are agencies of the United States created to promote its fiscal policies. National banks and federal savings banks benefit by not paying state taxes, avoiding state predatory lending laws through the concept of Federal preemption, allowing them to export high interest for the credit card thus avoiding the state usury laws. Federal Savings banks also have the same benefits and are no less instrumentalities of the federal government than national banks whose purpose is to promote its fiscal policies. Alexander Hamilton argued that the Central Bank was necessary to the nation in cases of emergency such as the financing of war… Hamilton believed that there was a symbiotic relationship between agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing, and that progress in each of these sectors was necessary for America’s economic development. (In the Report of Credit II, Dec. 1790)



B. A PARTY MUST STATE FACTS
SUFFICIENT TO STATE A EITHER A
5th or 14th AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIM
Non-judicial foreclosures have been the subject of a flurry of cases including the most current Apao v. San Diego Home Loans, Inc.,324 F3d 1091, Ninth Circuit (2002) a California corporation. Margaret Apao lost her home to a foreclosure and sale under Hawaii’s non-judicial foreclosure statute. The federal district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and that the sale was a purely private remedy. Apao appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on the grounds that previous decisions of appellate courts upheld the constitutionality of similar non-judicial procedures. The Ninth Circuit held in Apao that the case of Charmicor v. Deaner, 572 F2nd 694 “was controlling” although the plaintiff in Apao attempted to distinguish it. In Charmicor, the plaintiff claimed that the statute offended due process by failing to provide a pre-sale hearing and that it offends civil rights statutes and the equal protection clause by discriminating against appellant’s shareholders, who are black. The court in Charmicor noted that the “complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the civil rights statutes, because the record was utterly barren of any facts or allegations that could support a claim under the equal protection clause”, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court in these cases made no reference to Several Supreme Court’s decisions which examined the nature of corporations created under an act of Congress and were content with the notion that Congress could adopt the local customs on debtor creditor relations without further analysis.

C. NATIONAL BANKS ARE PUBLIC
NOT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS

In Easton v. Iowa,188 U.S.220 (1903) the Court said of national banks:
. . .[W]e cannot concur in the suggestions that national banks, in respect to the powers conferred upon them, are to be viewed as solely organized and operated for private gain.
The Court in Easton went on to say at 188 U.S. 220 at p. 230 that the principles enunciated in McCullough v Maryland, 17 U.S. 316(1819), and in Osborn v Bank of United States, 22 U.S.738 (1824), though expressed in respect to banks incorporated directly by acts of Congress, were still applicable to the later and present system of national banks. The Court cited with approval the holding of the latter as expressed by Chief Justice Marshall:
The bank is not considered as a private corporation whose principal object is individual trade and individual profit, but as a public corporation created for public and national purposes. That the mere business of banking is, in its own nature, a private business, and may be carried on by individuals or companies having no political connection with the government, is admitted, but the bank is not such an individual or company. It was not created for its own sake or for private purposes. It has never been supposed that Congress could create such a corporation.[bold and italics added]

The court in Easton goes on to say:

'National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States. It follows that an attempt by a state to define their duties or control the conduct of their affairs is absolutely void, wherever such attempted exercise of authority expressly conflicts with the laws of the United States, and either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of these agencies of the Federal government to discharge the duties for the performance of which they were enacted.

Our conclusions, upon principle and authority, are that Congress, having power to create a system of national banks, is the judge as to the extent of the powers which should be conferred upon such banks, and has the sole power to regulate and control the exercise of their operations…[bold, underline and italics added]
In view of the holding in Osborn which Justice Marshall held that banks were public and not private bank corporations, which was approved and held applicable to later national bank corporations not directly created by Congress by the Supreme Court in Easton, why should we now consider national banks private corporations? And why not consider them “agencies of the Federal government” as referred to in Easton? And why should the same reasoning not apply to federal savings banks such as WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, fsb?
In Osborn at p. 22 U.S. 823 the court said of these national banks:
The charter of incorporation not only creates it, but gives it Every faculty which it possesses. The power to acquire rights of any description, to transact business of any description, to sue on those contracts, is given and measured by its charter, and that charter is a law of the United States. Take the case of a contract, which is put as the strongest against the Bank. . . [H]as this being a right to make this particular contract? .. . .[T]his question, too, depends entirely on a law of the United States [underline added]

