In 2021, Biomedical Engineer and property seller Micah Forstein engaged with Keller Williams to list his home for $900,000.  During the listing process,  his Keller Williams Seller's Agent,  Kent Weinstein,  hired Tracy Travaille, a Transaction Coordinator not affiliated with Keller Williams, to work directly with Seller Forstein to fill out his disclosure documents and to manage the documents during offer processing, ratification and through to closing.  (ie Seller's Agent Kent Weinstein subbed-out all his own document duties to another company for about $500)  

Problem:  Kent Weinstein, the Keller Williams Agent, by statute, had no legal authority to hire anybody to work with he and the seller to complete seller disclosure documents nor to engage in material aspects of transaction processing.   By statute, Weinstein was in fact  forbidden to hire other Agents affiliated with his own Brokerage (Keller Williams),  much less someone from outside Keller Williams.  By statute, engaging with the seller in disclosure document completion and all other document tasks was his Broker's job and/or his job with the supervision of his Broker, and no others.  

Problem:  Kent Weinstein's Brokers (his top Bosses),  Mike Butson and Mark Van Kaenel, also had no legal authority to allow anyone other than themselves or an affiliated  sales person working under their direct supervison to work with the Seller to complete his disclosure documents. 

To be extra clear due to the absurdity of this hoax -- Per Statutes and state regulations, if / when two or more Sales People (aka agents) work together on a transaction, they ALL must be affiliated with the broker/brokerage of record AND they must be recognized as a "team" with various rules that apply.  Sales people(aka agents)  can NOT work together in an "ad hoc" basis without explicit Broker involvement and oversight (per statute). 

And what transpired in the transaction  was a situation in which the Disclosure Documents being handled by this "third party transaction coordinator" were 

1. Filled out by the transadction coordinator herself, not the seller (portions of them) 

2. Not filled out completely  (blanks to true false questions that require answers per statute)

3. Not filled out truthfully (and the Seller's Agent and possibly the transatcion coordinator knew that) 

4. Not supported with material documents (quotes and invoices for proper repair in preparation for sale were known to exist by Sellers Agent and Transsation Coordinator and seller was asked to provide them. he evaded and they allowed it to stand) 

5. Possibly modified after the esignatures were obtained

6. Not reviewed for completeness by Keller Williams Corporate prior to listing or receiving offers

7. < the property was listed>

8.  WITHHELD from MLS for potential buyers

9. WITHHELD from buyers during the showing process

10. WITHHELD from  Buyers during the offer and accetpance process (the ratifiaction process)

11. Presented to buyers three days AFTER a $900,000 contract was ratified, while containing material omissions and misrepresenations valued at approximately $250,000 in fraud once it was all understood. 

With a gross legal caveat.   

The Seller committed fraud by signing the documents under penalty of perjury at the time of his listing --  and he presented those to his Broker (not the future buyers) -- about 10 days prior to offer ratifiation.  His Broker (Keller Williams) then failed in his duties to present the documents to Buyers Broker (who played along) and the perspective buyers  -- so both Brokerages Brokers, and Agents are guilty of procedural violations -- -but because the disclosure documents were NOT given for "reliance" when the "not contract" was ratified   -- can the buyers sue just the seller for the disclosure fraud he committed during the listing process ?

YES, the buyers can  sue for fraud but NO they can't get anywhere "easily" when suing for fraud--  because "reliance" is a required element for proving fraud -- and the seller can say that "although he lied, because the information was not provided to the Buyers they could not have relied upon it".  The counter to that is that an absence of presentation of anything at all is an affirmation that nothing at all is wrong, he's liable for all and he can sue his brokers if he'd like.  

However,  when NO ATTORNEYS would take the very straight forward case, not 1 in 80 + local attorneys that were contacted, because there are at least two legal lobby hoaxes in play dating back to the 1980s that have creatd this mess (CIV 1102 hoax and CCP 1032/1033.5 hoax), what is a harmed buyer to do? 

Nothing. Harmed buyers are expected to do nothing because they can get no honest legal support -- and that's why the Brokers are supporting sellers in fraud -- over and over again. 

And what was the real commercial benefit of all this inversion again, other than the obvious destruction of buyers and a trusting society? 

Corporate Brokerages and brokers  could hire anyone off the street with no training -- turn them into a sales person -- but grant them duties of the Broker for scaling purposes -- and there was only an upside of making money. There was no appropriate  civil consquence for errors or fraud.  Crime pays. 

Those in Real Estate in other states where things are BAD too, but "a lot better than this" , should have the following questions -- with short answers provided to help speed this along... 

1. Question >> What made them believe a third party transacation coordinator was okay?  We are all using transaction coordinators and we know the vagueness and concern around it all -- but none of us are using people from other firms. That's crazy.  // Answer >> The California Department of Real Estate is that compromised and controlled, seemingly by Coldwell Banker Legal , the California Association of Realtors and the Legal Lobby.  But there are even bigger overlords as well.  Leon Black (of the Epstein Files),  and his old company,  Apollo Management Group owned Coldwell Banker and other California Brokerages at the time too. 

2. Question >>  How could Keller Williams have listed the property with disclosure documents that simply had no answers for things like "mold" and "property flooding"?   Where was their corporate document review?  // Answer >> it seems there was/is ZERO corporate review for Keller Williams. They had turned all document control over to this third party transaction coordinator for all control and oversight.  

3. Question >> What made them believe holding back disclosure documents of condition were okay? // Answer >>This is the most legally perverted part.  One of the most powerful Attorneys in California in the 1970s named John McDonough Jr engaged with CAR in the late 70's and they came up with a scheme to pretend all disclosure documents , including those related to condition, were ministerial in nature -- and they inverted the disclosure and ratfication. It screws everything up so bad, nobody can sue a broker or a seller if they had too.  Great for Broker Protection -- and good for Defense Attorney business and supporting sellers who want to cheat. In the early 1980s judges started calling out the Brokers and CAR. Instead of stoppping, they got crooked Attorneys in the CA Legislature to create a formal disclosure statute -- but in it they stated disclosure documetns were due prior to "transfer of title" -- which most of you know can have multiple interpretations -- from "equitable and legal title" at time of ratification and close -- to just "title" at time of ratification.  But Coldwell banker and everyone else decided to interpret that as at Close of Escrow and ALL the brokers have  been doing the "crime pays" thing since 1985. 

4. Question >> Where were the other attorneys and judges in the 1980s to stop this?  // Answer >> 1) There was another civil statute fraud happening at the same time (CCP 1032-1033.5)  that characterized attorney fees as "costs" and possibly shiftable upon voluntary dismissals that nobody could expose without exposing the entire CA Legislative body and the CA Bar for fraud 2) the communties were being transitioned from  from local elected judges in muncipal and and justice of peace courts with no legal licensing reuirements to being forced to select from licensed attorneys  3) the muncipal and and justice of peace courts were being consolidated with the Superior Courts in an unhealthy manner 4) and we can see a few Judges and even the legislature in the early 1990s started calling it all out but cautiously realizing the calamity in play -- but they were eventually overrun by a very corrupt legal lobby,  legislature, and eventually Judges. 

These are facts that the public does not know and could not guess if they had to, based on the vocabulary in use today and all the schemes in play across the country. 

There are only TWO levels of licensing for state regulated real estate professionals: 1) Broker and 2) Sales Person.  That's it.  

Legally, there is no such thing as an "Agent" and that word has been improperly used to misrepresent a lot of concepts.  

The Broker is the person ultimately, personally responsilbe for transactions and in fact, he/she is not even supposed to allow a "Sales Person" to do anything material in a transation without their DIRECT supervision and/or a few years experience with supervision first -- after which the Broker is still the responsible party for all transactions.   

A "salesperson", per the statutes, was really never meant to do more than have signage on cars, busines card in hand and act as a bird dog to bring clients to their Broker for a portion of the commission.    Their job was to be like that of a "barker" in front of a restaurant and nothing more, with the possibility of opening doors for house tours for buyers and that's it.   

