Lomas v Bank of America - Fraud and Extortion continue in the California Court of Appeal, (tags)
The case in the Los Angeles Superior Court, where proceedings were secretly noted as "off of the record", was opined as Fraud and Extortion by Bank of America in collusion with Judge Peter Meeka and Clerk John A Clarke. The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, appears ready, willing, and able to follow suit in conducting a pretense appeal.
Lomas v Bank of America – Fraud Turns into Extortion in the Los Angeles Superior Court (tags)
The case should be properly considered now Extortion, and no longer Fraud. All sides are now fully cognizant of the true nature of the litigation. Given the number of cases of this kind that have been recorded in the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Court should be considered a racket.
Lomas files for disqualification of Judge Meeka, calls “quits” to charades in the Los Ange (tags)
The case is opined as Fraud on the Court. It is doubted that Judge Meeka will comply with the law. Los Angeles judges do not consider 'quits' part of the game of charades.
BofA and its President Brian Moynihan - Public Corruption and Racketeering in Lomas v BofA (tags)
Ongoing tolerance of racketeering by Bank of America makes mockery of laws established by the US Congress in effort to restore the integrity of US financial systems. Real estate and financial institutions fraud under the guise of court actions in the Los Angeles Superior Court goes back for over a decade - a hallmark of the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket).
California Judge Meeka is asked to declare benefits from BofA (tags)
Lomas v BofA (KC059379) – California Judge Peter Meeka is Requested to Restore Due Process, Declare Any Financial Benefits to Him by BofA ____ The case is opined as Fraud on the Court through collusion of BofA, California Judge Peter Meeka, and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke.