The Ballad of Mattie and Hattie

aikens3getty66 scan0030 chazen-Grasing's plumpj3 NOBLEis

When I heard Bob Dylan sing the ‘Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll. I felt every cell in my body being altered, forever. I knew the Revolution was on. I heard that the Civil Rights Movement was now joined by white folks. I knew Dylan was a Jew, a Messenger, a Sage who had a way with words that were Biblical! Woodie Guthrie was a Socialist and sang some of the mostly Godly songs ever written. Consider Bernie Sanders and his faith being tested by Debbie Wasserman, in a sickening betrayal of an alliance that Bernie took part in, and was arrested. We are talking about Socialism. You got a problem with that? I’m not pushing Socialism! I’m pushing Justice.

I did not know four of my great grandfathers were Socialist Forty-Eighters who fought the Habsburg Landlords and the Papal Army they led in battle against the greatest Revolution the world has never known, for it led to the Freeing of the Slaves in ‘The Land of the Free’.

Whenever I and my two sister would visit our father, Vic Presco, he would sit us down at his kitchen table and have us go thru back issues of a Real Estate paper, looking for homeowners who were Defaulting on their home loans, then, put their name on a post card. Desperate, they would call up Captain Vic for a loan. He had private lenders lurking in the background. One of them was Lawrence Chazen, who went after Mattie Aikens’ home that she was going to proudly leave her offspring. Very few black folks own such a legacy. I believe Mattie’s home was in good part of Oakland, near where we grew up.

Here is Christine in the Getty home, and Chazen at the Rosamond gallery after Christine was dead. On the wall is her painting of ‘Lena and her Sisters’. Lena was our black maid and second mother. She would take Christine home with her for an overnight with her sisters who lived together. They were from the South.

christine-1992-at-gettys-ny22 chazen-gal scan0064lena-and-her-sisters22

In 1994 my father was convicted of Loan Sharking after he took a woman’s house. I do not know the color of her skin. This color was a great concern to Donald Trump and his father because their bond was based upon being Real Estate Predatorship. They believed black people did not deserve homes, should never have been set free, and, thus they were doing America a service by taking these homes away from the Rightful Owners.

When Mattie’s Oakland home got slightly knocked off its foundation, and she went looking for a loan to fix the problem, there was a another rumbling. A shock wave went through the Predator Nation. Mattie and Willie did not know what was about to hit them, and, how visible they were. The Hyenas were coming for the kill of the Lions.

The line “A beef that got out of control” is a scream, because this means the Zebra broke lose from the jaws of the ferocious meat eaters – for a little while! Chazen was a partner in both Rosamond Carmel galleries. He owns a fancy Carmel restrurant, and owns shares in the oil wells off the coast of Israel. He is a executive for Noble Oil, and helped them relocate to Switzerland so they don’t have to pay taxes. Chazen did the same for his pal, Gordon Getty, whom he is in partnership with in PlumpJack.

When I read Chazen say; “I hope it doesn’t come to this, but it probably will!” I laughed! It was already a done deal – from the get! These Hyenas see the Real Estate Market as their personal bank. They see most homeowners as a means to make a withdrawal. Everyone is trying to keep up with the Jone’s and are maxing out their credit cards, then taking out a second mortgage. There are a thousand glowing eyes in the night, watching every hunk of beef that moves.

When Michael Harkins and I began our investigation in to how my sister – really died – I discovered Chazen had formed a partnership with Garth and Christine after Vic formed a partnership with his daughters. When I told my father this, the look on his face was classic. Here was a very greedy man who was just double-crossed by his greedy daughter. He was determined to get even, but, my sister was dead. Not for a second did he consider how I felt, because………….I wasn’t a player?

Game on!

Team Mattie & Willie were up against Team PlumpJack, and Team Oliver & Larry knew it. To let anyone – GO – was not good sport to them. They would look bad in front of their peers. We’re talking about a Feeding Frenzy!

Captain Vic owned to classic Chris-Craft that he docked in Martinez. Vic is hard at work as a Loan Shark in his Lafayette home. He smuggled his Mexican wife over the border in a marijuana shipment. He had ties to the Mexican Mafia. This is a mean man.

