Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Arthur Lopez, Petitioner v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.

ORIGINAL

•1002

filed

' OCT 2 5 2021

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ARTHUR LOPEZ - PETITIONER

vs.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC,

THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING

CORPORATION LIMITED, JAMES BRIEN

COMEY, JR. - RESPONDENTS

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ARTHUR LOPEZ

P.O. BOX 13081

NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658

949.278.7793

i

received

JAN 1 1 29??-

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Should International Banking Conglomerate,

HSBC Bank USA, NA, Defendant, and Director

James Brien Comey Jr, Defendant and Former

F.B.I. Director, be accountable To United States of

America Mortgage/Home Equity Line of Credit

protection statutes and Congress Enacted

Consumer Protection Acts related to

proper/complete disclosures and Truth In Lending

violations.

Also should the head of this nation's Bureau of

Investigations be held liable for deprivation of

Petitioner Arthur Lopez's Civil Rights.

u

LIST OF PARTIES

[X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on

the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the

case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the

proceeding in the court whose judgment is the

subject of this petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE..................................

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.....................

LIST OF PARTIES.....................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................

OPINIONS BELOW..................................

JURISDICTION........................................

CONST. AND STAT. PROV. INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION..........................................

n

m

IV

VI

1

2

3

4

24

25

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: United States Court of Appeals For

The Ninth Circuit Order Denying Motion For

Reconsideration Dated May 26th 2021

26

APPENDIX B: United States Court of Appeals For

The Ninth Circuit Dismissal Order Dated January

22, 2021

27

APPENDIX C: U.S. District Court Central District

September 30, 2019 Denying In Forma Pauperis

Status and Dismissal of Case Order

29

APPENDIX D: March 23, 1990 Deed of Trust

Including Arthur Lopez, and Parents and Co­

owners - Property at 225 Bloomfield Ln, Corona,

CA 92882......................................;.......................... 33

iv

APPENDIX E: U.S. Department of Justice

December 22, 2011 Correspondence...........

37

APPENDIX F: HSBC Equity Line of Credit

Agreement 2008.............................................

49

APPENDIX G: HSBC Statement, 2008

73

APPENDIX H: Hardest Hit Fund Designating

California as Eligible — Forced Sale..................

74

APPENDIX I: Government Claim Dated September

23, 2019

77

APPENDIX Z: James Brien Comey, Jr. Bio

v

78

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

*HSBC Bank as Defendant*

1) United States of America v. HSBC Bank USA,

NA and HSBC Holdings PLC, Defendants.

12 CR-763 JG Jan 28, 2016

CRIMINAL

2) Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLC, 2021 United

States District Court Eastern District of New York.

January 7, 2021, 18-CV-7359; 19 CV 2146

3) Trevino v. HSBC Mortgage Services, 615 B.R.

108 January 31, 2020 Case No. 10-70594

U.S. District Court So. District of Texas, McCallen

Div.

4) Johnson v. HSBC Bank USA, March 19, 2012

Case No. 3:ll-cv-2091-JM-WVG

5) Charlotte Freeman v. HSBC Bank PLC. Case

No. 14 cv 6601 DLI (CLP), July 27th, 2018

U.S. District Court, ED N.Y.

6) Bayerische Landesbank v. HSBC Holdings PLC,

Case No. 13 cv 3906, Nov. 18, 2013.

7) Bradford v. HSBC Mortgage

Case No. I:09cvl226 April 26, 2012

E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

*HSBC as Defendant

8) Evelyn de Jesus v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico

Case No. 90-1350 Sept. 11, 1990

9) Lewis v. HSBC Bank USA, US Court of Appeals,

9th Cir. 9/12/2017 Case No. 17-234 DKW-KSC

10) Hua Nan Comm. Bank v. HSBC 5/19/2011

Civ. 10-8773 U.S. Central Dist. of Ca

11) Skaggs v. HSBC Aug 31, 2011

Civ. No. 10-00247

12) Hoover v. HSBC March 27, 2014

Civ. No. 13 cv 149

Vll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1) In re JP Morgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line

of Credit Litigation

794 F. Supp. 2d 859, U.S. District Court N.D.

Illinois, Eastern Division. June 30, 2011

2) Household Credit Services, Inc. and MBNA

America Bank, N.A. v. Sharon R. Pfennig, 124 S.

Ct. 1741 United States Supreme Court. April 21,

2004

3) Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., etal.

135 S. Ct. 790; Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13th, 2015

4) Allen v. Beneficial Finance Company, 393 F.

Supp 1382 U.S. District Court, N.D. Indiana. May

1st, 1975

5) Charles Christy and Tracy Christy v. Heights

Finance Corporation, 101 B.R. 542. U.S. District

Court, C.D. Illinois

6) Varner v. Century Finance Company, Inc. v.