That  is a far cry from what exists now -- where most might think their Sales Person had or has the duties that are actually that of the Broker -- and the sales person is then subbing out their own work to unlawful transaction coordinators. 

Brokers these days are then acting as if they are just Operations and overhead organizers, providing technology tools -- and they have set it up such that people think the Agents should be responsible to the state for legal issues, when it is the Brokers who should be responsible for everything. 

The Selling Broker is the "Broker of Record".  Any Buyers Broker becomes his/her "Sub agent" and is in the employment of the broker or seller NOT the buyer...

When sellers were the only part that paid commissions, as was the case until just a few years ago, after this transcation blew up, the only person who paid commissions was the seller and they were the only "customer" from a legal perspective. This was the real fraud in the industry for 100 years that they are trying to hard now to conceal with the new commission systems. 

Buyers were told they had "Buyers Brokers and Buyers Agents"  but those terms were NOT proper nor equal to "Selling Brokers and Selling agents".  They sounded equal but legally they were solar systems apart. 

When buyers attempted class action lawsuits for abuse, just as was described above, the cases were being quietly dismissed by corrupt judges claiming buyers had no standing because they paid nothing for the services. 

With a media bought, that is what was being concealed from the public for the last 50+  years by the Attorneys and Judges too. 

Corporate Real Estate Brokerage started as unregulated business in the 1850's in Chicago (Baird & Warner). Coldwell Banker was formed in San Francisco in 1906, and from 1908 to 1913 NAR (the "National Association of Realtors") started advocating for regulation (around the same time as the FED planners were operating).  In 1917 California passed Brokerage Regulation laws that were initially deemed unconstitutional but accepted with modifications in 1919.  Once regulated there is no longer a "free market".   What some may view as good for consumer protection can also be used for the opposite and that's what has transpired. 

From the early 1900s to the 1940s, Corporations and individuals dominated the Brokerage market, and presumably Corporate Brokers and individuals were held accountable for their behavior.   In the 1940's, "Franchising" was introduced by Gallery of Homes and then Red Carpet in the 1960s.  Franchising allowed individual brokers to organize for marketing and referrals.  In the 1970s Century 21 was founded by Art Barlett and March Fisher in Orange County and Remax launched in Denver.  Then, larger corporations like Coldwell Banker, Prudential, Merrill Lynch and Better Homes and Gardens started franchising in the 1980s -- with backing by big investors. (ie Sears acquiring Coldwell Banker).  And with big investors comes pressure, at all times. 

The ultimate scheme for the investors -- be able to scale by hiring any body off the street who can pass a sales person class -- be liability free for any and all of their behavior -- and be able to actively sell homes for people who want to cheat.   That was the goal and that's what they Big Brokers achieved. Small Brokers either played along or quit.  Thus there are NO sincere brokers in the California industry, no matter how nice they may appear to be. 

For those not in the know, this transaction coordinator scheme with a third party coordinator involved is a HIGHLY ILLEGAL situation that violates many specific California statutes for Brokerage, Broker and Sales person behavior and affiliation requirements.   

The reason for the regulatory statutes that forbids this is to ensure the "responsible broker" for any given transaction engages properly in every transaction and to ensure "clear accountability can be placed on brokers destined to handle and profit from he biggest commercial transaction of most peoples lives".  

The transaction coordinator schemes may have started in in the late 1990s.  

At that time the Sales Person (aka agents)  only option for transaction support was 1) their broker or 2) another licensed sales person that they formed a team with, with their Broker's approval. (although some would allow the support without formal team formation -- as long as the person was licensed).  

The problem there was that Brokers and Sales people wanted lower cost non-licensed support so they go make more and do less.  

The State Oversight Boards were coerced to look the other way, and Brokers started to improperly allow agents to engage with transaction  coordinators -- but often times  that was someone licensed or unlicensed in their own office who became a shared resource for everyone -- and by doing so they made good money without having to go find buyers and sellers and there was office oversight around. 

Even thought that's bad it's nothing like this CA system where they went to entire different levels of "jumping the shark". 