Jon Presco

vic30001 vic30003 vic30005 vic30006

Members of Gavin Newsom’s wine, restaurant, bar, resort and real estate partnerships since 1991:

Kevin & Bronwyn Brunner, John Burton, Casey and Michelle Cadwell, Bob and Barbara Callan, Frank Caufield, Donna Chazen, Lawrence Chazen, Joe & Victoria Cotchett, Michael & Hilary Decesare, Philip DeLimur, Don Dianda, Gretchen Dianda, Edward Everett, Richard Freemon, James Fuller, Stanlee Gatti, Robert Gerry, Andrew Getty, Ann Getty, Anna Getty, Chris Getty, Gordon Getty, Mark Getty, Peter Getty, Ronald Getty, Tara Getty, William “Billy” Getty, Robert Goldberg,Florianne Gordon, Stu Gordon, Gordon Goletto, David Goodman, Arthur Groza, Richard & Martha Guggenhime, Tony and Anthony Guilfoyle, Shelly Guyer, James & Shea Halligan, Bob & Jill Hamer, Erin Howard, Thomas Huntington, Isolep Enterprises (Paul and Nancy Pelosi family personal investment company), Peter Jacobi, Gaye Jenkins, Jeffrey Kanbar, Chad Kawai, David Lamonde, John Larson, Rob Lavoie, Leavitt/Weaver interior designers, Marc Leland, Maryon Davies Lewis, Anne McCutcheon, Chris McCutcheon, Ross McGowan, Rich McNally, Robert & Carole McNeil, Paul Mohun, Robert Mohun, Jeff Morin, Sara Moughan, Terry Moughan, Brian Mueth, Bob Naify, Marshall Naify, John Nees, Barbara Newsom, Brennan Newsom, Catherine & David Newsom, Gavin Newsom, Patrick Newsom,

Tessa Newsom, William Newsom, John O’Hara, Jack Owsley, Pacific Design, Matt Pelosi, Robynne Piggott, James Samuel Powers, Elizabeth Rice, Jeremy Scherer, Paul Scherer, Gary Schnitzer, Steve & Theresa Selover, Steve Siino, Trevor Traina, Chris Vietor, Francesca Vietor, Kenneth Weeman, Nicki West, Justin & Aridne Williams, Kevin Williams, Thomas & Kiyoko Woodhouse.

William Zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
Owns a tobacco farm of six hundred acres
With rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
And high office relations in the politics of Maryland
Reacted to his deed with a shrug of his shoulders
And swear words and sneering, and his tongue it was snarling

Zantzinger continued to collect rents, raise rents, and even successfully prosecute his putative tenants for back rent.[1] In June 1991, Zantzinger was initially charged with a single count of “deceptive trade practices.”[1] After some delay, Zantzinger pleaded guilty to 50 misdemeanor counts of unfair and deceptive trade practices.[17] He was sentenced to 19 months in prison and a $50,000 fine.[18] Some of his prison sentence was served in a work releaseprogram.[19]

In 2001, Zantzinger discussed the song with Howard Sounes for Down the Highway, the Life of Bob Dylan. He dismissed the song as a “total lie” and claimed “It’s actually had no effect upon my life”, but expressed scorn for Dylan, saying, “He’s a no-account son of a bitch, he’s just like a scum of a scum bag of the earth, I should have sued him and put him in jail.

In 1993, one of Aikens’ daughters recommended a contractor, Charles Jamerson of Fremont, because he had done some work for her boss. He, in turn, recommended Oliver as someone who could make the financing arrangements for him to begin work, Mattie Aikens said.

On Sept. 10, 1993, Oliver came to the house and spread dozens of loan documents across the brown kitchen table for Aikens and her son to sign. Oliver and Wilbert Aikens sat at the table, while Mattie mostly walked around the kitchen between signings.

Wilbert said he did recall the balloon payment being briefly discussed – but he was not left with the impression that the house would be jeopardized.


Mattie Aikens v. First Capital Finance: As alleged in court documents (24), Mattie Aikens is a 79-year old African-American widow and a resident of Oakland, California. Mrs. Aikens alleged that before becoming involved in the loan which is the subject of this litigation, she owned her home free and clear except for a $23,000 first deed of trust. She alleged that her income consisted of social security and a small pension. According to Mrs. Aikens, she has a minimal education and was not well versed in financial matters.

Mrs. Aikens alleged that she decided in early 1993 to fix the foundation to her house which was damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. She contacted a contractor who toured her house. According to Mrs. Aikens’ court complaint, after the contractor reviewed her home, the project expanded from only foundation repair to include an entire house remodel, including turning the downstairs garage into living quarters. She alleges that the contractor led her to First Capital Finance (First Capital), a mortgage brokerage company, in order to arrange the financing for the work. First Capital required a co-signer for the loan. According to court documents, the contractor estimated that the work would cost $88,073.

Mrs. Aikens and two of her sons signed a home repair contract with the contractor which Mrs. Aikens now alleges did not comply with many aspects of the law governing home improvement contracts. She also alleges that the contract failed to include required notices about certain homeowners’ rights to a mechanics lien release and their right to require the contractor to provide a performance bond.

Mrs. Aikens’ legal complaint states that First Capital proposed a 30-year fixed loan in a gross amount of $121,600 to be paid out over seven years, with monthly payments of $1,464.90 and a final balloon payment of $120,080. The proposed interest rate was 14.25 percent and the transaction fee would have been $15,791. Mrs. Aikens alleges that after an appraisal was completed, which was part of the loan proposal, there were a series of changes made to the work contract. According to court documents, those changes were not properly signed off by all of the parties to the original work order, as the law requires. Mrs. Aikens alleges that eventually, the lender drew up a promissory note which was for a principal amount of $160,750 at an interest rate of 13.5 percent for eleven months with a final balloon payment of $162,172 due in the twelfth month. Monthly payments on the note were $1,841.25, increasing Mrs. Aikens’ total monthly indebtedness to $2,291.25 (25). Mrs. Aikens’ alleges that the principal included $17,480 in fees to First Capital and of this amount, $16,075 was taken by First Capital as a “loan origination fee.”

Mrs. Aikens and her son Wilbert allege that a First Capital representative, Mr. Oliver, had assured them they shouldn’t worry about the balloon payment because the contract would be “re-written” at the end of the first year. According to court documents, he told them that when that happened, their payments would go down and they would have a regular 30-year loan. They allege that based upon this oral representation, they signed the loan documents. The loan documents, however, did not contain this assurance. According to court documents, when the first 12 months had passed, First Capital offered Mrs. Aikens and her son, Wilbert, not a conventional 30-year loan but another balloon payment loan for a total new debt of $240,000.

Mrs. Aikens alleged that in the end, the work the contractor performed was substandard at best. According to court documents, the Aikens’ home roof leaks worse than it did originally. The downstairs walls are covered in mildew caused by poor drainage and/or the leaky roof. There is no working electricity in the living room and hallway. The house continues to slope in large areas caused by the foundation problems. Mrs. Aikens alleged that balconies were removed from in front of French windows, and were never replaced, creating hazardous conditions.

According to court documents, Mrs. Aikens and Wilbert attempted to refinance the First Capital loan with her senior lienholder, American Savings. According to Mrs. Aikens, they obtained approval on a 30-year finance of the First Capital loan. Court documents allege, however, that before the close of escrow the contractor made a demand on the American Savings escrow, claiming he hadn’t been paid for $18,000 of work on the Aikens home. He then filed a mechanics lien. Court documents allege that these actions effectively ended Mrs. Aikens’ hopes of refinancing the First Capital loan with one by American Savings.

The court documents allege that when the family refused to enter into a new agreement with First Capital, the property went into foreclosure. Mrs. Aikens filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy to stop the foreclosure sale. Mrs. Aikens home was sold through a trustee’s sale. When Mrs. Aikens was about to be evicted from her home, her story made the front page of the San Francisco Examiner (26). Mrs. Aikens’ plight immediately drew the interest of concerned regulators who prompted investigations into the origins of Mrs. Aikens case. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) commenced an immediate investigation into First Capital based upon allegations of violations of the Fair Housing Act made by Mrs. Aikens. That investigation is ongoing.

