January 17, 2017

Fortunately, there are periods in my adult life when the law is enforced, justice works, and wrongs are righted.  This day, January 17, 2017, a decade ago such energy came to life when the BAP, bankruptcy appellate panel, with a plain reading of the law, the  BAP reversed the bankruptcy court. The case 04-1456 was about the same law, 11 USC 362, as in my earlier appeal about my home. The appeals court reaffirmed current law, and ordered damages be awarded. 

The Published Opinion January 17, 2006. 

By  2011, the law changed when earlier the BAP ruled the bankruptcy court must consider violations of law, (in re Nathan Johnson) that happened during the pendency of the case, and even after the case was dismissed.  

I filed a motion for sanctions, and the court clerk gave me a date, February 14, 2011.  and time for a hearing,  with the clerk for February 14, 2011, and filed all necessary pleadings,. On Valentine's day, I arrived early to discover the case had been dismissed on January 27. 2011, eighteen days earlier, and eight days after the deadline to appeal had expired. 

I filed a notice with the court informing them I had not received notice of this dismissal until I arrived at court and discovered my case was dismissed 18 days earlier, past the time to appeal. 

Believing a writ of mandamus was the proper way to cure these legal difficulties,  I filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, on May 2, 2011, with the BAP, which was denied about 20 days later. 

Judge Jury, my bankruptcy judge, now on this 7 member judge panel was not one of the 3 deciding judges that declined it.   It did, however, cause me to recheck my studies in sociology, about group dynamics, that favor senior members thoughts and opinionios. 

Current Status

The 9th circuit court of appeals decided in a split decision that this BAP, did not have the authority to even consider a writ, let alone decide its worthiness. Case dismissed,.after that the American Bar Association, the California Bankruptcy Forum, Thomas Phinney, and a Professor at The University of Michigan all filed 'amicus briefs' friend of the court briefs in support of my position.

The court decided from a full reconsideration, denying my constitutional, rights to redress, hey guy's remember that, and found it easier and more expedient to get rid of this pesky litigant. 

In over 15 years of litigation, not once, have the bankers, or 'Financial Institutions' as the court prefers to call these criminals. The banksters,  Chase / Ocwen have never once denied my charges. They know they are guilty as can be. Jamie Dimon, Bill Erbey, do you really want to go to the Supreme Court with this ?