You are on page 1of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Antoine Bacha 25 Auvergne Newport Coast, CA 92657 (949) 887-9073 In pro per

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ANTOINE BACHA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ) THE CIT GROUP/CONSUMER FINANCE,INC.) a Foreign Corp.; THE CITIGROUP,INC.) a Foreign Corp.; CITIMORTGAGE INC. ) a Foreign Corp.; MARIX SERVICING ) LLC. a Foreign LLC; ASSURED LENDER ) SERVICES,INC.; PD PROPERTY ) INVESTMENTS LLC; Philipe Baltazar; ) Steven A. Silverstein; Corey S. ) Cramin; and the State of California) and DOES 1-100 ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) Case No.: COMPLAINT (Damages for Deprivation of Civil Rights) DEMAND FOR JURY

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ANTOINE BACHA, In pro per, and for the Complaint against Defendants, states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in sequence and seeking damages and redress be declaratory and injunctive relief as well as the award of fees, if any, for the deprivation,
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

under color of state law, or rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and for related common law and statutory claims under the laws of the Commonwealth of California. The Court

has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims under U.S.C. 1367(a). 2. Venue is proper in the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), because all of the Defendants reside or conduct business and litigation within this judicial district and all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs arose within this District. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, ANTOINE BACHA is a natural person and the owner