On April 10, 1998, First Capital (also known as Homeowners Resources Corporation) and its principals, Charles Oliver and Cynthia Cecil Oliver, filed a complaint for damages against several news organizations and Consumers Union alleging defamation in the form of libel and slander. Consumers Union denies these allegations (27).

HAS the party of Lincoln just nominated a racist to be president? We shouldn’t toss around such accusations lightly, so I’ve looked back over more than 40 years of Donald Trump’s career to see what the record says.

One early red flag arose in 1973, when President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department — not exactly the radicals of the day — sued Trump and his father, Fred Trump, for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals.

I’ve waded through 1,021 pages of documents from that legal battle, and they are devastating. Donald Trump was then president of the family real estate firm, and the government amassed overwhelming evidence that the company had a policy of discriminating against blacks, including those serving in the military.

To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental.

A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it. A Trump rental agent said the Trumps wanted to rent only to “Jews and executives,” and discouraged renting to blacks.

Donald Trump furiously fought the civil rights suit in the courts and the media, but the Trumps eventually settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government. Three years later, the government sued the Trumps again, for continuing to discriminate.

In fairness, those suits date from long ago, and the discriminatory policies were probably put in place not by Donald Trump but by his father. Fred Trump appears to have been arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1927; Woody Guthrie, who lived in a Trump property in the 1950s, lambasted Fred Trump in recently discovered papers for stirring racial hatred.

Yet even if Donald Trump inherited his firm’s discriminatory policies, he allied himself decisively in the 1970s housing battle against the civil rights movement.

Another revealing moment came in 1989, when New York City was convulsed by the “Central Park jogger” case, a rape and beating of a young white woman. Five black and Latino teenagers were arrested.

First Alliance Mortgage Co. Cases: Five lawsuits were filed in the San Francisco Bay Area against First Alliance Mortgage Co. since August 1996. These suits include significant private attorney general causes of action for unlawful and unfair business practices. Some of the alleged practices include misrepresenting the nature and terms of loans, not providing borrowers with required disclosures and documentation, rushing borrowers through the loan closing process, and deliberately covering up disclosure information while directing borrowers to the signature line on documents. Some borrowers allege that First Alliance induced them to sign separate mandatory arbitration agreements which would bar their access to having a court of law decide any dispute with between these borrowers and the company. They say that they did not know they were signing such an agreement and that they did not intend to enter into any such arrangement with First Alliance. So far, the courts have refused to enforce these agreements in four instances.

Several of the lawsuits have been filed on behalf of indigent elders. In some cases, plaintiffs suffered from physical and mental disabilities. In many cases, borrowers allege they did not meet their borrowing objectives, were placed in loans far in excess of what they requested, and paid loan origination fees far in excess of what they were told.

The remedy requested is injunctive relief as well as disgorgement of illicit profits. If successful, the litigation seeks to recover disgorgement of the total volume of loan origination fees (or between $20 and $30 million dollars per year) for four years. Currently, these cases are in litigation.

On May 6, 1998, The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) filed a motion to join the lawsuits. “AARP takes very seriously these abusive financial practices aimed at the most economically vulnerable homeowners,” said Nina Simon, an attorney with AARP Foundation Litigation. “The Association is ready to take legal action against those lenders who prey on older homeowners,” she added. AARP charges that First Alliance Mortgage Co., one of the largest subprime lenders, targets the most vulnerable homeowners and charges fees eight to ten times those of mainstream banks or savings and loans. According to AARP, the victims, typically older homeowners, often end up losing the equity in their home and have no way to replenish their lost “nest egg.”

Litigation is but one avenue to pursue to seek redress for those wronged by unscrupulous lending practices. Homeowners with serious cases of home equity lending fraud and abuse are finding more help as more lawyers become proficient in managing the complexities of these cases. Cases involving home equity lending fraud and abuse have taken on a higher profile as the public has become more aware and outraged about lending practices that exceed the bounds of what is acceptable even though in some cases, those practices may not be illegal.


1997-04-13 04:00:00 PDT OAKLAND — When the roof started leaking and the foundation started slipping on Mattie Aikens’ home of 37 years, she knew it was finally time to scrape together some money to make the necessary improvements.