Termplan, Inc. v. Termplan, Inc. of Georgia, 738

F.2d 1143, 11th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals. Aug

9th, 1984.

7) Robert Griggs, etal v. Provident Consumer

Discount Company 503 F. Supp. 246, U.S. District

Court, E.D., Pennsylvania, Dec. 24. 1980

vui

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

8) Bradford v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation,

Virginia 859 F. Supp. 2d 783 U.S. District Court,

E.D. Alexandria Div. April 26, 2012

9) Gerasta v. Hibernia National Bank v. U.S.

Building Materials Co., Inc., 575 F.2d 580 U.S.

Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. June 23rd, 1978.

10) Jones v. The TransOhio Savings Association,

747 F.2d 1037, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 12, 1984

11) Clemmer v. Liberty Financial Planning, Inc.

467 F. Supp. 272, U.S. District Court, W.D. No.

Car., Charlotte Div. Feb. 12, 1979

12) Jesus v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 918

F.2d 232; U.S. Court of Appeals, First Cir. October

31, 1990

13) Basham v. Finance America Corporation.

583 F.2d 918, U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Cir.

August 16th, 1978.

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

United States Supreme Court

Title 42, Section § 1983

1) City of Canton, Ohio v. Geraldine Harris, 489

U.S. 378 (1989)

2) Monell, June v. New York City Department of

Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)

Non-Immunity Case(s):

3) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

4) Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)

5) Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971)

6) Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)

7) Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984)

8) Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)

*9) Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

10) Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

11) United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135 (9th

Cir. 2012)

12) California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)

13) Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)

14) Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002)

Pleadings from Pro Se Litigants:

15) Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)

16) Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004)

x

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

*United States Supreme Court / U.S. Court of

Appeals

Entrapment Cases:

*1) Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63

(1988)

*2) Jacobsen v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548

(1992)

*3) Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958)

*4) Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)

5) United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th

Cir. 1994)

6) United States v. Barta, 776 F.3d 931 (7th Cir.

2015)

7) United States v. Mayfield, 771 F.3d 417 (7th Cir.

2014)

8) United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168 (2d Cir.

2014)

9) United States v. McGill, 754 F.3d 452 (7th Cir.

2014)

10) United States v. Black, 750 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.

2014)

11) United States v. Cartes, 757 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.

2013)

12) United States v. Pillado, 656 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.

2011)

13) United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911 (5th

Cir. 2009)

14) United States v. Luisi, 482 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.

2007)

15) United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d

645 (9th Cir. 2006)

xi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

*United States Supreme Court / U.S. Court of

Appeals

16) Bradley v. Duncan, 315 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.

2002)

17) United States v. Mendoza-Prado, 314 F.3d 1099

(9th Cir. 2002)

18) United States v. Thomas, 134 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.

1998)

19) United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324 (10th

Cir. 1998)

20) United States v. Sligh, 142 F.3d 761 (4th Cir.

1998)

21) United States v. Burt, 143 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir.

1998)

22) United States v. Joost, 92 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1996)

23) United States v. Montanez, 105 F.3d 36 (1st

Cir. 1997)

24) United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.

1998)

25) United States v. Rodriguez, 858 F.2d 809 (1st

Cir. 1988)

26) United States v. Bradley, 820 F.2d 3 (1st Cir.

1987)

27) United States v. Khubani, 791 F.2d 260 (2nd

Cir. 1986)

28) United States v. Berkery, 889 F.2d 1281 (3rd

Cir. 1989)

29) United States v. Fedroff, 874 F.2d 178 (3rd Cir.

1989)

xu

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

*United States Supreme Court / U.S. Court of

Appeals

30) United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310 (3rd Cir.

1989)

31) United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 (5th

Cir. 1997)

32) United States v. Sandoval, 20 F.3d 134 (5th Cir.

1994)

33) United States v. Kang, 934 F.2d 621 (5th Cir.

1991)

34) United States v. Cantu, 876 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir.

1989)

35) United States v. Robinson, 887 F.2d 651 (6th

Cir. 1989)

36) United States v. Graham, 856 F.2d 756 (6th

Cir. 1988)

37) United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196

(7th Cir. 1994), en banc 9 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 1993)

38) United States v. Fusko, 869 F.2d 1048 (7th Cir.

1989)

39) United States v. Martinez, 122 F.3d 1161 (9th

Cir. 1997)

40) United States v. Rameriz-Rangel, 103 F.3d

1501 (9th Cir. 1996)

41) United States v. Reece, 60 F.3d 660 (9th Cir.

1995)

42) United States v. Sterner, 23 F.3d 250 (9th Cir.

1994)

43) United States v. Lessard, 17 F.3d 303 (9th Cir.

