The attached trial transcript reflects a devastating loss to me personally. It also reflects real areas of conflict within the existing body of appellate law. The next waves of this war are now starting to form across the horizon. We’ve largely moved past Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment issues. We’ve moved through discovery and other substantive law. Now the next phase is trials. We should all be prepared for trials in every single case. And then appeals when appropriate.
These are indeed unsettling times and quite frankly our trial courts have a nearly impossible burden placed upon them. It’s a burden placed upon them that every single taxpayer and homeowner must bear. All the while, the banks that caused all this chaos and conflict wallow in hundreds of billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. One of the most important take aways I get from this transcript is the time and attention devoted by the court to this trial. I don’t like the outcome here, but I have profound respect for a court that holds a foreclosure trial to the same standard as all other important cases.
I tried desperately to articulate the real and substantive problems that course throughout our entire legal, financial and government system….any old plaintiff showing up in court can get a foreclosure judgment. …it’s truly a disturbing state of law….
And now, read my pain….
I just read the entire transcript and must say that I feel your pain. I don’t know if I could have kept my composure during that trial and I have faced some pretty hostile judges as a Pro Per litigant. What helped me to not explode was that I kept telling myself that regardless of how the court responds to me, I am there to follow the court rules and make my record. Making your record is the most important thing you can do during your case.
The section in the transcript dealing with the Assignment really blew my mind. The testimony given by the Plaintiff’s attorney which is basically what it was that the Assignment means nothing and is irrelevant is the same mindset that went into the creation of MERS. It shows the total disdain for our Real Property Recording system by the banks.
The fact that the Judge went along with the idea that a Publicly Recorded Document which you had a certified copy of somehow requires testimony to be entered into the record of the court is disturbing. Out of all the documents presented during that trial, the one that was truly self authenticating required foundation while all of the hearsay documents required none. In California, you would ask the court to the court to take judicial notice of the recorded document which is an official record self authenticating.
The fact that this judge allowed a party to present a case for some unknown principal without anything before the court establishing exactly what the principal and agent relationship was is also disturbing. The only argument that you could have added to what already should have been a slam dunk was the example of the thief who holds the note. In fact, the analogy could include the parties in the case. As it goes, a thief who steals a promissory note is not entitled to enforce the note simply because he is the holder. Not only do you have to be the holder, but you also have to be the owner.
In this case, the parties admitted they were not the owners, what guarantee does the court have that after the house is sold, that any of the funds are going to go to the real owner? The court by not requiring the true owner be identified has sanctioned fraud in their own court.
Matt,
As I have said many times I highly respect what you do, fighting the consumer.
I promise this is the last time I say this since it never seems to sink into your head. You keep saying that our trial courts have a nearly impossible burden placed upon them and that cannot be further from the truth!
If our trial courts were to just follow the rules, black and white they would not be back logged, banks would not get away with what they do, and things would run as normal. The reality is simple, judges are not following the rules, the laws, their cannons,their oaths, and anything else you can think of, your transcript again proves that.
The courts allow banks, servicers, and their attorneys to get away with murder rather than holding these clowns accountable so we have wound up with a kangaroo court system…a wild west!
How you can say that is beyond comprehension to me and since you never respond back no one has any idea as to why you keep supporting our judiciary or feeling pity on them. Here is what should happen, every judge should either follow the letter of the law or be fired or removed from office, no second chances. When enough of this happens others will straighten up their acts.
How many could just do what they wanted and keep their business running without regards for their customers? How many Americans can not do their job as told and keep it? None, unless your a judge getting paid from the very people you are screwing!
Until the people of this wonderful country take control nothing is going to change.
Remember people, you are financially hurting while these judges, clerks, and every other civil servant is getting paid. They truly are the 1% so do something about it!
i agree, to a certain extent I’m trying to identify with the good judges, but at the same time, I understand that in many ways they are complicit in the whole scam…..it’s all so bad….and gonna get worse.
Wow–you did a great job. You even brought up the non-negotiability of notes! Keep it up, man–you are in the forefront of this battle. Don’t lose heart!
I am really impressed. According to the transcripts, the homeowners’ last payment was in 2008! What I don’t understand is how come the judge didn’t agree that the servicing agreement should have been submitted as evidence. I’m 70% through the transcript so don’t have the complete picture yet. More case law about the non-negotiability of promissory notes is needed and I understand seminars are being taught on that subject. One would think that in order to comply with REMIC trust law, that once the note is assigned to the trust, that’s where it stays. Is anyone having any luck with the argument that the note is simply unsecured debt, bifurcated from the security?