The court in Osborn at p. 823, made it clear that federally chartered corporations created under acts of Congress could “. . .acquire no right, make no contract, bring no suit, which is not authorized by a law of the United States. It is not only itself the mere creature of law, but all its actions and all its rights are dependent on the same law”.[underline and bold added]
In an excerpt from Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505,509,510 ,citing Osborn, the court said:
A corporation has no powers and can incur no obligations except as authorized or provided for in its charter. Its power to do any act which it assumes to do, and its liability to any obligation which is sought to be cast upon it, depend upon its charter, and when such charter is given by one of the laws of the United States there is the primary question of the extent and meaning of that law;[underline & bold added]

In Runyan v. Lessee of Coster, 39 U .S. 122 , p. 129 (1840) the court Said:

…[T]hat a corporation “possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. That corporations created by statute must depend for their powers and the mode of exercising them, upon the true construction of the statute.
… The corporation must show that the law of its creation gave it authority to make such contracts.” . [underline and bold added]
Did the law of its creation (HOMEOWNER BANK ACT ) give Wachovia the right to make this contract with this provision?
Can it then be said that the provision in a mortgage contract requiring a mortgagor to transfer his rights to a trustee with a power of sale for the non-payment of a mortgage is authorized by the federal charter? Is this not the right to foreclose on an owner without resort to judicial process and a hearing? Is this not the right to deprive a person of procedural due process? We must then ask the question: Is the act of the national or federal savings bank in foreclosing non-judicially within the scope of a law of Congress? Can the government by way of a federal charter authorize a right to a bank to do what it is forbidden to do itself? It is fundamentally clear that the government can impart no greater power through a charter than they possess themselves. The power to deny a person of procedural due process is denied to the government under the 5th Amendment and is equally denied to the banks. As John Locke said nearly 300 years ago: “…Nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself “ [John Locke, TWO TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT, BOOK II] The courts in Osborn and Shoshone and Runyan show us that the conduct of banks in pursuit of non-judicial foreclosures must be done under the authority of the federal charter which is a “law of the United States” and therefore “under color of federal law”. Thus Wachovia Mortgage fsb could be considered a “governmental actor” like the assumption made by the First Circuit in Gerena v Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc., 697 F. 2d 447(1st Cir. 1983)
D. CONGRESS CANNOT AUTHORIZE OR
DELEGATE A RIGHT OR POWER THAT
IT CANNOT EXERCISE ITSELF
If all the acts, rights and obligations of corporations with federal charters must be done under the authority of the federal charter and a law of the United States, including rights created in contract, how can Congress authorize a provision that it could not exercise itself? The provision can only be validated by what it represents and the constitutional implications it may give rise to. In United States v Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911) the Supreme Court decided that very issue and the court citing Justice Marshall at 220 US pg. 517 said.

It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. But Congress may certainly delegate to others powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself. [underline bold & italics added]

E. A POWER OF SALE PROVISION UPON DEFAULT IS
ULTRA VIRES AND NULL AND VOID
As the Supreme Court said in Concord First Nat’l Bank v Hawkins 174 U.S. 364 p. 371:
The doctrine of ultra vires, by which a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of corporate powers is unlawful and void and will not support an action, rests as the Court has often recognized and affirmed, upon three distinct grounds: the obligation of anyone contracting with a corporation to take notice of the legal limits of its powers, the interest of the stockholders not to be subject risks which they have never undertaken, and above all, the interest of the public that the corporation shall not transcend the powers conferred upon it by law.[bold added]
The powers of a corporation are express and incidental. Runyan at p. 129 supra. If Congress cannot confer the powers to Wachovia then the provision is ultra vires and void.



II. THE LENDING FUNCTIONS OF
OF WACHOVIA ARE GOVERNMENTAL
In Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Co. of St. Paul, 314
U. S. 95 (1941) the court was faced with determining
whether the lending functions were proprietary or governmental. The court said:
The argument that the lending functions of the federal land banks are proprietary, rather than governmental, misconceives the nature of the federal government with respect to every function which it performs. The federal government is one of delegated powers, and from that it necessarily follows that any constitutional exercise of its delegated powers is governmental. Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 306 U. S. 477. It also follows that, when Congress constitutionally creates a corporation through which the federal government lawfully acts, the activities of such corporation are governmental. (cites)
As part of their general lending functions, the land banks are authorized to foreclose their mortgages and to purchase the real estate at the resulting sale. They are "instrumentalities of the federal government, engaged in the performance of an important governmental function."(cites)
In Federal Land Bank v. Board of Kiowa County., 368 U.S. 146 the court said :

