I want everyone to read this attached transcript very, very carefully. Get a picture in your mind of a crowded courtroom and of a court staff and personnel that are extraordinarily overworked and underpaid. Remember that Florida’s entire court system is funded with less than 1% of Florida’s government budget. Remember that we live in a state, in a nation that has grown hostile to the Rule of Law, where businesses have engaged in a knowing and concerted effort to weaken and diminish the third branch of government, defunding it, demoralizing it, hacking the branch to shreds.
As this nation heads into its darkest period, a time when the basic rights of every man woman and child in this nation are under assault by every arm and faction of the government. As we all understand now that our entire system of government is captive to corporate interests, please consider the sacred role that our forefathers envisioned that our court system and the third branch of government would play in maintaining the security and stability of this nation and her people.
As you keep that in mind, I want to encourage you to read carefully the transcript that is attached here, along with a few excerpts:
THE COURT: Is that going to be — you know what? I’m
going to give you standing objection to every
question they ask; foundation, hearsay. Just
put on the record what you want to object to.
This Court is going to give you a standing
objection to every single question. Think of
every objection you could ever make and I’ll
allow you to have a standing objection, because
I am not going to sit here and go into my next
hearing because every single — let the record
reflect that every single question has been
objected to.
MR. BLEIL: Judge, I request a standing
objection to this line of questioning.
THE COURT: You got it.
MR. BLEIL: Judge, but I — is Your Honor
giving every objection? Or would you like me
to narrow what objections I think would
applicable?
THE COURT: I am going to give you every
objection known to man. I will actually give
you my copy of Ehrhardt. So that if you’re
lacking some of them, you can find as many as
you want.
MR. BLEIL: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you. Standing
objection to everyone of your questions.
MS. WEINZETL:Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And they’re all overruled.
Transcript-of-Foreclosure-Trial-Ticktin
I had two reactions to this story. First, the “free house” language seems to fit in to “morality play” conservative politicians and Wall St use to deny help to homeowners and put democratic or progressive politicians on the defensive and to label “irresponsible homeowners”. It seems the judge is ignoring actual law and what the associated damages are. In CA I believe a civil lawsuit on fraud can result in 3x the amount of the loan so that a person can be awarded much more than a “free house”. Large awards are meant to discourage criminal behavior not simply giving things away. The other thing was that judges have no problem giving large awards against government or have no problem with death sentences or three strike sentences for minor crimes.
The judge was so focused that the defendent could get a house free and clear because of paper work technicalities; someone lent money on the house that might not be required to be paid back, etc. It seems like an analogy might change those with his same mindset – The judge lent $50,000 to his sister and brother in law as they had lost their jobs. Since this was family, the judge wasn’t concerned about the piece of paper (note) his sister & brother in law signed and he eventually he lost it. A year or two later, a plaintiff’s attorney comes in with the note for the debt due but the owner is another person. Supposedly the judge assigned his note (no one recognizes any of the parties involved in the assignment execution) and there is no transfer record of this new note; just a 3rd party stating their interest in the note. Should the judge award his $50,000 to the new 3rd party because “someone lent the money” and the borrower needs to pay?
I think this argument would have gained a little more traction if the lawyer here would have told the judge that enforcing this mortgage on behalf of the trust makes the court an accomplice to a breach of duty by the trustee. There is a reason the mortgages can’t go in the trust at a late date. It exposes the true lender (certificate holders) to a 100% tax liability. The trustee’s duty is to put the loan back on the party that tendered the loan to the trust so the investors can recoup there money 100% instead of taking a 100% loss. This is another fee gouging scheme by servicers and sadly to say lawyers.
I also though a court of equity couldn’t knowingly breach a trust for ANY reason other than the trust is for an illegal purpose.