In this case, Tracy Travaille happens to be licensed as a Broker herself, BUT her license is NOT affiliated with any Brokerage owned by her and her license is NOT affiliated with Keller Williams as a "Broker-salesperson" . She owns a company, "Travaille Transactions" and she advertises a benefit of having a broker on staff, but in fact her license is not affiliated with that company.   AND she has non-licensed employees who live in CA and other States doing transaction coordination for California Transactions. Presumably the eventual goal was to shift it all overseas once the practice was in place unchallenged. 

NOTE: Even if Travaille had her own Brokerage properly registered with the California Department of Real Estate -- the statutes still do NOT allow the "Broker of Record" (Keller Williams in this case) to partner with another Brokerage for operational tasks related to listing a property.  The only relationship allowed is with a "sub agent" which is the Brokerage that brings the buyer. 

Father and son team of Robert and Brannon Vierra did a pre-sale home inspection for the seller. They were in fact hired by the sellers agent and the sellers agent has an internal profile with the home inspection company franchisor.   All of that is in violation of separation of duties of an agent and the principal to a transaction.   

Robert had the expected certifiations and experience. Brannon did not. Robert brought Brannon to the inspection, had him do half the inspection unsupervised and report on it. Brannon was responsible for the crawl and utilities in garge and he just "made stuff up". while omitting key facts.  There were no less than 50 mis-statements of fact in the report. It was as if they took a report from another home and changed some fields but not others. However, many of the major errors appear to have been intentional.  The total value of their omissions and misrepresnations was between $50,000 and $70,000 they earned about $700 for what was likely a 1 hour visit to the home and a 1 hour report write up given the way it was done. The buyers discovered the problems when doign their own due diligence inspections and were shocked.  This was before trhey realized the sellers agent ahd coordinated the inspection and assisted with the concealment of 100k plus in other defects. During a conversation he admitted that these same inspectors under reported problems all the time and he couldnt even get them to do better when doing inspections for his own buyers instead of sellers (yes, this conversation transpired -- as if he thought this was normal and acceptable to tell buyer expressing concern).  

Via discvoery it was shown they had taken pictures and gained knowledge of defects they simply omitted.   

Unlike the other seller disclosure documents that were withheld -- that inspection report had been given for reliance prior to contract ratification and thus those omissions were an eaiser target for fraud claims -- and the inspectors were sued direcly and separately for that instead of the seller to see how they might defend such eggregious acts -- and that seemed to have caught everyone off guard. 

Los Angeles Attorney David Madariaga of Fowler Assocatiates was hired by Vierras and/or their Franchisor (WIN Home inspections). WIN is now a Venture Capital owned organization in Chicago and it's presumed the investors in that may be the major brokerages -- who want inspectors on staff to skim over defects to assist with sales (the public can't fathom what's really going on until this comes out).  

All but one person at Madariaga's  firm had Basque or Spanish last names and they behaved like legal gypsies.  

Initially, Madariaga allowed the Vierras  to default to force a motion to set aside default. The reason Madariaga gave for the default was that he was simply busy and forgot to schedule the response.  

Judges and Attorneys in CA, including Panetta,  want the public to believe that for a client to get out of a default there has to be "excusable neglect" but an attorney can get out with simple "neglect".  When Judge Panetta was pressed on it, she is the one who stated definitively that something like 'the dog ate my papers' is all she would need to set aside a default -- as long as the Attorney "fell on the sword" as Madariaga did.

The statute itself that offers this loophole for Attorneys that the Judges play along with happily is written in clear prose in the top and bottom but the middle paragraphs are bloated and confusing.   A historical check of that statute should reveal it was modified at some point since origination to create that loophole. The absurdity of it is obscene.

Attorneys could not behave like this in lawschool and pass -- but when billing $400+ an hour with Judges making 250k a year - while consuming massive overhead -- acting like a total buffoon is not only acceptable, it's a strategy as proven by Madariaga,  Attorney Jim Fitzpatrick and others.   