of the real property located at 25 Auvergne, Newport Coast, California. 4. Defendant CIT Group/Consumer Finance, Inc. is a foreign corporation and financial institution or bank with corporate offices in San Diego making and managing mortgages in California. 5. Defendant Citigroup Inc. is a foreign corporation and financial institution or bank with corporate offices in New York, making and managing mortgages in California. 6. Defendant Citmortgage Inc. is a foreign corporation and financial institution or bank with corporate offices in Missouri, making and managing mortgages in California. 7. Defendant Philipe Baltazar is a mortgage broker, operating in the State of California. 8. Defendant Steven A. Silverstein is a natural person and an attorney at law in the State of California. 9. Defendant Corey S. Cramin is a natural person and a Judge in
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Superior Court of Orange County, State of California. 10. The party or parties who make this Complaint were within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and at all times alleged herein. The Defendants are sued individually and officially. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 11. Each and every allegation set forth in each and every averment of this Complaint is hereby incorporated by this reference in each and every other averment and allegation of this Complaint. 12. Each plaintiff was deprived of an interest protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and defendants caused any such deprivation while acting under color of state law. 13. All acts or omissions alleged to have been engaged in by any defendant are alleged to have been engaged in with evil motive and intent, and in callous, reckless, and wanton disregard to the rights of any plaintiff. 14. Defendants State of California, knowingly, or grossly negligently, or deliberately indifferently to the constitutional rights of persons within the jurisdiction of United States of America, maintained or permitted an official policy or custom of permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs set forth herein below, and, based on the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is liable for all injuries sustained by any plaintiff as set forth hereinbelow THE FACTS 15. That PLAINTIFF, ANTOINE BACHA is the owner of the real property located at 25 Auvergne, Newport Coast, California (hereinafter Property) 16. That Defendant, PD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC, by and through
3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and with the assistance of DEFENDANTS, STEVEN A. SILVERSTEIN filed an unlawful detainer matter, Case No.: 30-2011-00489164, entitled PD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC V. BACHA(hereinafter the underlying matter) on July 2011, seeking to gain the unlawful possession of the Property from an purported foreclosure sale that is fraudulent in that Civil Code Section 2924. Transfer as security deemed mortgage or pledge; power of sale; requirements prior to sale; trustee liability; evidence of compliance; privileged communications; rebuttable presumption in pertinent part provides: (1) The trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents shall first file for record, in the office of the recorder of each county wherein the mortgaged or trust property or some part or parcel thereof is situated, a notice of default. That notice of default shall include all of the following: Civil Code Section 2924f. Sale or resale of property where there is a default on the obligation secured by the property; notice; contents; posting and publication; postponement for properties with five or more multifamily units (b)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), before any sale of property can be made under the power of sale contained in any deed of trust or mortgage, or any resale resulting from a rescission for a failure of consideration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2924h, notice of the sale thereof shall be given by posting a written notice of the time of sale and of the street address and the specific place at the street address where the sale will be held, and describing the property to be sold, at least 20 days before the date of sale in one public place in the city where the property is to be sold, if the property is to be sold in a city, or, if not, then in one public place in the judicial district in which the property is to be sold, and publishing a copy once a week for three consecutive calendar weeks, the first publication to be at least 20 days before the date of sale, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the city in which the property or some part thereof is situated, if any part thereof is situated in a city, if not, then in a newspaper of general circulation published in the judicial district in which the property or some part thereof is situated, or in case no newspaper of general circulation is published in the city or judicial district, as the case may be, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county in which the property or some part thereof is situated, or in case no newspaper of general circulation is published in the city or judicial district or county, as the case may be, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county in this state that (A) is contiguous to the county in which the property or some part thereof is situated and (B) has, by comparison with all similarly contiguous counties, the highest population based upon total county population as determined by the most recent federal decennial census published by the Bureau of the
4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Census. A copy of the notice of sale shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the property to be sold at least 20 days before the date of sale, where possible and where not restricted for any reason. If the property is a single-family residence the posting shall be on a door of the residence, but, if not possible or restricted, then the notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the property; however, if access is denied because a common entrance to the property is restricted by a guard gate or similar impediment, the property may be posted at that guard gate or similar impediment to any development community. Additionally, the notice of sale shall conform to the minimum requirements of Section 6043 of the Government Code and **be recorded with the county recorder of the county in which the property or some part thereof is situated at least 20 days prior to the date of sale. The notice of sale shall contain the name, street address in this state, which may reflect an agent of the trustee, and either a toll-free telephone number or telephone number in this state of the trustee, and the name of the original trustor, and also shall contain the statement required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (c). In addition to any other description of the property, the notice shall describe the property by giving its street address, if any, or other common designation, if any, and a county assessor's parcel number; but if the property has no street address or other common designation, the notice shall contain a legal description of the property, the name and address of the beneficiary at whose request the sale is to be conducted, and a statement that directions may be obtained pursuant to a written request submitted to the beneficiary within 10 days from the first publication of the notice. Directions shall be deemed reasonably sufficient to locate the property if information as to the location of the property is given by reference to the direction and approximate distance from the nearest crossroads, frontage road, or access road. If a legal description or a county assessor's parcel number and either a street address or another common designation of the property is given, the validity of the notice and the validity of the sale shall not be affected by the fact that the street address, other common designation, name and address of the beneficiary, or the directions obtained therefrom are erroneous or that the street address, other common designation, name and address of the beneficiary, or directions obtained therefrom are omitted. The term newspaper of general circulation, as used in this section, has the same meaning as defined in Article 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Chapter 1 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. I refer to and incorporate Grantor / Grantee Deed Main Index Search Results for Antoine Bacha establishing in the record all conveyances and title documents recorded to all properties owned by Antoine Bacha recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. I note that on Index Search

Results listed on row four with a recording date of 7/28/2009 and Document Number
5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2009-00403159, is a Trustees Deed. I refer to and incorporate Document Number 2009-00403159 recording date of 7/28/2009 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. APN# 936-46-140 I refer to and incorporate the APN Number and Property Address from the Treasurer Tax Collector Orange County California for APN# 936-46-140, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference. The APN# 936-46-140 is for a property address of 8 Anjou, Newport Coast, California. The document is not for the Property 25 Auvergne, Newport Coast, California. I note that on the In Index Search Results listed on row three with a recording date of 8/7/2008 and Document Number 2008-003758, is a Notice Of Trustee Sale. I refer to and incorporate Document Number 2008-003758 recording date of 8/7/2008 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference. Auvergne, Newport Coast, California. I note that on the In Index Search Results listed on row eleven with a recording date of 12/8/2010 and Document Number 2010-00660598, is a Notice Of Default. I refer to and incorporate Document Number 2010-00660598 recording date of 12/8/2010 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit D, and incorporated herein by this reference. The document is on the Property 25 The document is not for the Property 25 The document is for a property with an