So she did what she thought was best: She took out a loan and looked forward to living in her home for many more years.

It may have been the worst decision of her life.

Now, with her roof still dripping and her two-story house in the Oakland hills in far worse condition than before, the 78-year-old widow is about to evicted.

After Aikens was unable to come up with a stunningly large single payment on the loan – more than $160,000 – within a one-year deadline, the lender foreclosed. At least two other similar cases involved loans arranged by the same company.

“They stole my house,” Aikens said. “And I paid them to steal it.”

She was told she wouldn’t have to worry, Aikens recalls, when she put her shaky signature on a formal-looking financial agreement filled with sophisticated phrases. But she is filled with worry as her April 24 eviction looms.

“This disturbs me awful bad, baby. I be in tears. I be in tears all the time,” she said recently as she stood outside the home where she raised her 10 children, and where many of her 57 grandchildren and great-grandchildren regularly visit her. “I’ve never harmed one person in my life. And now look what’s happened to me.”

What happened to her – and to dozens of other seniors in the area, according to an Oakland housing counselor – is that they signed intricate loan documents to fix their homes, often after being wooed by brokers who told them they could repay them with low monthly payments.

Many of the loans have “balloon payments,” when the entire balance of the loan is due after years – or just months – of low payments. But that important detail was not adequately explained to them, Aikens and others say – and if it had been, they would not have agreed to the deal.

Court documents show that the same company – First Capital Finance in Hayward, a partnership run by Robert Cox, Charles H. Oliver Jr. and Cynthia Cecil Oliver – has made at least two other loans following the same formula. The firm has since folded, and its owner, Cox, pleaded guilty to six counts of grand theft. He is serving time at Folsom State Prison for defrauding investors.

The cases both involve single, elderly women with no experience in such transactions and living on modest fixed incomes. Both said in court documents that they were not told of the balloon payments and were devastated when faced with foreclosure.

Seniors are often targeted because their homes are valuable and they are not educated about the terminology of loan transactions, say lawyers and consumer advocates. In many cases, the mortgages are almost paid off. Aikens owed just $5,000 on her home and was living off the $1,000 a month she received from Social Security and her late husband’s pension.

Aikens said the contractor never even finished the job, leaving her home in such disrepair that some rooms have no electricity – and the roof still leaks.

“This is the archetypal story of an elderly, minority widow being taken advantage of to extreme levels,” said Paul Daly, assistant manager of a San Ramon bank, who tried unsuccessfully to help bail Aikens out of her financial woes.

“It is evident that the contractor and lender were, and are, intent on foreclosing and subsequently taking over the property due to the level of equity of the property,” he wrote in an internal memo sent to another bank official while investigating the situation.

Son cosigned loan<

Aikens’ loan was handled by Charles H. Oliver Jr. of First Capital Finance – who has since started another company,Homeowners Resources Corp., also in Hayward.

Oliver refused to discuss details of Aikens’ situation – or any connection with First Capital Finance – because of confidentiality restrictions, other than to say the transaction was legitimate.

“There was full knowledge and disclosure, but it is an unfortunate situation,” he said.

He also said Aikens’ eldest son, Wilbert, cosigned on the $160,000 loan, and should have been fully aware of the agreement.

Reviewing Aikens’ truth-in-lending disclosure statement, Daly said there were telltale signs that the loan was troublesome.

The document, one of about 30 prepared in the loan process, reveals an unusually high annual percentage rate of 25.5 percent – “pretty much highway robbery,” Daly said, explaining that a normal rate is typically around 10 percent.

Another problem: The $162,172.21 balloon payment due in the 12th month was more than the original loan. In fact, much of the first 11 monthly payments of $1,841.25 went toward a $17,652.44 loan processing fee.


Other elderly hit by similar deals<

Oakland attorney Christine Noma – who represents the two other women who signed similar loan agreements with First Capital Finance – said some brokers prey on the elderly, knowing that most are unfamiliar with real estate deals.

When she questioned Cox, the First Capital Finance president, in a deposition last year, he conceded that one elderly borrower could not repay the loan without refinancing – or “she could win the lottery.”