1994)

xm

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

*United States Supreme Court / U.S. Court of

Appeals

44) United States v. Mkhsian, 5 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir.

1993)

45) United States v. Kessee, 992 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir.

1993)

46) United States v. Becerra, 992 F.2d 960 (9th Cir.

1993)

47) United States v. Skarie, 971 F.2d 317 (9th Cir.

1992)

48) United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767 (9th

Cir. 1987)

49) United States v. Beal, 961 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.

1992)

50) United States v. Collazo, 885 F.2d 813 (11th

Cir. 1989)

*51) Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959)

*52) Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)

*53) United States v. Pennsylvania Indus.

Chemical Corp., 411 U.S. 655 (1973)

54) United States v. Albertine, 830 F.2d 985 (9th

Cir. 1987)

55) United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30, 37 (1st

Cir. 2006)

xiv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

United States of America v HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

and HSBC Holdings PLV, 12-CR-763 (JG) January

28, 2016.

Factual Background: In December 2012, the

government charged HSBC Bank USA, N.A. with

willfully failing to maintain an effective anti-money

laundering ("AML") program, in violation of the

Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et. seq., and

HSBC Holdings PLC with willfully facilitating

financial transactions on behalf of sanctioned

entities, in violation of the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§

1702 & 1705, and the Trading with the Enemy Act

("TWEA"), 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 3, 5, 16. Information,

ECF N. 3-1, Dec. 11, 2012. Simultaneously, the

government publicly filed a DPA requesting that I

hold the case in abeyance for five years in

accordance with the terms of the DPA, a statement

of facts describing HSBC's alleged misconduct, and

a Corporate Compliance Monitor agreement. See

ECF Nos. 3-2 (DPA), 3-3 (Statement of Facts), 3-4

(Corporate Compliance Monitor Agreement).

According to the DPA, if after five years HSBC has

complied with the terms and provisions of the DPA,

the government will seek to dismiss the

information with prejudice; if not, the government

may prosecute HSBC "for any federal criminal

violation of which [the government] has

knowledge," including—but not limited to—the

charges in the already-filed information. DPA If

15-16. ...

xv

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of

certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of

appeals appears at Appendix A & B to the

petition and is

[ ] reported at

or,

[ ]has been designated for publication but is

not yet reported, or,

[X] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district

court at Appendix C to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

or,

[ ]has been designated for publication but is

not yet reported, or,

[X] is unpublished.

1

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court

of Appeals decided my case was January 22,

2021.

[ ] No petition for rehearing was

timely filed in my case.

[X] A timely petition for rehearing was

denied by the United States Court of Appeals

on the following date: May 26th, 2021, and a

copy of the order denying rehearing appears

at Appendix A.

[X] An extension of time to file the

petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including * (date) on_____(date)

in Application No.____ A____ . *As per

Order of the Court Granting 60 Day

Extension.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked

under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUATORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution Civil Rights Including,

5th, 7th, 1st, 14th Amendments.

Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977

Federal Truth In Lending Act of 1968

- Home Equity Loan Consumer Protection Act of

1988

• Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of

1994

Gross Negligence

Intentional Misrepresentation

Unjust Enrichment

Unfair and Deceptive Business Practice

- Title 42 U.S.C.§ § 1983/1985

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Arthur Lopez is an American born on

February 7th, 1967 in Los Angeles, California with

a Mexican Heritage and is Father to Four Lovely

Children ages 17, 14, 13 and 7. Additionally,

Plaintiff is a Catholic-Christian from birth.

On March 23, 1990 Plaintiff purchased a single

Family Residential Property located at 2251

Bloomfield Lane in Corona, California 92882. This

is a two story, brand new home developed by

Standard Pacific Homes (Founded by Ron Foell and

Arthur Svendsen in Costa Mesa, CA 1965 and is

now known as CalAtlantic Group, Inc./CalAtlantic

Homes a Lennar Company). This home was

purchased along with Plaintiffs Mother and

Stepfather, Jovita and Joaquin Alvarez as a 50/50

partnership. A Copy of the Original Deed of Trust

is attached as Exhibit A and as part of the

Complaint-Statement of Facts.

This home was sold on or about September 24th,

2008 by Jovita and Joaquin Alvarez in a Forced

Sale for approximately $570,000.00, see exhibit H.

Honorable United States Supreme Court this case

before you involves Predatory Lending by the

defendants stemming from the transactions related

to Home Equity Line(s) of Credit - Single and

Binary Family Residence Loan(s) that go back to

2008 and involved Plaintiffs Parents Jovita and

Joaquin Alvarez as borrowers on the property

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

purchased by Plaintiff and his parents on March

23, 1990.

The defendants include a Massive Banking

Conglomerate with Headquarters in the United

Kingdom - 8 Canada Square, London - with roots

in Hong Kong and Shanghai from its formation in

1865. It now ranks as the 7th largest bank in the

world. Moreover, the fourth defendant James Brien

Comey, Jr has roots in the United States Judicial

branch going back to the "Clinton" era as U.S.

Assist. Atty. (1996-2001), the "Bush"

administration as U.S. Deputy Atty. General (20022005), to 7th Federal Bureau of Investigation

Director (2013-2017) - until he was abruptly

terminated/removed from this post of Integrity by

President Donald J. Trump for conduct unbecoming

of a Law Enforcement Officer/Director among other

violations. In addition, this defendant joined the

other three defendants — "HSBC" (LondonbasedV"Hong Kong and Shanghai..." as "Director"

on their "Board of Directors" circa 2012 just before

he became F.B.L "Director", see exh. "C". This

Chronology is significant to this case since Plaintiff

had been in contact with the U.S. Department of

Justice for several years and had also provided

complaints and details pertaining to Mortgage

fraud and Real Estate along w/ several other Civil

Rights violations involving Law Enforcement,

please see Exhibit "E" which is Dated December

22nd, 2011. Plaintiff had also filed complaints with

5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

several other Federal Divisions including Office of

the Comptroller related to Mortgage Fraud by

MUFG Union Bank, N.A. a Japanese wholly owned

Banking Conglomerate, Please take judicial Notice

of United States Supreme Court Case/Docket #19 A

240 (U.S. Court of Appeals Case #18-55748) Arthur

Lopez v. MUFG Union Bank and California

Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01192499. These

timelines and events coinciding with the Resume of

defendant "Comey" clearly establish the shadowing

and concerted effort by the defendants to target

and deprive the Plaintiff of 1) his property, 2)

unbiased financial assistance and 3) rights, Not to

mention to acquire $1.9 Billion Settlement with the

United States Department of Justice.

Specifically, defendant "Comey's" wife, "Patrice

Failor" is a volunteer Superior Court employee

while Plaintiffs State of California Level Lawsuit

against MUFG Union Bank, N.A. was derailed by

the fraudulent-misrepresentations of a volunteer

judge of the Superior Court of California, County of

Orange in 2012 who so happened to also be the

defendants attorney and whose colleague presiding

over the case was Judge Francisco Firmat please

take judicial notice of active U.S. District Court

case # 8:19-cv-01143 VBF(MRW). In addition, these

defendants have consistently and as a standard

operating practice have violated practically every

United States Real Estate Related Law of the Land

as related to Home Equity Lines of Credit (see

6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Causes of Action on Page 1). In fact, these brazen,

arrogant and unlawful conduct/scheme(s) are so

outlandish that even the most basic essential

element of the loan, the "A.P.R." is

inaccurate/wrong/misleading/misrepresented and a

violation of State and Federal Law(s) as stated on

the Home Equity Line Agreement on Day One, see

exhibit "G" as it relates from the inception and

consummation of the Real Estate Loan transaction.

In plain language the Interest Rate is not correctly

quoted or disclosed on the agreement period

(Section 11). Moreover the Initial A.P.R. cited on

the Agreement and the "Spread" cited on the

Agreement is also incorrectly disclosed/cited/noted

(Section #12). In summary, the A.P.R. and the

"Spread" are both incorrectly cited on the

Agreement and as such Plaintiff requests this court

grant "Recission" of this HELOC loan and

reimbursement of all funds paid be ordered.

Furthermore, changes to the A.P.R. require new

disclosures and new agreement under Truth In

Lending Laws along with the Consumer Credit

Protection Act of 1968 from the onset. This

agreement has not been corrected and the attached

Bank Statement reflecting a different "A.P.R." —

Interest Rate from Day 1, exh. "G".

These lenders/defendants also failed to provide

disclosures pertaining to the Total Costs

anticipated by these rates over the duration of this

7

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

line of Credit fully amortized. This is to say what is

the projected cost of the loan transaction, see Exh F

— Home Equity Line Agreement.

Furthermore, the defendants failed to provide Total

Cost — full disclosures of the Principal and Interest

projected payments as the HELOC entered the

latter 20 yr. - Repayment Period. This is also

violation of the Truth In Lending and Consumer

Credit Protection Act. Moreover, by not disclosing

the enormous jump in the monthly payment

thoroughly "Ability To Pay" requirements are also

violated since borrowers are not fully apprised of

the 400% increase in the monthly payment

obligation that ensues. This is especially critical

since retirement age also serves to dramatically

reduce the monthly income by more than 50% and

as such is the formula for catastrophic results and

a Regulation Z — Truth In Lending violation of

these defendants.

As if these ground level violations were not enough

these defendants followed up these unlawful acts

by then practicing unlawful and unfair Debt

Collection Practices by systematically delaying

posting of payments, credits so as to trigger late

charges and bank fees the like. For example when

borrower/representative would walk in to a local

HSBC Bank branch to make a deposit or payment

after a certain afternoon hour the defendants

systematically would not reflect the payment on

8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

deposit date as the transaction day. Rather they

instead would carry it over to a later business day

& in some cases when a weekend or holiday was

involved would further delay the posting date by

several days triggering a host of Fair Debt

Collection Practices of 1977 violations (see Exh. D)

since not only were artificially imposed late charges

tacked on but also the Credit Line was then also

compromised and as was the Credit standing since

collection notices and collection harassment ensued

all the while the payments/deposits had been

timely presented. Moreover, when these violations

were presented to the local branch staff in Irvine or

Culver and then to the Customer Relations

network nothing was done to correct these issues

and instead was chastised and told the "New York"

would not acknowledge the business hours of the

local branches on the West Coast specifically

Southern California where these violations

occurred.

Furthermore, these defendants also engaged in

Acts of Discrimination and failed to Financially

Assist with Loan Modification requests despite the

Federal Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) (Exh. "H")

existing and $7.6 Billion dollars being made

available through December 31, 2020 for

situations/circumstances related to the Financial

Hardship created by the Defendants Violations and

Inadequate Disclosures coupled with the enormous

monthly payment increase in July of 2018 and the

9

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

lay-off of Plaintiffs Mother from her Aerospace

Machining job of 40 years not long before the huge

jump in monthly payment obligation imposed by

these defendants. Also, please note defendant

"Comey" also became associated with the Aerospace

Industry through these related dates while

employed at "Lockheed" see exhibit *C\ The

defendants Refusal to provide Financial Assistance

to these borrowers where the vehicle to achieve the

necessary modification is also a violation of not only

the Consumer Credit Protection Act (1968), Home

Equity Loan Consumer Protection Act (1988),

Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of

(1994), Housing Discrimination Act (1977) but also

is an Unfair and Deceptive Business Practice,

Creates Unjust Enrichment and can be said is

Extreme "Gross Negligence."

Summarily, the countless omitted Disclosures and

Misrepresentations and Disregard for Good Faith

conduct which Plaintiff and borrowers relied on

throughout these processes can only amount

Intentional Misrepresentation and Extreme Gross

Negligence not to mention Criminal Conduct since

the overwhelming number of violations have

created a Homeless situation for the Plaintiff, have

Forced the sale of the Family Home of nearly 30

years and has deprived Plaintiff of: 1) an

Inheritance (Approx. Current Market Value $620$650K) 2) Enjoyment of us, 3) Appreciation Value Approximately $50,000-$70K this past year alone

10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

and not to minimize in any way the quality of life

and Family ties since these traumatic events have

certainly strained the Family Bonds.

For all these reasons and many more Plaintiffs

respectfully petitions this court for Relief and

Compensation for the damages inflicted by these

defendants lawlessness and corruption in the

amount of $440,000,000.00 (Four Hundred Forty

Million Dollars) after taxes.

The court should also be made aware that these

violations of Law have been discovered recently and

following to a large extent, if not all, the September

24th, 2018 Forced Sale of the property also known

as 2251 Bloomfield Lane, Corona, California 92882.

Lastly, Plaintiff humbly cites United States

Supreme Court Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972) whereby "Pro Se Litigants should be Held to

Less Stringent Standards than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers." As such if the court finds

additional facts are necessary, Plaintiff seeks the

court's granting of Motion to Leave to Amend

Complaints as permitted under Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Equitable Tolling is

justified and petitioned for any possible Statute of

Limitation Conflicts due to the Discovery of New

Facts, Doctrine of Continued Violations, Ongoing

Administrative Processes created by the

Complaints Filed with the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau, etc.

11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Lower Court erred and demonstrated bias by

prematurely issuing a Mandate following

Dismissal. A petition for panel rehearing may be

filed within 14 days after entry of judgement.

[FRAP 40(a)(1)]. But in a civil case, unless an order

shortens or extends the time, the petition may be

filed by any party within 45 days after entry of

judgement if one of the parties is: ...(D) a current or

former United States officer or employee sued in an

individual capacity for an act or omission occurring

in connection with duties performed on the United

States' behalf — including all instances in which the

United States represents that person when the

Court of Appeals' judgement is entered or files the

petition for that person." Moreover, U.S. Court of

Appeals, Ninth Circuit Rule 27.10(a)(1) also

provides authority for this Request-Petition

Petition-Motion(s) as it states: 27.10 Motions for

Reconsideration, (a) Filing for Reconsideration (1)

Time Limit for Orders that Terminate the case: "A

party seeking further consideration of an order that

disposes of the entire case on the merits,

terminates a case, or otherwise concludes the

proceedings in this court must comply with the

time limits of FRAP 40(a)(1). Hence, with the

court's Dismissal Order having been issued

January 22, 2021 and as a matter of fact that

codefendant is(and) Former Federal Bureau of

Investigations, F.B.I., Director James Brien Comey,

Jr. this Petition is timely submitted by March 8th,

2021. Therefore, the mandate issued February 16,

2021 is untimely and issued in error.

12

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Now then, having clearly stated these defendants

persistently targetted Plaintiff Arthur Lopez with

acts of discrimination and harassment to harm and

deprive Plaintiff of his rights as a CatholicChristian, Mexican Heritage Hispanic Latino, Male

Father of Four Lovely Children. In fact, these

matters of deprivation of rights including Civil

Rights are not the very least frivolous but rather

quite the opposite, they are very serious and even

criminal as provided by authority of United States

Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 and § 241: "Whoever, under

color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or

custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,

Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District

to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunity(ies) secured or protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or to

different punishments, pains, or penalties, on

account of such person being an alien, or by reason

of his color or race, than are prescribed for the

punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this

Title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both

..., or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this

title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,

or both, or may be sentenced to death"; and "If two

or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,

threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,...

in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or

privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws

of the United States,... They shall be fined under

this Title or imprisoned not more than ten years or

both ..." respectively § 242 and § 241. Therefore,

13

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

whereby defendant Comey, Jr. an American

Lawyer employed by the United States in

numerous capacities going back to 1996 or beyond

through at least May of 2017 and holding U.S.

Department of Justice Roles from F.B.I. Director

(possibly 2013-2017) and FBI Agent of sorts going

back to at least 2004 along side Director Robert S.

Mueller III and holding offices/title(s) of Assistant

U.S. Attorney - Virginia (1996-2001) and U.S. Atty.

S. District of New York (2002-2003), and U.S.

Deputy Atty. General (2003-2005), and Acting U.S.

Atty. General (2004) during which Plaintiff, Arthur

Lopez, had and has been targetted, persecuted,

threatened, defrauded, deprived of rights including

due process and equal protection under law in

addition to the specific Causes of Action listed on

the original complaint and all the while defendant

Comey, Jr. has also held paid positions with U.S.

Government Contractors/Affiliates the likes of

Lockheed and U.S. Licensed/Chartered/Regulated

International Banking Conglomerate Co-Defendant

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. to execute his assaults

upon Plaintiff with the assistance of these

Conspirators/Accomplices over an extended period

of years. These assaults with the premeditated

goal/purpose of destroying Plaintiff to the point of

death, entrapping, Robbing Plaintiffs wealth,

Assets, Home, Solely Owned Auto Finance

Business, Family, Wife, Children, Automobiles,

Friends(ships), Peace, Enjoyment/Quality of Life,

Food, everything to the extreme of leaving to die on

the streets. In fact, Defendant Comey, Jr. has had

14

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

many co-conspirators in these schemes including

entrapment scheme(s) which have involved Tustin

Police Department (who maliciously placed Diesel

Fuel in Plaintiffs Gas Burning Engine Hybrid

Automobile permanently damaging the catalytic

converters barring any possibility of acquiring a

smog check and as such barring the issuance of a

License Plate Sticker/Tag by California

Department of Motor Vehicles as part of the annual

processes), Irvine Police Department (Whereby the

Chief of Police David L. Maggard, Jr. was involved

in issuing and Untruthful-Coverup Letter in

11/2007 in response to Plaintiffs April 7, 2007

Complaint involving the issuance of a bogus ticket

for a non-existent veh. Code Violation and the

Unlawful Seizure of his family from the automobile

including his pregnant wife and two middle

children preventing them from proceeding in the

vehicle despite Plaintiff having signed the issued

ticket with an acknowledgement to appear in

Court. In fact, the Chief of Police also President of

the California Association of Police Chiefs and

moreover the California Designated Representative

to the National Police Chief Association), Santa

Ana Police Department (who has also participated

in these entrapment schemes involving the

Plaintiffs Vehicle Registration and the

consequences of Tustin Police Dept, malicious acts

involving the Diesel Fuel having issued 3 bogus

citations related to this very issue), Newport Beach

Police Department (also having issued 3 bogus

citations on the same issue among other violations

15

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

of Law and Plaintiffs civil rights well documented

and ongoing litigation), Anaheim Police

Department (Failing to Address Plaintiffs

Complaint of Teacher Abuse upon his eldest

daughter at Fairmont Private Schools which led to

bullying from another student ultimately barring

daughter's admission in Retaliation for Reporting

incidents), O.C. Sheriff (ongoing harassment

including collusion with unlawful Superior Court of

Ca staff, barring court access and violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act), Costa Mesa Police

Dept, (unlawful seizure following unlawful stop and

bogus ticket issuance) and many more. Therefore,

these Entrapment Schemes participated in

executing by these above itemized conspirators

including Defendant Comey, Jr. is unlawful under

Federal Law and countless Case Law/Points of

Authority herein contained, moreover please see

Exhibit E dated December 22, 2011 whereby

Plaintiff notified the United States Department of

Justice in Washington, D.C. of the ongoing

Deprivation of Rights involving the above

mentioned entities including the F.B.I. who was not

only apprised of the hostilities but was and has

repeatedly been visited by Plaintiff in Person at

their Santa Ana and Orange, California offices and

also through the Los Angeles, Ca. Civil Rights Unit

where handwritten complaints have been delivered.

Furthermore, as amazing as the extreme measures

the United States Department of Justice, F.B.I. and

16

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

James B. Comey, Jr. have stooped to destroy and

kill Plaintiff Arthur Lopez these facts are not

"fanciful” as the District Court Judge from Newport

Beach, Ca roots described these claims. In fact,

they are well documented and ultimately defendant

Comey, Jr. was terminated from his FBI Director

role once Plaintiff initiated his Civil Complaints

whereby evidence was submitted of these Rogue

operations. In fact, Plaintiff remains Indigent and

homeless as a direct cause of these defendant acts

of discrimination deprivation of rights and

unlawful standard operating procedure. Hence, the

Lower Court erred in contradicting the United

States Supreme Court's holding in Foman v. Davis,

371 U.S. 178 (1962) "...Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a) declares that leave to amend "shall

be Freely Given when Justice So Requires, and

denial of the motion without any apparent

justifying reason was an abuse of discretion." In

this case the Lower Court Judge was so eager to

cover up FBI Director-Former's unlawful abusive,

sinister actions that she never even afforded Pro-Se

Litigant any such opportunity to add detail, cause

of action or any such less drastic measure. Clearly,

an abuse of discretion and authority. In addition,

the United States Supreme Court has also ruled in

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 403 U.S.

388 (1971) a violation of a Constitutionally

Protected right by a Federal Agent can give rise to

a Federal Cause of Action for damages.

17

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Hence please take judicial Notice of the following

55 Points of Authority related to the Entrapment

Scheme since defendant Comey, Jr. engaged in the

Entrapment Schemes of his cohorts targetting,

depriving Plaintiff of his rights and inflicting

punishment and harm without providing Plaintiff

with his rights under an Entrapment Defense and

without any formal charge ever! See United States

Supreme Court ruling(s) in Jacobson v. United

States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), The government must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant

(target) was predisposed to commit a crime prior to

any contact with government agents in order to

overcome an entrapment defense"; also see

Sherman v, United States 356 U.S. 369 (1958),

Government cannot overcome entrapment defense

by dissociating itself from informant's conduct";

also see Sorrells v. United States 287 U.S. 435

(1932), Entrapment is a valid defense"; also see

Mathews v. United States 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988)

"Even if the defendant (target) in a federal criminal

case denies one or more elements of the crime

(alleged), he is entitled to an entrapment

instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence

from which a reasonable jury could find

entrapment - a defense that has the two related

elements of Government Indictment of the crime,

and a lack of predisposition on the defendant’s

(target) part to engage in the criminal conduct; also

see Cox v. Louisiana 379 U.S. 559 (1965) "and to

permit him to be convicted for exercising the

privilege they told him was available would be to

18

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

allow a type of entrapment violative of the Due

Process Clause"; and also Raley v. Ohio 360 U.S.

423 (1959), "The convictions of three of the

appellants violated the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, since they were entrapped

by being convicted for exercising a privilege which

the Commission had led them to believe was

available to them"; also see United States v.

Pennsylvania Ind. Chemical Corp. 411 U.S. 655

(1973), "...and thus may have deprived respondent

of fair warning as to what conduct the Government

intended(s) to make criminal." Also find herein

following points of authority related to exceptions

to Qualified Immunity as to Law Enforcement

Agents such as United States Supreme Court

holding in Beck v. Ohio 379 U.S. 89 (1964) No

Probable Cause for petitioner's arrest having been

shown, the arrest (target), and therefore

necessarily the search for and seizure of the slips

incident thereto, were invalid under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments - Reversed"; also see

Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800 (1982), whereby

the Supreme Court held Presidential Aides were

not entitled to absolute immunity, but instead

deserved qualified Immunity"; also see Anderson v.

Creighton 483 U.S. 635 (1987), Holding "that an

officer is entitled to Qualified Immunity if the

officer proves that a reasonable officer could have

believed the warrantless search to be lawful,

considering clear established law and the

information which the officer possessed"; also see

Hope v. Pelzer 536 U.S. 730 (2002) in which the

19

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Supreme Court ruled Qualified Immunity is not

available to prison officials for Civil Rights lawsuits

alleging violations of the Eight Amendment ban on

Cruel and unusual punishment for use of a hitching

post"; Additionally, please take judicial notice of

the additional Points of Authority following 13

under Exceptions to Qualified Immunity and also

City of Canton, Ohio v. Geraldine Harris 489 U.S.

378 (1989) Whereby violations of U.S.

Constitutional Civil Rights due to a lack of proper

training of its officer allows for Civil Cause of

Action under Title 42 § 1983; and see Monell, June

v. New York City Department of Social Services

436 U.S. 658 (1978) allowing for Civil Cause of

Action against Government.

Lastly, please take judicial notice of points of

authority allowing for appointment of counsel for

indigent pro-se litigants under Title 28 U.S.C.

1915(d) as Plaintiff has repeatedly requested

counsel for his Civil Cases as an indigent pro-se

litigant from this lower district court but have been

denied also to have been sought through amended

complaint but deprived of said right as provided

under FRCP Rule 15(a); see Foman v Davis 371

U.S. 178, "Leave To Amend Should be freely

given..."

In summary, defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,

etal has violated every cause of action listed in the

initial complaint: 1.) Consumer Credit Protection

20

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Act of 1968 (and Subsequent Amendments), 2.) Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977, 3.) Federal

Truth In Lending Act of 1968 (and Subsequent

Amendments), 4.) Home Equity Loan Consumer

Protection Act of 1988, 5.) Home Ownership and

Equity Protection Act of 1994, 6.) Gross Negligence,

7.) Intentional Misrepresentation(s), 8.) The

Housing Discrimination Act of 1977 (Subsequent

Amendments), 9.) Unjust Enrichment, 10.) Unfair

and Deceptive Business Practices (For which

Plaintiff seeks Injunctive Relief as part of the

Remedies Sought). Moreover, defendant James

Brien Comey, Jr. colluded with other codefendants

to Discriminate against Plaintiff due to his

Catholic-Christian Religion/Religious Beliefs

Grounded In "Jesus Christ's Mandate To Love Thy

Neighbor"; also discriminated against Plaintiff

Lopez due to his Mexican Heritage Hispanic Latino

Race and his Male Gender Father of 4 Lovely

Children who have also been blessed by Our Lord

and Creator with the intent of destroying Plaintiffs

Familial Status as Father and his Family Unity in

addition to causing loss of his newly launched Auto

finance business as a sole owner and further

orchestrating the demise of his multi million dollar

home of nearly 10 years. Damages not only include

the immeasurable elements listed above but also

loss business income and growth over

approximately 10 years as Ongoing Violations

which warrant tollings; under the On Going Continued Violations Doctrine.

21

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Beyond all of these loss of quality of life and Social

Standing with Friends and Family in summary

enormous, catastrophic damages and continuing

loss of health and ongoing emotional distress for all

these and many more inflicted harm Plaintiff seeks

$440,000,000.00 net after taxes (Four Hundred

Forty Million Dollars net after taxes). This relief

will not undue the harm premeditatively inflicted

by these defendants but may help restore some

degree of the dignant quality of life earned by

Plaintiff after enduring enormous Torture.

Additionally, Plaintiff brings enormous standing in

this case as the original purchaser of the property

described relevant in these causes of action and

moreover one of only two children of his parents co­

purchasers Mrs. Jovita and Mr. Joaquin Alvarez.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is a U.S. Citizen with

United States Constitutional Civil Rights including

protections against unlawful seizure, Due Process

and Equal Protection under Law and protections

against Cruel and Unusual punishment (4th, 14th,

8th, 7th amends.)

Also please see United States of America v. HSBC

Bank USA, NA and HSBC Holdings PLC Case No.

12-CR-763 (JG) 1/28/2016 In support of Plaintiffs

claims since the United States District Court, E.D.

New York held these defendants accountable to

criminal violations of Law/Misconduct in this case

cited. Also please see attached Table of Authorities

In Support. Also please note Qualified Immunity is

22

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

forfeited for misconduct in violation of well

Established Civil Rights, see Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 800 (1982) June 24, 1982; Also see Table

of Authorities in Support.

23

REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION

Petition should be granted to shield American

Home Owners from unscrupulous predatory

lenders and to safeguard the Home Equity of every

household in the nation. Moreover, law

enforcement officials must maintain protocols

within the boundaries of the United States

Constitutional Rights of Every Citizen and

Resident.

24

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

ARTHUR LOPEZ

Date: October 17th, 2021

25