Homeowners Investigating Judges Conflict of Interest

It seems that many Judges have investments and many of those investments involve various types of income funds, from high yield to low yield and everything else you’d expect from someone who is saving money toward retirement. The problem is that some of their investments involve mortgage bonds, and other home loan derivatives which could be effected by their own decisions. Personally I think that even with the example shown below, the Judge’s attitude might be negative toward homeowners and toward defenses relating to securitization but I doubt if his personal investments have much to do with that. I am more of the opinion that he hasn’t been convinced yet of the efficacy of these arguments although he most certainly must be having some doubts about his own position. Political leanings and indirect influence probably also have their effect.

On the other hand I see the appearance of impropriety which certainly is something the courts should be watchful about. This is a huge issue and we don’t want to have a huge personal battle with Judges on the bench — they are our last hope. Here is an example of Judge Teilborg in Arizona whose disclosure shows that he has some of these investments which likely relate to those derivatives and mrotgage bonds. But frankly I doubt if he knows or understands the connection, and that is why I don’t think there is actual bias. If he DID know the connection and understand the significance his opinion might be exactly opposite and he would start ruling for the homeowners. But I’ll concede that this gets dicey when the personal money of the Judge appears to be at stake based upon his rulings.

I’m no expert on recusal. So I don’t have a strong opinion on this. And you have the difficulty of finding judges who don’t have any of these investments. But if “Bill” has a valid point, then the fact that many judges might have these kinds of relationships and investments should not be used to justify allowing decisions to be made when there is actual bias.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Neil:

Arizona USDC is the worst.  Judge Teilborg rules against everyone homeowner, every good Arizona Lawyer, including Beth Findsen, repeatedly.  I’ve counted about 40 cases so far.

Here is what I believe is the reason:    Judge Teilborg has so many conflicts of interest with securitized mortgages, it is breath-takingly scandalous.  He appears to have about 100 accounts including one with Goldman Sachs, and another with Met Life, a huge securitizer.

He should be recusing himself on securitiezed mortgage cases, and we now should be insisting on it.  He is to soon decide the huge MDL MERS cases, which will end up being the standard for the entire Western Coast, once the 9th Circuit gives its rubber stamp.

You can link to the site below for several years (or other judges).

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/teilborg-james

“Bill”

 

43 Responses

  1. To Spinfall:

    Just trying to confirm what you are all saying. I am in Texas and many of my clients are too. Truth be known, I work with homeowners all over the Country and it has been very interesting to see what strategy works with which Judge. Not all are in bed with the Judges now, because the very influence of this website has been most effective. One of my clients has been in the Court room for over four years, not fighting just default but another issue covered in the mortgage and it is my client that sued, not the lender. The Judge was so used to rubber stamping these foreclosure proceedings that he was half way through the hearing before he realized that my client was suing the lender, not the other way around. Did he sound ridiculous or what because clearly he was getting ready to tell the Plaintiff (my client) that he was awarding him the motion. When in fact, it was the lender that was the Defendant. As laughable as it was, it was very sad. Each and every case is different and has to be handled as such. Texas is a non judicial state.

  2. If you have a problem with a judge, try this:

    Wisconsin Judicial Commission
    110 E. Main Street, Suite 700
    Madison, Wisconsin 53703

    Phone: 608-266-7637
    Fax: 608-266-8647

  3. So I wonder how and who elected that judge teilborg be head ofvthe multi district team deciding the” fate” of mers. Just wondered

  4. Abby in CA,

    YOur spot on!

  5. Take for instance my judge, the guy had a mortgage with a company based in the Netherlands that ‘invested’ in loans on the secondary market. Would you honestly want that judge hearing any argument of your’s about the loan is unsecurred and unenforceable?

  6. Brian Longley,
    It doesn’t matter because so many of them are secretly heavily invested in MBS and ALL pensions are or have been tied to them within the last ten years the conflict exists, their all guilty by association at best or co-conspirators acting in collusion to commit fraud and treason at worst.

  7. Joyce Louise

    Are you in a Judaical or Non judicial?

    The simple fact is Judges are in BED with the plaintiff i’e’ the bank.!

    HOW????? Well, if the Judges is hearing 100 cases a day from say Deutche Bank in FL, then it becomes a cosey Judge/Attny relationship!

    I mean, they probably meet for Lunch on recess, or in the Judges Chambers.

    People who seek the rule of law & justice in today’s court room are selling their soles to the devil by the biggest bunch of Incompetent fools ever produced in American History!

    This History is playing out right before you eyes!

    When I leave the court house, I usually have to disinfect myself with Lysol from the Sewer that is our Fraud-u-Tice ( Justice ) system.

    FYI……..I’m all for throwing a Judge in a Jail in a NY sec! These Judges know exactly what they’re doing.

  8. Just as an aside to everyone. If you start picking on judges without merit you tar each with the same brush. Don’t consider every judge to be the same. If you make statements about someone, you best know that it is fact or they come to ask you to share you view in court as you are sued for libel. I know a few, and none of the ones I know happened to become a judge for profit. That isn’t how you profit as an attorney. Most of them took the rotten job because they believe in justice, or they wouldn’t have bothered. Some are corrupt and are being paid off. But Prove it first. You start waving accusations and imagine how far you are going to get? These people are working toward their pension, so I agree that their conflicts should be weighed, but who is going to replace them? Florida doesn’t have enough judges, so they are hiring retired people that don’t want to be there.
    Be careful what you wish for and be real sure of your facts before you piss of the only friend you have in the court.

  9. Oh, I almost forgot many judges also have accepted company stock shares making them shareholders of companies that are also set up for big time failure.

  10. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Real Equity Ventures, Eva Miranda. Eva Miranda said: Homeowners Investigating Judges Conflict of Interest …: The pooling of home loans into securities has been pra… http://bit.ly/hykaeW […]

  11. Statistical fact 99.9% judges corrupt face the truth.

    frankielee’s got the idea. We may be looking at a second Shays Rebellion on a nation-wide scale.

  12. Abby in CA,
    Where have you been!?! You were like the only person that came to the same conclusion. I’ve been feeling like a lone nutjob out here trying to tell everybody this.

    email me or something so we don’t lose contact
    philipjs@verizon.net

  13. http://gvbids.com/fraud/adversary/66.pdf
    MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PITE DUNCAN LLP FRAUD ON THE COURT

    Solomon v Eloan, Wells Fargo, Mers
    CALIFORNIA EASTERN DISTRICT BANKRUPTCY COURT SACRAMENTO

  14. Elizabeth Warren Helped Shoot Down Bill That Would Have Sped Foreclosures, Calendar Shows

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/elizabeth-warren-calendar_n_788120.html

  15. Pay attention here folks:

    Adam Levitin, who spoke about this conundrum these last few weeks before congress:

    Now here’s the real kicker: there’s no reason to think that the Kemp note was a unique, one-off problem. All evidence from actual foreclosure cases points to the lack of a chain of endorsements on the Kemp note being not the exception, but the rule, and not just for Countrywide, but industry-wide. Certainly on the non-delivery point (separate from the non-endorsement problem), Countrywide admitted that non-delivery was “customary.” If either of these issues, non-delivery or non-endorsement is widespread, then I think we’ve got a massive problem in our financial system.

    Yep, I’d say we’re close to cooked. Stick a fork, spoon, or spork into our hides, financially, we’re totally sporked. Nothing left but the eulogies. Goodbye worldwide commerce, it was great while it was going, before Wall Street decided it could magnify it’s value exponentially. Derivaties = whatever downfall. And all that the Treasury, the FDIC, HUD, the FED, FDIC, the OCC, and all of the rest of them are doing is validating a broken system. They’re all bogus.

    They all need to come down. Time for a revolution.

    http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2010/11/securitization-fail.html#tp

  16. Thank god for Elizabeth Warren.
    Elizabeth Warren Helped Shoot Down HR 3808 Bill That Would Have Sped Foreclosures, Calendar Shows

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/elizabeth-warren-calendar_n_788120.html

    shahien@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

    Elizabeth Warren Helped Shoot Down Bill That Would Have Sped Foreclosures, Calendar Shows

    First Posted: 11-24-10 05:13 PM | Updated: 11-24-10 05:37 PM

    Elizabeth Warren was the first senior Obama administration official to recognize the potentially incendiary impact of a bill that would have made it significantly easier for mortgage companies to foreclose on homes, and her subsequent warnings played a crucial role in persuading the President to veto the measure, according to freshly released documents and people familiar with the deliberations.

    The disclosure that Warren was instrumental in halting a bill that would have streamlined the foreclosure process comes as she confronts fierce criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill for the way she was appointed to construct a new consumer financial protection bureau, and characterizations that she is inclined to take an overly punitive tack with Wall Street.

    A long-time advocate for greater regulation of the financial system and a prominent critic of predatory lending, Warren now finds herself at the center of an intensifying debate over the relationship between the Obama administration and the business world.

    For consumer advocates, who have long decried what they portray as Wall Street’s outsized influence in Washington, Warren represents their greatest hope that big banks will be more tightly supervised following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. For a vocal group of business leaders and their Republican allies, Warren has become Exhibit A in their case that the Obama administration is anti-business.

    The decisive way in which she labored behind the scenes to stymie a bill that would have eased requirements for documentation in the foreclosure process underscores how her arrival has altered the administration’s relationship with major banks.

    The bill, which passed both houses of Congress and awaited President Obama’s signature to become law, essentially would have compelled notaries to accept out-of-state notarizations, regardless of the rules in those states.

    State officials across the country–who have been pursuing probes looking into wrongdoing within the foreclosure process– feared that those jurisdictions with lax standards could have become hotbeds for foreclosure documentation fraud. Lenders and mortgage companies could have used those states as central clearing houses to produce bogus foreclosure paperwork, and then export those documents to other states with more stringent regulations–an expedient bypass around the strictures.
    Story continues below
    Advertisement

    Obama ultimately declined to sign the law, and the House of Representatives failed to override the veto.