“But was it your collective opinion that (the widow) did not have the income to save the money herself to pay off the balloon (payment)?” Noma asked.

“That is a given,” Cox replied.

Noma is concerned about the psychological impact for victims of such deals.

“The real damage is that elderly women are becoming homeless when they were once financially independent and living in their own house,” she said. “Suddenly, they are robbed of their independence … and are left struggling when they should be enjoying the last years of their lives.”

Unscrupulous loan brokers can pick targets by searching public records, pulling deeds and seeing who owns valuable homes that are nearly paid off, said Ray Leon, housing counseling supervisor for the Oakland Community and Economic Development agencies. They also can see whether a widow is the sole owner and can arrange to visit to see if repairs are needed.

“We’ve seen cases where these loans are arranged and the borrower barely has $50 or $100 left over to live off of,” Leon said.

“In other words, brokers are expecting foreclosure when making the loan,” said Robin Yamate of the Oakland-based Legal Assistance for Seniors. “And the seniors do not realize this.

“It’s really difficult to undo these deals because these are sophisticated lenders, and it’s very difficult for us to prove that the senior did not understand when they signed a disclosure statement that says they did,” she said.

The Aikens home<

Mattie Aikens, a lean woman who wears her hair neatly pinned up beneath a scarf, said she would not have signed had she been aware of the details. Her husband, Walter, whom she married when she was 13, handled the finances until he died in 1987. After the couple came to California from Missisippi in 1933, Mattie worked in the fields and at canneries while Walter was employed as a warehouseman.

Everyone in the family agrees that by 1993 the home – built in 1910 – needed repairs. The roof leaked, and they believed some remodeling would make it easier for Aikens to handle household chores.

In 1993, one of Aikens’ daughters recommended a contractor, Charles Jamerson of Fremont, because he had done some work for her boss. He, in turn, recommended Oliver as someone who could make the financing arrangements for him to begin work, Mattie Aikens said.

On Sept. 10, 1993, Oliver came to the house and spread dozens of loan documents across the brown kitchen table for Aikens and her son to sign. Oliver and Wilbert Aikens sat at the table, while Mattie mostly walked around the kitchen between signings.

Wilbert said he did recall the balloon payment being briefly discussed – but he was not left with the impression that the house would be jeopardized.

“(Oliver) explained we would pay for the year, and then just before the end of the year, before the balloon was due, the contract would be rewritten and he would try to get the payments lowered,” Wilbert said. “Everything seemed on the up and up.”

To make it even easier, Oliver said he would arrange to oversee the payments to Jamerson himself, Aikens and her son said.

After 90 minutes, Oliver collected the papers in his briefcase, clicked it shut and was out the door with a smile and a handshake.

Jamerson’s construction left much to be desired, Mattie Aikens and her children said. Much remains unfinished, and the Aikens family has not heard from him since September 1994. Jamerson did not return a reporter’s repeated calls to his office seeking comment.

It was raining that September, Wilbert Aikens explained, and the family understood that some delay was necessary – even though some walls of the home were gone and left wide open while Mattie Aikens and three of her children continued to live there.

The weather cleared, but Jamerson did not return, saying that he needed more money to continue the work, Wilbert Aikens said.

Aikens and her children approached several lawyers with their case, asking for help – but the cost of retaining them was prohibitive.

“I can’t believe what he did to my house,” said Mattie Aikens, sitting in her dining room, which has side doors hanging from a splintered frame. “There was nothing wrong with those doors, but he took them down and then put them up like that.”

In the kitchen behind her, drawers are crooked and the linoleum curves over uneven flooring. Botched electrical work has left two rooms and the front hallway without power. Leaks in the roof and the foundation cause greenish-black mildew to crawl up the walls of downstairs rooms.

Aikens became even more depressed after learning that Jamerson had filed a lien, thus preventing any refinancing. Ultimately, that led to eviction papers being hand-delivered to her March 28 – by Oliver himself.

“I couldn’t believe he could do that to me,” she said.

