State Bar Yanks License of Carlsbad's Michael Pines

Michael Pines, the Carlsbad lawyer who has advised clients to break into their homes after they have been foreclosed upon, and sometimes assisted them in the process, lost his license today (April 28) in a hearing before a State Bar judge. The decision is a temporary measure, pending a hearing on disciplinary charges against Pines "It means absolutely nothing," said Pines of the court ruling, according to the Los Angeles Times. "I will go right on doing what I have always done and it won't affect me at all, or my clients." The judge, Richard Honn, wrote that Pines considers himself "a modern-day Henry David Thoreau, who encouraged civil disobedience to effect universal social benefits, including ending slavery and war. But [Pines] is not Theoreau, and his cause is not slavery or war." The judge cited one Carlsbad instance in which Pines showed up with his clients, who had been foreclosed upon, and told the person who bought the house, "I'm going to precipitate an armed confrontation." He was arrested by Carlsbad police for making criminal threats in that case.

The subject of this piece, Michael T. Pines, is not to be confused with Michael Pines, a San Diego attorney.

More like this:


He says this won't affect what he does. Maybe he thinks if he finally loses his license officially, he will just hire a young, starving lawyer right out of law school who will file the suits and dole out the dubious advice. Best, Don Bauder

Richard Honn is nothing more than a gov yahoo who will rubber stamp ANYTHING the Bar puts in front of him.

Honn is not really a judge, just an extention of the Califonria State Bar.

But this lawyer enagaged in very reckless behaviour and I agree he is a danger to the public.

"I'm going to precipitate an armed confrontation." YOU make comments like that and you should be in jail.

Pines's behavior is bizarre, to put it mildly. Best, Don Bauder

Pines is what many quaint folks call a "piece of work." They jerk his law license and he declares that it "means absolutely nothing." Lemme tell ya', no shyster regards losing his license as "nothing." It is EVERYTHING. His life and livelihood depend upon having that license to practice law. So, why is he acting like a nutcase? Could he be a nutcase, by chance?

I trust that there will be more information coming out; you can make up your own mind on your question. Best, Don Bauder

Instead of being a street activist, he should use the law; such as this precedent: MEMORANDUM The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve. Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing. Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd "Actions" on page 584 – "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party." Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit. No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968. BY THE COURT, December 9, 1968 Justice Martin V. Mahoney, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota.

A number of people claim that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. I do not agree with them. Best, Don Bauder

Log in to comment

Skip Ad