HOWEVER, Madariaga didn't just put this motion to set aside default on file.  He first filed a "Motion to Strike", and served it on the plaintiffs --  but the version he filed with the court had obvious defects he wold have known they'd reject.  It was rejected, t he never notified the plaintiff, then 8 days later, he filed his motion to set aside default -- stating it had been served when it had not -- and mysteriously -- who ever filed that motion used a recently deceased attorneys filing account.  Who does that and why?

As the hearing approached, Madariaga and his paralegel were contacted about the odd Motion to Strike and they failed to correct the situation then -- and after the "switcheroo" was discovered, Madariaga just kept playing the confusion game. Documents had to be demanded from the Clerk to figure out what they had done and how they had engaged the dead man to commit the fraudulent filing. 

When this professional lunatic and his twisted paralegal sidekick  was presented to Panetta, with full references to documents in her own system to verify the problems, there was no admonishment of Madariaga or his paralegal.   To the contrary, Panetta got angry because the plaintiffs expressed explicit concerns stating he was either a conscious lunatic OR mentally ill -- Panetta allowed her prior relationship with him to get in the way of obvious acts of purjury and fraud -- and she actually stormed out of the hearing without rectifying anything about his behavior. 

Although she showed no concern, it was obvious his own firm did.  He no longer appeared in hearings. Two others were subbed in who would claim they were not up to speed after more concerning acts were transpiring in discovery.  Eventually hey hired a new young Attorney to stand in for Madariaga.   The problem there?  She had an open internal Bar Complaint pending against her a crime of Moral Terpetude - for stealing a car registration sticker, putting it on her own car, and then telling DMV investigators she had not taken it. 

In summary, the plaintiffs went to court to expose a father and son for engaging in gross home insepection fraud  in a situation where the agent who improperly hired them stated they did it all the time.  The plaintiffs  hired Basques who ran a motion document service fraud scheme.   Panetta was exposed to details provable with documents in her systems and she showed no concern for their beahvior.     They then provided discovery whereby the father and son exposed themsevels in frauds, but then the attorneys subbed in a morally and ethically broken  young attorney who sent out discovery  for   "construction defects" not statutory failure to identify material defects. 

The plaintiffs volutnarily dismissed the after enough evidence was gathered to understand the fraud the inspectors had engaged in, and the lack of interest Panetta had in controlling legally licensed criminals.   

This would NEVER have transpired in a Municipal or Justice of the Peace court or a Court where the Judge felt she had a vested interest and obligations in the community. If she had to face her "constituents" at the local grocery store or around town this would not happen. 

Panetta had an obligation to admonish and report Madariaga and his paralegal at a minimum -- and she did nothing.  The Attorneys have turned the courts into nut-houses because people like Judge Panetta are letting them behave like 6 year olds. 

Travaille was initially sued for Fraud and/or breach of broker duties.  At the time of the lawsuit filing, it was unclear if she was or was not affiliated with Keller Williams some how, or if CA Brokerage law allowed the third party transaction Coordinators.   Travaille's website claimed she had done more than 15,000 transcations since 2008 and that she had non-licensed employees inside and outside of CA doing transcation coordiation for CA Transactions. Either she was going to have a proper legal defense OR this was goign to expose she and a mass of Brokers for 15,000 frauds. 

Travaille's defense was that she was not affiliated with Keller Wililams - she was hired by Agent Kent Weinstein - it was a verbal contract - and that she was working as a surrogate for the Seller's agent and that they had NO FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO BUYERS.  That was their defense and they were going to demurr based on that defense.  

Discovery executed during the demurr dialogue showed she was in fact the primary contact wth the seller -- she was asking qustions and filling out his forms -- she was made aware of receipts that they seller should have provided but did not -- and she made a comment to the Sellers Agent suggesting she may have changed something after he had completed the documents. 

Her response and details obtained in discovery stimulated the investigation into California Broker regulations and statutes, and that's what confirmed what is expected to be similar across all states -- which was that the Sellers Agent explicitly can NOT hire anyone other than in rental situations and the person can not have anytyhing to do with material documents. Very ministerial acts and that the Broker can only seek support from affiliated sales people. 

The plaintiffs asked to stipulate to an ammended compalint given the facts exposed and defense presented -- based on Brokerage law. The defense attorneys refused to stipulate. 

In the Opposition to Demurrer , plaintiffs laid out the history of brokerage, actual licensee titles and the statutes  that showed explicitly what a Broker and Sales persons' duties were -- what a sales person could and could not do and who they could hire.  Plaintiffs asked for an opportunity to ammend the complaint given the defendant had revealed she was NOT affiliated in anyway and all statutes showed she was engaging way beyond any guardrials allowd in statute. 

During the Demurrer hearing, Panetta expressed surprise at the fact discovery had transpired. She stated she did not realize that could have happened. That is a massive concern -- and it exposed a situation which was well concealed.  Attorneys are NOT properly executing discovery as is the right of plaintiffs in many cases, suggesting pleadings have to be cleared first when that is not the case.   

Panetta then stated she read the plaintiffs documents with the statutory information presented above and she  listened to 10 minutes of dialogue with the same information presented above. 

She  stated she looked for and could not find a "precedent" supporting the brokerage violations, she stated she had no interest in engaging in precedent setting situation, and  she granted the demurrer with no amended complaint.   

She then bought into the Defenses alternate position -- stating  the contract had a cancellation clause. If the buyers discovered fraud during escrow they could have exercised that and the fact that they didn't put liability on buyers.  The problems with that?  

1. No contract clause can be used to excuse fraud to induce a contract  (California statute and a state in all lands where contract law exists)

2. The Jue vs Smiser case precedent defined reliance for disclosre statements at time of Contract Acceptance and that fraud found in escrow were pursable

3. Only 60-70k in fraud was found during escrow and known at time of condition relaease.  An additional 150k was discovered AFTER close of escrow. 

And with that, Panetta indicated if plaintiffs weren't happy with the demur they could appeal the decision.

Problems: 

1. No precedent was needed for the improper transaction coordinator engagement.  The statutes were crystal clear. The violations were just black and white -- but her positions had to be known first to know she could have been that far outside of the law. Nobody would have expected someone openly claiming 15,000 transactions and engaging with many major brokers like Keller Williams and Coldwell Banker were  just making up the rules as they went. 

2. State law governing Judges makes it clear they cannot avoid making a ruling or preventing a case from proceeding in the absence of precedent.  

3. Given what we figured out about the CIV 1102 fraud and the CCP 1032 and 1033.5 fraud and the fact no attorneys will ever properly engage in real estate fraud situation for buyers there never will be a precident for transaction coordintor fraud. . 

4. Her position for excusing fraud  because the condition release was accepted is just a patently bad legal position anyone handling contract law with executory periods should have been aware of and/or understood and there are several key case precedents to support that. 

Thus, the opportunity to expose this situation and put a stop to a 15,000 transaction conspiracy that had overt and obvious financial harm to the plaintiffs standing in front of her was shut down by Panetta in a manner exposing gross incompetence -- but more than likely,  a required bias encouraged by her own understanding of the system or influencers. 

This would NEVER have transpired in a Municipal or Justice of the Peace court or a Court where the Judge felt she had a vested interest and obligations in the community. If she had to face her "constituents" at the local grocery store or around town this would not happen. 

Peter Whyte was  originally licensed as a sales person in the 1970s -- and he shifted to Coldwell Banker during a buyout in the late 1990s or early 2000's.  Whyte  was the buyers Transaction Coordinator but he was far more than that.  Per his own admission, Whyte setup the Agent Training program for Coldwell Banker in Beverly Hills in the early 2000's and it was something Coldwell Banker wanted to roll out state wide. 

The problem?  Whyte was the one doing the "brain washing" to lead young buyers agents into believing  the presentation of seller disclosure documents was to come AFTER contract ratification -- and he was the one telling them how to spin that.  

In fact, recent research with the use of AI reveals he was in a small independent Brokerage office in the 1980s with the woman who is now the Broker in Charge of Compass -- and the two of them and others engaged in that brokerage seem to have been at the epicenter for rolling out this John R. McDonough inversion fraud in the 1970s and early 1980s.  The fact that he was the Transaction Coordinator for this for these buyers was just a fluke -- but there was no more Senior person at Coldwell Banker who would have been more familiar  with running the fraud on the buyerside than him. 

Corporate Attorney Will Fiske of "Everywhere Real Estate" was Whytes attorney. Fiske had worked for Coldwell Banker of Northern CA and when they were bought out by Everywhere Real Estate, an Apollo Management Holding Company -- Fiskes legal department was elevated to cover all Everywhere Real Estate Brokerages for northern CA.  

As it turned out, Fiske may have been the replacement for Vickie Naidorf. Naidorf worked in the industry as an Attorney from the 1980s through 2018 when she finally went out on her own and formed "Broker Risk Management" AND while at Broker Risk Management she wrote a bio bragging she is the only attorney who sat on the review board for all three major contracts used in California AND all those contracts have the inversion flaw in them.   Basically, it seems Naidorf worked for Coldwell Banker and helped them perfect the defense for the inverted contract -- she then went out on her own for a consulting gig - and Fiske joined her old office either as her replacement or another staff -- and they would have overlapped by about 6-9 months. 

Fiske attempted to use courteous bedside manner combined with  information overload and confusion to keep harmed buyer plaintiffs at bay. 

When challenge on the contract he doubled and tripled down on the fact that the contract, drawn up by CAR not them, stated the disclosure documents were due prior to transfer of title and transfer of title happened at close of escrow.  When challenged on the fact that the contract actually stated it transferred at time of agreement acceptance not close of escrow, he literally started digitally drawing on the document like he was finger painting in an attempt to conceal obvious written facts. 

Once fiske was presented with statutes about contract formation, which required mutual understanding -- and CIV 1102.8 which stated nothing about the statute was intended to dismiss acts of misrepresentation. Fiske went completely silent. 

The entire Coldwell Banker legal defense was just a hoax.  They had no legal basis for their behavior. It was just a crime pays scheme.   Hire anyone that wants to affiliate -- tell them to go get business and worry not about laws -- get deals done at any cost -- and then turn over complaints to the Legal Department for misdirection.  That was their crime pays strategy. 

During this process - plaintiffs were able to get about 4000 pages of discovery documents -- one of them was a golden gem.   Emails showed Whyte was engaging with numerous other new Monterey County agents as a mentor and transaction coordinator -- and a set of form instructions were included instructing new buyers agents to get the sellers disclosure documents after contract ratification -- at the buyers home inspection when there would be no time to review in detail in preparation for that inspection. 

Fiske worked very hard to avoid answering the complaint.  He put it off for about 9 months while giving the plaintiffs a chance to file several ammended comlaints -- with concessions for some discovery which proved deadly -- seemingly unaware that everything he was putting in writing about his different, legally baseless defense strategies was the first intended target for the lawsuit to start with. 

So, how does Judge Carrie Panetta play into this one?

Fiske's own words state it best.  When you see "the Court" hes referring to Panetta's behavior in the Travaille dismissal. 

"The Court's correct mindset si that you should have executed the cancellation right, not allegedly overpaid by 200k" >> As stated prior, a cancellation right is not an out for committing fraud to induce a contract  where reliance on false facts or omissions were done  AND the fraud known at time of cancellation was 70k not 200k+ 

"The Court also determined that by realizing the alleged truth (seller's non-disclosures), there was no completed fraud on you buy any real estate professional.  A complete fraud requires the victimes to not otherwise discover the truth".   >> his interpretaion of Panetta's' ruling was that fraud could be initiated but becuase it was discoverd in the exectory period and not completed -- it wasn't fraud.  Did you know fraud can be started but it's not fraud if you catch them in the act?   And that's how he interpretted Panetta's ruling. 

"All in all the Courts actions have bene entirely in Mr. Whytes position" >>  and that's when one must wonder, was Panetta's strange behavior in the prior hearing meant to setup a shut down of this case -- which was far larger in negatigve exposure for the "big dog" in the industry?   When you see how he put it to use, that makes as much sense as anything else. 

Then Fiske continued... 

Coldwell Banker , as a corporation earned 22,500 in commission on this $900,000 sale (2.5% x $900.000).   To earn the sale, they faciilitated a contract ratification without seller disclosure documents and when the documents were delivered after the fact in a patently incompelte manner their suggestion was to just leave the transaction and try again somewhere else -- but that nothing was wrong with the system. That's how it worked in CA. 

If that's how it worked in CA, why should we have expected anything better in any other transaction?  

That was the problem we (the plaintiffs) were faced with.   

Then, when Coldwell Banker was challenged about the fraudulent representation after the fact -- and shown statutes which stated no contract clause can be used to nullify fraud to induce a contract -- and that contracts can only be formed with mutual consent -- they refused to take responsibility and threatened us with their legal fees while refusing to state how they might convert a non-contract situation into a contract situation for fees -- or other statutes they might use.   

These people had all confused regulated real estate brokerage for "gypsy horse trading"  and it was either their way or the highway.  It was COVID season, the interest rates were at 2.5% and we knew if we missed a buy which we had been waiting 6 months for -- we might be locked out of the real estate market for a decade or more so we completed the transaction the rest is history. 

When we dismissed this complaint -- due to threats of legal fee blowback from an obviously twisted Attorney and one of the largest Brokerages on the planet -- we included this closing letter and all statutes showing we had been run out of a transaction where there was no legal basis for their behavior. 

 This would NEVER have transpired in a Municipal or Justice of the Peace court or a Court where the Judge felt she had a vested interest and obligations in the community. If she had to face her "constituents" at the local grocery store or around town this would not happen. 

A 2007 Code of Civil Procedure requires county court houses with digital files to make them availalbe to the public.  Monterey County has been in violatio of that since then.  They claim it has to do with privacy concerns -- without admitting all civile court documents are public documents and it was parties responsibility to ask for and obtain privacy on documents when they filed them, if appropriate,  not the courts problem.  They are being concealed for many other reasons that only benefit the legal lobby and those committed various frauds. 

In 2022, Monterey County stopped recording all civil proceedings other than Probate, Family court and small claims (those specifically required by statute).  The excuse was cost at a time when recording hearings and storing them was cheaper than any time in prior history. .   Thus, no recordings of the hearing with Panetta exist.  Thus, they rendered the Judges "un-auditable", and they see no problems with that.  

Can you imagine what would have transpired if those court hearings were recorded?  Do you believe Panetta could have or would have performed in the same manner? If she did, can you imagine what would have happend if those recordings could have been posted for public review - and access to the court records could have been provided simultaneously? 

This isn't a court by or for the people. At all...

Based on the behavior of Panetta and three other judges, the violation of document access since 2007 and the termination of civil court recording in 2022 -- it seems clear the world's largest real estate brokers -- controlled by Venture Capital firms -- incuding Apollo Management Group -- a prior Leon Black company -- and the California Legal lobby  have taken over the California Civil Legal System.  

Nothing is working properly.  

Attorneys for each of theses firms  made money in the process -- and Judge Panetta took home more paychecks to help pay down the student loan debt her husband was still showing on disclosures, seemingly 30 years after their graduations -- all at community expense. 

 All four commercial groups describe above -- 1) WIN Home Inpsections Monterey 2) Travaille Transactions 3)  Coldwell Banker and 4) Keller Williams saw no penalties for their behavior and no media reporting even though this was shared with them.  There were also initially 70 attorneys kept up to date on the court proceedings that fell over time -- but none of them have exposed any of this either.  The public is the last to know. 

This is no way to do commerce and no way to do Law. 

  The frauds from the 1980s are or should be known to all the Judges and they are looking the other way  -- and the 1974 Political Reform Act, which allows all of them to conceal real estate -- with oversight from their own legal brethren at the FPPC is viewed as treasonous by some of us. 

This has been an introuction to the Black Robe Mafia and how it all doesn't work. 

Not only does Carrie Panetta need to be removed from the bench -- they all do.