42 USC 1983 UP-DATE

Angry judge slamming the gravel and yelling
It’s Time To Step Up!

42 USC 1983 Update- Review came in along with a few tips from others struggling with the illegal court process in California. The B. A. R. members/judges have twisted the legal system in California to require a judge’s signature before one could place a lis pendens lien against your property in illegal foreclosure. The lis pendens lien prevents the illegal foreclosure process from continuing with pending litigation.

Can One File A Lien Against:

The attorney’s lawsuit???

Can one file a lien against a criminal case?

Can one file a civil rights lawsuit in a different state to avoid the shit the folks in California are dealing with?

My job as a coach is to develop different game plans to control the game and make the other parties give up. I have no idea if the stuff mentioned above would have value. In my next webinar, I will discuss the abovementioned issue and outline the new 42 USC 1983 criminal offensive lawsuit package against state or federal prosecutors. 42 USC 1983 Up-date offer a new option to take control of the court process.

Yuri, provided a link to a youtube video that could have value for your strategy when you need to turn up the heat. This video is not a part of my program yet; review its value for yourself. I included it to offer options others found valuable.

Thank You, Yuri

Hi Coach!!

A quick update from your student and your 41 USC 1983 package user.

  1. Your package rocks and empowers me.   I found all kinds of nuggets in the package and the bonus packages you sent me.  I am implementing and having fun with it.  THANK YOU!!
  2. As shared in our webinar, California makes things more challenging for us.  I learned the following.  Please pass it on to your students in California.
    • In a UD Court, Counterclaim / Crossclaim is not allowed in California because the unlawful detainer eviction cases are summary proceedings in California and are designed to progress much faster than other court cases. -> I added this fact as a lack of due process/violation of civil rights to my state lawsuit.
    • Knowing they don’t allow counterclaim/crossclaim to be filed, I tried to file it anyway to see what happens.  The clerks – 3 of them, tried very hard to help me record it; they spent 40 minutes; only to discover that the SYSTEM DOES NOT ALLOW IT to be RECORDED.  This is Los Angeles County.
    • BTW, since the SYSTEM kicked it out, I had the Clerk change the title by adding “NOTICE OF….” in front of the lawsuit title, and it went through. LOL
    • So In California, we must go straight to the State Court and file a Claim against the State, the Judge, the Attorneys, etc., as the Plaintiff.
  3. Debbie, my friend who introduced me to your webinar, has been dealing with the SAME CRIMINAL PARTIES as me.  She filed the 42 USC 1983 lawsuit in Federal court.  She shared the following challenges:
    • Based on the research, this is a very smart move on their part in CALIFORNIA – where it 1) raises a bar for the plaintiff to show evidence of the claim and 2) the Complaint cannot be amended, and 3) when they succeed in attacking 1 claim; all claims will go down, etc. and 4) there is a CASE LAW in California Supreme Court to support this Anti-SLAPP motion.
    • I told Debbie she should 
  1. Motion to Strike Appearance of the Attorney regardless of whether they filed the NOTICE OF APPEARANCE or not; AND
  2. To stick with attacking the unlawful court process/procedures by a) OBJECT b) Demand for Reconsideration c) Notice of Recusal d) Recuse the judge for helping the attorney.
  3. Also….if she has to amend her complaint, can’t she just file an amendment – regardless of if it’s allowed or disallowed by the unlawful ANTI-SLAPP MOTION?
  4. Am I right in my way of thinking?  We attack the process, not what they are saying.  We don’t want to end up arguing about what they are saying – cause that’s what they want us to do.  I think you said that, and that makes sense to me.
  5. My other friend forwarded me information about someone who succeeded in a Court Case being terminated through a “W4 Sandwich Process”.  The process triggers an IRS audit against the parties such as THE SUPERIOR COURT, JUDGE(S), ATTORNEY(S), etc., who are accessing our on-ledger/off-ledger ACCOUNT(S).  So rather than paying the assessed amount ($250K in court cases), they chose to TERMINATE the suit in this person’s case.  I’m attaching the video explaining this process. ABOUT 10 MIN MARK re the W4 Process.  ABOUT 47 MIN MARK, she talks about her experience dealing with a Court.

This Link Is To The Non-Judicial Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuit Package:


This Link Is To My New Judicial Foreclosure Defense Lawsuit Package: https://winincourtnow.com/product/judicial-foreclosure-defense-lawsuit-package/