Auvergne, Newport Coast, California recorded by Newport Ridge Summit Homeowners Association Inc. There is no Notice of Sale recorded on the Property, 25 Auvergne, Newport
6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Coast, California, evidencing any trustee sale. And there is no trustee sale. 17. That Plaintiff had to file bankruptcy on September 29, 2011, seeking to avoid losing the property through wrongful foreclosure and there is a case in Central District Bankruptcy Court Case No. 8:11-bk-23607-ES, In re ANTOINE BACHA 18. That PLAINTIFF alleges that the loan on the subject Property was procured by fraud. 19. That PLAINTIFF ANTOINE BACHA alleges CIT GROUP CONSUMER FINANCE, INC. And MARIX SERVICING LLC purported to Plaintiff to commence a foreclosure sale on the Property and the claim of default was false. 20. I refer to and incorporate the docket of Case Number 30-2011-00489164,

a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit E, and incorporated herein by this reference. I refer to and incorporate the Notice Of Removal, of Case Number 30-201100489164 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit F, and incorporated herein by this reference. Antoine Bacha filed Notice Of Removal on November 16, 2011. On January 12, and 17, 2010 Judge Corey S. Cramin, held proceedings on a case removed to bankrupty court - under the authorization of and without a lawful order of remand under the authorization of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9027 - in the conspiracy to violate Antoine Bachas constitutional rights to due process and to engage in the theft of possession of the property. I am now proceeding in pro per. On January 11, 2012 the attorney Jeremey Alberts who I had substituted to proceed in pro per, informed me that PD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, attorney had informed him that he had set an ex parte hearing on January 12, 2012. On January 12, 2012 the following occurred. I read from notes and stated, In regard to the ExParte Motion - - - What is the irreparable harm done to
7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

their case and provable to the court that justifies moving the date for the motion to be heard outside of normal Civil Code procedures as required under the authorization of Rule 3.1202 Paragraph C of the California Rules Of Court? Rule 3.102 Paragraph C provides an applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte, There is no irrepreprable harm therefore there is no reason for this to be heard before February 2, 2012. This appearance is costing everyone time and money and this motion is in violation of Section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure Paragraph 2 that are in force and effect, the claims defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law and Paragraph 3 that the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, and the Rule of Professional Conduct They should be sanctioned for their bad faith and unprofessional acts and ordered by Order To Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 for the Cost of the time and expense and to refrain from unnecessarily bringing us into the courtroom. At this point the court has no subject matter jurisdiction. There is no written, signed order by a federal district court judge. The article I bankruptcy judge implicitly determined that the removed adversary proceeding was a non-core matter As a result an article I bankruptcy judge is only authorized to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law as a matter for final determination by an article III judge. 28 U.S.C. Section 157. Procedures provides: (a) Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district. (c)(1) A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. In such proceeding, the bankruptcy judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected. Federal Rules Of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9033. Review of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Non-Core Proceedings provides (a) Service In non-core proceedings heard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(c)(1), the bankruptcy judge shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The clerk shall serve forthwith copies on all parties by mail and note the date of mailing on the docket. Thus the order of the judge is at most a proposed finding of fact and conclusion of law for final determination by article III federal district judge.
8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Therefore any order is not a final order it is only a proposed order on a noncore issue. It needs to be heard by the federal district judge to be a final order. In addition the Due Process Clause of 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution requires Notice and a Hearing, the order to remand was entered by Article I, Judge Erithe Smith without Notice and a Hearing. And I was not given notice, adequate opportunity to prepare a response, an opportunity to object, to file pleadings and raise relevant issues, and a non arbritrarily nor capriciously decided order but one based on established facts at a hearing and in authorization of settled law. See Williams v. Tooke, (1940) 108 F.2d 758. In In Re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, at page 1448, (9th California, May 10, 1985), the court held, that, a judgment is void, if the that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or parties, or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of Circuit court of the law.

There is no written, signed order by a federal district court judge. This court has no subject matter jurisdiction. Ruling on this matter at this time would not only constitute the public offense of treason but is also a violation of constitutional rights. This violation of law would entitle the victim to seek damages. The Judge stated, about not being clear on the intricacies of rules of orders and federal or bankruptcy judges. But that it did not matter to him because he works off of proposed orders and dockets all the time. Therefore the federal and bankruptcy rules do not apply. While I was reading the foregoing, part challenging the validity of the ex parte hearing being brought before the court The judge cut him off after two sentences. The judge told Antoine that these were not the issues that mattered. At no time did Steven D. Silverstein state with admissible evidence the grounds for irreparable harm. After reading the foregoing, the judge stated that that does not apply here and set the hearing The judge set motion to hear the MSJ on 1/19/2012 instead of 2/2/2012. On January 19, 2012 I filed a statement of disqualification after having found, of several acts that Corey Cramin has undertaken that are in violation of the law. I refer to and incorporate the Statement of Disqualification and

supporting evidentiary exhibits filed on January 19, 2012 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit G, and incorporated herein by this reference. On January 26, 2012, Corey Cramin struck the Statement Of Disqualification. In U.S.

v. Garrudo, 869 F.Supp. 1574, 1581 (S.D.Fla.,Sep 09, 1994) court stated, It seems clear to this court that the average person on the street will believe that if a
9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

federal judge is the subject of a criminal investigation, then that individual cannot conduct trials impartially. I refer to and incorporate the Order Striking

Challenge For Cause And Verified Answer Of Judge Corey S. Cramin filed on January 26, 2012 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit H, and incorporated herein by this reference. At page 4, line 3 Corey Cramin, quotes

and falsely attributes as the authors statement Rothman in the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, A judge is not disqualified simply because a participant in a case complains to the Fair Political Practices Commission while proceedings are pending, See Rothman, California Judicial Conduct Handbook 7.60 citing California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (2001)p.4 I refer to and incorporate

The pages from Rothman, California Judicial Conduct Handbook 7.60 a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated herein by this reference. At p. 372. Rothman states A judge is not disqualified in a matter where an attorney has complained to the Commission on Judicial Performance about the judge, 285 unless the judge is actually biased against the lawyer of the party as a result of the actions. COUNT ONE 21. At all times the rights of persons within the

jurisidiction of the United States of America under Amendment V, to procedural and substantive due process of law was in force and effect, including the right to notice and opportunity to be heard. The

opportunity to present evidence, before an impartial tribunal having jurisdiction of the cause, fundamental fairness, access to the courts, The right to be free from arbitrary and capricious acts, (Williams v. Tooke, 108 F.2d 758 (C.C.A.5 (Tex.),Jan 09, 1940)) And any defendant who violated those Fifth Amendment rights, thereby

violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and entitles plaintiff to recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants conduct proximately caused harm to plaintiff. State of California Amendment has right and to fosters due a policy and in took violating no action the to

Fourteenth correct it.

process

22. That as a direct proximate result of the acts and ommissions of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in the amount of at least $20,000,000, according to proof at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Antoine Bacha demand and pray for judgment to be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 1. On Count I, a finding that the acts and omissions of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, was in violation of 42. U.S.C. 1983 and is therefore contrary to law. 2. An Entry directing DEFENDANTS, and each of them to
A.

Pay $20,000,000 to Plaintiff

B. Pay interest at the statutory rate from January 31, the date of filing of this Complaint. 3. An injunction on the continuing activities of DEFENDANTS, THE CIT GROUP CONSUMER FINANCE INC. Steven D. Silverstan, Corey S. Cramin. And each of them in the underlying matter. 4. Provide Plaintiffs any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 31, 2012 ________________________________ ANTOINE BACHA PLAINTIFF, In pro per

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT A

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT B

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT C

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT D

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT E

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT F

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT G

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT H

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT I

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my address is 210 White Cape Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92656.

On November 15, 2011, I served the foregoing document described as:

NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1452, RULE 9027 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Office of the United States Trustee 411 West Fourth Street, Suite 9041 Santa Ana, California 92701-8000 Chapter 13 Trustee, Amrane Cohen 770 The City Drive South, Suite 3300 Orange, California 92868

BARRY LEE OCONNOR, ESQUIRE, STATE BAR NO. 134549 BARRY LEE OCONNOR, & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 3691 ADAMS STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92504 I deposited this envelope in the United States Postal Service Mail at Newport Beach, California. The envelope was mailed with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

___

Carrie Strand______

___________________________ Signature
21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT A

22