“If I have to move, I’ll just collapse. I don’t know if I can stand it.” <

1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 19867 December 5, 1997, Decided December 5 1997, Filed; December 10, 1997, Entered in Civil Docket DISPOSITION: (*1) Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw from Court to DENIED and December 8, 1997 hearing on this matter VACATED. COUNSEL: For MATTIE AIKENS, WILBERT AIKENS, Plaintiffs: John Poppin, San Francisco, CA. For MATTIE AIKENS, WILBERT AIKENS, Plaintiffs: Matthew J. Shier, Poppin & Shier, San Francisco, CA. For MATTIE AIKENS, WILBERT AIKENS, Plaintiffs: John H. Erickson, Alice M. Beasley, Guerrero, Beatrice Liu, Erickson Beasley Hewitt Wilson, Oakland, CA. JUDGES: THELTON E. HENDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. JUDGE OPINIONBY: THELTON E. HENDERSON OPINION: ORDER Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter have moved this Court to withdraw from Bankruptcy Court to District Court the adversary proceeding currently pending before the Bankruptcy Court in Case No. 97-04422 AN. The motion has been briefed fully, and is heard on December 8 , 1997. The Court finds the issue to be however, and hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion. On June 10, 1997, plaintiffs filed a Alameda County Superior Court alleging eighteen state law causes of Certain of these defendants, the “Chazen defendants removed the matter to , which was already presiding over plaintiff Mattie Aikens’ Chapter 13 petition. On September 17, 1997, Bankruptcy Judge Newsome indicated during a status would remand the preceding back to state court within thirty days unless the allow a jury trial to proceed in Bankruptcy Court, or (2) filed a district court. prepared to stipulate to trying the case before a jury in the Bankruptcy Court, the “Oliver defendants” did not so agree. On October 8, 1997, plaintiffs filed a motion before the Bankruptcy Judge to certify the matter to District Court for a jury trial. Simultaneously, plaintiffs also filed in proceeding from Bankruptcy Court. On October 15 , 1997, the Chazen defendants filed a motion to ‘ first complaint in Bankruptcy Court, in which the Oliver defendants joined. On , 1997, Judge Newsome, before whom the motion for certification and motion to motions off calendar, because he felt that this Court was the appropriate Court to determine those issues: Plaintiffs w

kruptcy Court, deny defendants’ motion to dismiss, and set the matter for jury trial in this Court. Plaintiffs seem to have filed this lawsuit they chose the California to be the forum. If this case cannot be tried by jury in Bankruptcy Court desire) because the Oliver stipulate, it plaintifft’ chosen forum — for BLR. 9015-2(b) applies only to proceedings that previously have been referred from pursuant to B.L.R. 5011- 1. When the Bankruptcy Court determines that a matter that began in state court and was removed to Bankruptcy Court is not properly before the Bankruptcy Court, the matter must be remanded back to state court. See B.L.R. 9015(2)(f). Accordingly, and for good cause shown, plaintiffs motion is DENIED, and the December 8 , 1997 hearing on this matter is VACATED. If the determines (*4) that it cannot preside over a jury trial in this matter under 28 Us.e. 157(e), the matter must be remanded to state court for further proceedings, during which defendants’ motion to dismiss may be converted to a state law demurrer. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED 12/5/97 THEL TON E. HENDERSON, CHIEF JUDGE

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Ballad of Mattie and Hattie

  1. Reblogged this on Rosamond Press and commented:

    I found the name Charles Aikens in Ed Howard’s Oakland History. ““I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and an attorney
    on record for 50% interest in Shannon Rosamond. In my 16 years as a member of
    the State Bar California, I have never experienced a more deliberate fraud on
    any court or more reckless and calculated attempt to fraudulently take control
    of a probate estate at the exclusion of the lawful heirs and total manipulation
    of a tester’s intent that the present efforts of Attorney’s Robin Beare,
    Lawrence J. Chazen and Garth Benton, the descendants former spouse.”
    “Over the specific argument of Ms. Beare, Judge Silver refused to appoint Mr.
    Chazen. Neither Ms. Beare nor Mr. Chazen disclosed to the court the very
    critical fact that Mr. Chazen has the largest single creditor’s claim against
    the estate and is a former business partner and business associate of Garth
    Benton who the court had removed as Special Administer just moments before.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: