2) Real Estate Transcation Fraud  Part 2 - Damages - During escrow and after the close of escrow  over 40 acts of representation/disclosure fraud committed by Forstein and his Agent, Kent Weinstein. Many of the acts of fraud were verified by Forstein and Weinstein themselves during escrow.  Forstein and Weinstein, via their written statements and actions in escrow,  made it very clear they did not feel false statements and omissions made in representations / disclosure documents could be deemed fraudulent if the fraud was discovered during escrow and they admitted to knowledge at that time  -- as if Jue v Smiser 1994 did not exist or did not apply.   And as if there was no contract at time of "Agreement". 

3) Inability to engage CA Attorneys indicated systemic failure in California Civil System  - During a 3 year period  over 80 California Licensed Attorneys were contaced for representation. No CA attorney would admit or indicate representations / disclosure statements had to be made prior to forming a contract.  No CA attorney disclosed the existence of Jue vs Smiser 1994 which proves reliance for fraud is at time of contract acceptance, not close of escrow. No CA Attorney provided CA Bar Documentation from 2011 and 2018 that discussed Jue v Smiser for use in complaints just like ours.  No CA Attorney would discuss the fraud related to the latent defects we discovered after close of escrow, even given the support of attestation statements of neighbors which could be used to independently verify initial conditions.  No explanation for this behavior by over 80 CA Attorneys was given, made evident,  or discovered  at that time.  It was presumed to be related to fear of the Brokerages and their long standing fraudulent contract formation practices. 

4) Attorneys for the Seller engaged in Fraud  - Forstein hired Attorney Paul Kibel to support him. Kibel is Forstein’s cousin. Kibel made false statements about confidentiality requirements in pre-litigation dialogue as well as false statements about representation/disclosure law. Kibel and his firm eventually sought malpractice protection. 

Buyers then filed a comlaint in Pro Se to attempt to recover $250,000 in fraud via 40 different quantifiable acts.

Forstein was turned over to Attorney Ken Gorman of Santa Cruz CA. Gorman answered a Verified complaint with a general denial instead of demurrer or moving to stike given some obvious structural defects in the complaint.  Plaintiffs waited to address the general denial  at the first case management meeting. Judge Vanessa Vallarta told them their time to demur his response had expired. Gorman refused to stipulte to an ammended complaint to get initial facts established prior to engaging in discovery.  Gorman produced Admit Statements indicating he believed a contract was formed at time of "contract acceptance", but that   “contract acceptance”  was not and is not relevant for reliance timing for representations and disclosure statements contrary to Jue v Smiser and the requirements of mutual understanding when forming a conctract.  Gorman's admits made it seem as if he believed “As is Sales” relieve a seller of liability from disclosure statements  -- all contrary to numerous statutes, long standing case precedent, and common sense that was presented to he and his client.  In summary, Gorman had a trapped client and he was bill churning. 

5) Voluntary Dismissal - After  2 rounds of discovery with Gorman, buyers had collected the evidence needed to expose Kibel, Gorman, 4 Judges and the legal lobby in general with engaging in a multi decade fraud related to the contract formation inversion process and promotion of fraud for profits (a total of 5 separate lawsuits were filed to obtain as much relevant data as possible).   At the end of the 2nd round of  Discovery with Forstein, plaintiffs were told Forstein had lost his job. At that point Plaintiffs  viewed Gorman as someone who would go to the end of the earth to unlawfully protect his client and his client as “judgment proof” for numerous reasons. Plaintiffs notified Gorman they would be voluntarily dismissing the complaint, and then it was voluntarily dismissedt, but not until other bizarre actions transpired to show group collusion between attorneys. 

6) Motion for Attorney Fees -  Attorney Ken Gorman filed a 150+ page motion for Attorney Fee shifting for  $145,000 for his client after the Plaintiffs Voluntary Dismissal  (and prior to any motion hearings or adjudication process ).  The motion only referenced 1 case precedent that was Real Estate specific  and Gorman simply stated that gave the judge "discretion" to transfer attorneys fees.  An opposition document was filed by plaintiffs how had to specualte on his legal basis and covered all possible basis any proper attorney might have pursued.  Gorman then filed a 10+ page reply stating emphatically the money was due for frivilous lawsuit and/or abuse of discovery with no case precedents or logical facts to support that.
 

1. The 160+ pages filed by Gorman made a case for attorney fee shifting based on 1)  “abuse of litigation and/or abuse of discovery” with no case precedents to support that and 2) a reference to CIV 1717 by number with relevance that was questionable and/or confusion. Three case precedents were also provided by Gorman. Two were irrelevant, and the one that may have been relevant to some degree, Gorman summarized by stating it gave rise to “judicial discretion” for the aware of attorney fees, with no clear reference as to what part of the precedent he was referring to or what the criteria was for that discretion. 
   
   

2. The 160+ pages filed by Gorman contains NONE of the following numbers:  1021, 1032, 1033.5 nor any clear reference to reliance on statutes with those numbers for his position
   
   

3. The 160+ pages filed by Gorman contain no reference to Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc 1992 nor any reliance at all on that for his position on Attorney Fee Shifting for Voluntary Dismissals. 

7) Practicing Law from Bench in Motion  -- Judge Ian Rivamonte held a motion hearing. He started out by stating his position was to shift the fees and he and Gorman spoke for about 10 minutes prior to turning to plaintiffs who asked for the legal basis.  Rivamonte referenced Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc 1992 , 1021, 1032, 1033.5, and stated that because the lawsuit arose from the contract, legal fees were due to the Seller.  Except that the dispute did NOT arise from the contract, it arose from Disclosure Documents signed under penalty of purjury 10 days prior to contract acceptance, which was done without presention of those documents.  Rivamonte refused to discuss those material facts and several others -- nor the fact that the position and details he presented were not presented in 160 pages of motion documents. 

8) Judicial Fraud  in Order - Rivamonte referenced  issued a 12 page order granting Attorney Fee Shifting of $118,000 after a reduction in fees.

1. 1. The 12 page order includes a clear and direct statement indicating Gorman’s motion was NOT filed for abuse of process or litigation at all, in direct contrast to 90% of the 160 pages of documents plaintiffs were required to respond to and a direct statement by Gorman that indicated that’s what gave rise to Judicial Discretion.
      
      

   2. The 12 page order indicates CIV 1717 was not relevant for attorney fee shifting.
      
      

   3. The 12 page order references CCP 1021, 1032 and 1033.5 as a basis for the shift while miscategorizing the actual prose in 1032 and 1033.5.
      
      

   4. The 12 page order includes almost 4 pages of dialogue about Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc 1992.   Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap was for a real estate fraud case that went to trial and the plaintiffs who had sued for fraud won.  There was nothing related to a Voluntary Dismissal in that case precedent and nothing related to a Seller as a Prevailing party for a voluntary dismissal or any other reason in that case precedent. .
      
      

   5. The 12 page order contains references to 6 other case precedents not mentioned at all by Gorman in his motion documents.
      
      

   6. The 12 page order says the plaintiffs were provided with the opposition party’s positions and given ample time to respond, when in fact, the entire decision to shift was made on statutes and precedents not found at all in 160+ pages of moving documents. 

The Superior Court of CA and/or Judge Ian Rivamonte himself is maintaining a document for purposes of making a case for Attorney Fee shifting for any Defense Attorney who files a motion for Attorney Fee shifting in a voluntary dismissal situation -- no matter if the Defense Attorney puts anything of relevance in their moving papers or not.  

This act of presenting statutes and case precedents in a written Order that were not presented by the Defense Attorney represents acts referred to as “Practicing law from the bench” and in the context of an order for $118,000 in legal fee shifting, they are acts of Bias, Fraud and Racketeering that should result in his removal from the bench, disbarment, jail time and/or mental hospital admission

This Attorney Fee shift executed by Judge Rivamonte in response to “an empty motion for attorney fee shifting” explains  why no attorneys would even talk to buyers about the case. What attorney wants to admit that the Judges in Monterey County California don’t care about proper legal process to form contracts, much less proper law related to attorney fee shifting ?

This Attorney Fee shift executed by Judge Rivamonte against home buyers explains why none of the 14 professionals involved in participating in and/or managing the real estate transaction showed any stress for committing fraud. 

This Attorney Fee shift executed by Judge Rivamonte explains a cryptic message from the Monterey County Association of Realtors President stating it was the State of California that needed to be sued for the unhinged real estate industry fraud situation.