"the Federal Government performs no 'proprietary' functions. If the enabling Act is constitutional and if the instrumentality's activity is within the authority granted by the Act, a governmental function is being performed."
It is well settled that the enabling Act, Home Owner Loan Act (HOLA) is constitutional . Pittman v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 308 U. S. 21. Like federal land banks, the lending functions including foreclosures of federal savings assn’s/federal savings banks, such as Wachovia Mortgage fsb, a federal instrumentality , should be treated as governmental just as the court in Bismarck held. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Co. of St. Paul, 314 U. S. 95, p. 102 (1941)
A. GOVERNMENT CANNOT EVADE ITS MOST SOLEMN CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS BY SIMPLY RESORTING TO THE CORPORATE FORM
Can Congress divest itself of its identity with a corporation created and participated in for a public purpose sufficiently to allow the corporation to use a procedure that does not allow a hearing? That question was asked and answered in Lebron v National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 513 U.S. pgs 374, 375 when the court said:
c) There is a long history of corporations created and participated in by the United States for the achievement of governmental objectives. Like some other Government corporations, Amtrak's authorizing statute provides that it "will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government," [cite]
(d) Although § 541 is assuredly dispositive of Amtrak's governmental status for purposes of matters within Congress's control--e. g., whether it is subject to statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act-and can even suffice to deprive it of all those inherent governmental powers and immunities that Congress has the power to eliminate-e. g., sovereign immunity from suit-it is not for Congress to make the final determination of Amtrak's status as a Government entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions. The Constitution constrains governmental action by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken…
(e) Amtrak is an agency or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of individual rights guaranteed against the Government by the Constitution. This conclusion accords with the public, judicial, and congressional understanding over the years that Government-created and -controlled corporations are part of the Government itself.(cites) ; A contrary holding would allow government to evade its most solemn constitutional obligations by simply resorting to the corporate form, Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904, 907, 908 (other cites).
Like Amtrak, defendant is federal instrumentality and member in a banking system created for a public purpose and controlled by the director of The Office of Thrift Supervision. Like Amtrak it is not for Congress to make the final determination of defendant’s status as a government entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions. Plaintiff Reuben Nieves is a citizen whose constitutional rights are affected by its actions when a non- judicial foreclosure is exercised by a federally chartered corporation like defendant Wachovia Mortgage, fsb. To paraphrase an old saying, “that with great power comes great obligations.” This is no less true when Congress confers enumerated and incidental powers on a corporation it creates for an important governmental function. It must follow that with the immunities from taxation and state laws that frustrate the activities of corporations for which an act of Congress was enacted, the constitutional obligations of the government must also attach. For as Justice Scalia said in Lebron, at p. 399:
But it does not contradict those statements to hold that a corporation is an agency of the Government for purposes of the constitutional obligations of Government rather than the "privileges of the government," when the State has specifically created that corporation for the furtherance of governmental objectives, and not merely holds some shares but controls the operation of the corporation through its appointees.
In this case control of the operations is exercised by the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision an independent federal regulatory agency vested with plenary authority to administer the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933 (HOLA), The Director of the OTS is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. (12 USC §1462c) The issue of the government’s control over the operations of Wachovia is clarified by the court in Fidelity Fed. S. & L. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982) at p. 161 when the court said:
The broad language of § 5(a) expresses no limits on the Board's authority to regulate the lending practices of federal savings and loans. As one court put it, "[I]t would have been difficult for Congress to give the Bank Board a broader mandate." [cites] And Congress' explicit delegation of jurisdiction over the "operation" of these institutions must empower the Board to issue regulations governing mortgage loan instruments.

B. THE POWER TO FORECLOSE IS AN
INCIDENTAL POWER OF THE NATIONAL BANKS
AS WELL AS FEDERAL SAVINGS BANKS
The history of national banking legislation has been "one of interpreting grants of both enumerated and incidental `powers' to national banks” as well as federal savings associations[which include savings banks]. Bank of America et al v City of San Francisco et al 309 F.3d 551 (Ninth Circuit) (2002) Consider this hypothetical. The California legislature would makes a law that as a matter of public policy foreclosures of any kind will not be permitted on a homeowner’s primary residence. The OTS is charged with the supervision of the Home Owner Loan Act like the Office of the Controller of Currency is ”charged with supervision of the National Bank Act” NationsBank of N.C.N.A. v Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. 513 U.S. 252, 256(1995) The OTS and the OCC would promulgate rules allowing the banks to foreclose on the homes that have defaulted and in concert with the banks claim that the power to foreclose was an incidental power of national banks and also federal savings banks and therefore would preempt state law. The State would challenge that decision in court. Both Acts are silent on the necessity of banks foreclosures to secure the residential property in the event of default. The Acts, however, do bestow upon banks the authority to exercise by its board of directors, or duly authorized officers or agents, subject to law, all such incidental powers as necessary to carry on the business of banking. . .”12 U.S.C.§24(Seventh). The OTS authority to preempt state laws affecting its lending practices lies in 12 cfr §560.2. Because these sections are not explicit on the limits of “incidental powers”, an inquiry as to whether the NBA or HOLA would support the use of either one or both methods of foreclosures (Judicial foreclosures and/or non-judicial foreclosure) would be necessary. The holding in United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506(1911) would apply. The NBA or HOLA could authorize the former but not the latter because the government could not exercise the power to foreclose non-judicially itself.
C. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB CAN BE
CONSIDERED AN “AGENCY” OF THE GOVERNMENT
In Acron Investments, Inc. et al v Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation , 363 F.2nd 236 (9th Circuit, 1966) the court was given the task of determining if the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) was an “agency”. After reviewing all the relevant code sections the court concluded that the corporation was an “agency” under 28 USC 451 because the control of the government over the corporation was more than custodial or incidental. In Acron at paragraphs 27 & 28 the court said:
…[T]he Reviser's Note under 18 U.S.C. § 6 states that "The phrase `corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest' is intended to include those governmental corporations in which stock is not actually issued, as well as those in which stock is owned by the United States. It excludes those corporations in which the interest of the Government is custodial or incidental." (Emphasis added.) 28 …Since the control which Congress and the United States exercise over the Corporation is clearly more than "custodial or incidental," it would appear that the Corporation fits within the definition of "agency" of 28 U.S.C. § 451 and thus within the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1345. [bold added]
Under the Ninth Circuit’s own test Wachovia Mortgage fsb is an “agency”. Any doubt as to government’s control over the “operations” as being “custodial or incidental” is dispelled in Fidelity Fed. S. & L. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982) at p. 161 when the court said:
The broad language of § 5(a) expresses no limits on the Board's authority to regulate the lending practices of federal savings and loans. As one court put it, "[I]t would have been difficult for Congress to give the Bank Board a broader mandate(cites) And Congress' explicit delegation of jurisdiction over the "operation" of these institutions must empower the Board to issue regulations governing mortgage loan instruments

CONCLUSION
Since no issue of fact is in dispute, a purely legal issue presents itself.
The subject corporations cited in this petition and throughout this case share a common heritage with Wachovia. They are corporations federally created under an act of Congress for important public and national purposes for which the Supreme Court has ruled on that premise in a number of cases that their activities were governmental. Thus in Bismarck the Court ruled that the lending functions were governmental not proprietary; and that foreclosure was part of the general lending functions. In Lebron, the Court ruled that the corporation was part of the government for the purpose of determining its constitutional obligations toward the rights of citizens affected by its actions.
The cases relied by plaintiff were written with such clarity of thought, and expressed in terms that even an intelligent layperson could understand their relevance to the issue raised by plaintiff pro se. It was enough to have Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit cause to dissent and state that he would have granted a preliminary injunction. APPENDIX C
The Ninth Circuit and other appellate courts have yet to apply the settled principles enunciated by these Supreme Court cases which lead to one conclusion--- that Wachovia’s use of a Trustee Sale(non-judicial foreclosure) must be a governmental act and a 5th amendment violation of due process.
Constitutional powers conferred on a corporation should not be used to produce an unconstitutional result. The long and the short of it is that Congress could not authorize it either expressly or impliedly, and the Constitution cannot allow it.
Respectfully submitted,

___________¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬________ Date:___________, 2010
Reuben Nieves, pro se

Bill   Orange County, CA

Posted: 09:15 am [PST] on May 10 2010

This issue angers me to no end. When Mr. Fine wins his freedom and judges are indicted for crimes and corruption, I will be happy.

Why hasn't the federal government investigated the crimes that Mr. Fine has brought to light? Why haven't they investigated Sheriff Baca and these judges who are violating Mr. Fine's civil rights?

B Whipple   Scottsdale, AZ.

Posted: 01:21 pm [PST] on May 02 2010

Why hasn't Glen Beck or Fox News picked up on this injustice. Please let me know why not!!!!!

Joy Garner   Auburn, CA

Posted: 01:05 pm [PST] on April 26 2010

The lower courts in California are a bastion of filth and lies. This would not be happening if not for the 9th Circuits failures and outright collusion in this lawlessness of the California US District Courts. It is ROUTINE for the CA US District Courts to outright LIE about the existence of evidence and the law in their orders. CRIMINALS!!!

OUR CASE is suffering under this lawlessness, it can be found under "Van Noland v. Pelletier" in the Sacramento US District Court.

Andrea Sue Ketner   Michigan

Posted: 09:29 pm [PST] on March 28 2010

This unbelievable i grew up in calif and i knew LAPD is corrupt but this is crazy FREE this man , and put all the judges in jail. Thank you Andrea Ketner