    Officials said Warren was among the first federal officials to recognize the significance of the notary bill, titled the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. She met with authorities from several states and then relayed their concerns to influential administration officials.

    During the morning of Oct. 6, Warren’s team at the Treasury Department wrote the first memos on the bill, raising questions about the possible consequences if it became law, these people said.

    That evening, Warren met for 30 minutes with Peter Rouse, Obama’s interim chief of staff, her calendar shows. She later spent an hour on the phone with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who once sued Countrywide Financial and exacted an $8.4 billion multi-state settlement.

    The next day, Warren participated in an afternoon meeting on the bill, her calendar shows. During that meeting one of Obama’s top spokesmen, Dan Pfeiffer, posted an entry on the White House Blog explaining why Obama would not sign the bill.

    On Oct. 8, Obama declined to sign the bill into law, citing the need for “further deliberations about the possible unintended impact” of the bill on “consumer protections, including those for mortgages.”

    Documents released Wednesday show that Warren met or spoke with at least eight state officials leading a 50-state investigation into possibly-fraudulent mortgage documentation practices.

    The state attorneys general, secretaries of state and bank supervisors are probing the way in which major mortgage companies have pushed through thousands of foreclosure cases at a time, as if on a factory assembly line, by short-cutting the required documentation process.

    Recent weeks have featured a host of unsavory disclosures about how mortgage companies employed so-called robo-signers– people whose sole job was to sign foreclosure documents without reading them or confirming basic facts, as required by law. The volume of cases and shoddy handling of paperwork is reflective of the messy and indiscriminate lending practices that characterized the nation’s housing boom, as Wall Street eagerly handed mortgages to seemingly anyone willing to sign off.

    The states’ investigation and a parallel multi-agency federal probe are now roiling the mortgage industry, heightening the possibility that major lenders could face potentially huge fresh losses as bad loans continue to emerge. With legal and regulatory uncertainty now enshrouding the industry and public outrage trained on foreclosures, the banks could have trouble limiting those losses by selling off the homes pledged against bad mortgages.

    The nation’s biggest lender, Bank of America, has seen its share price drop 18 percent through yesterday’s market close since the day before the states announced their joint inquiry.

    Warren serves as an assistant to Obama and a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as she leads the effort to create the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a watchdog designed to protect borrowers from abusive lenders. Her calendar from Sept. 20 to Nov. 2 was released per a Freedom of Information Act request.

    The longtime Harvard Law School professor and consumer advocate met or spoke with the state attorneys general from Iowa, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, Massachusetts and Ohio, her calendar shows. She also met with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and spoke with New York’s top banking regulator, Richard H. Neiman. They are among the leaders of the combined state probe.

    Warren has long chided federal regulators for their lax oversight of the financial industry and slipshod protection of consumers. She’s championed state regulators, however, who have often been ahead of their federal counterparts when it comes to consumer finance issues.

    Warren’s calendar also shows numerous meetings with bankers and their representatives. Financial executives and lobbyists have noted that Warren was reaching out to them more than they initially expected. The calendar confirms her outreach.

    On Sept. 20, the same day she took a photo for her Treasury Department badge, Warren spent an hour and a half meeting with bankers from Oklahoma, her calendar shows. She spent an hour having lunch with Geithner that day as well.

    Since then she’s met with the chief executives of the nation’s largest banks, including Vikram Pandit of Citigroup; Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase; John Stumpf of Wells Fargo; James Gorman of Morgan Stanley; Richard Davis of U.S. Bancorp; W. Edmund Clark of TD Bank Financial Group; David Nelms of Discover Financial Services; Niall Booker of HSBC North America Holdings; and Kenneth Chenault of American Express.

    The calendar entry for Chenault’s one-hour meeting on Oct. 13 notes that “He’s flying here for us.”

    Warren also met with officials from Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest lender and one of the world’s biggest financial institutions.

    Notably absent from Warren’s calendar are officials from Bank of America, the biggest bank in the U.S. by assets and branches, including its chief executive, Brian Moynihan.

    Warren’s calendar includes meetings with investors and trade groups, like the Consumer Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

    Though Warren is known for her vigorous advocacy on behalf of consumers, she’s spent more time with bankers and their lobbyists than with consumer groups and advocates during her roughly two months on the job.

    Warren’s 2007 journal article calling for the creation of a dedicated consumer agency inspired policymakers to enact it into law. Big banks opposed it.

    Warren has also met with nearly two dozen members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including the likely incoming chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus, and the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Richard Shelby. The Alabama Republicans have been particularly critical of Warren and her new agency.

    Warren’s calendar features numerous White House meetings, like a two-hour dinner on Sept. 23 with top Obama adviser David Axelrod and breakfasts and lunches with another top Obama counselor, Valerie Jarrett. She’s also met with the heads of all the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    Among Warren’s early initiatives are efforts to make credit card disclosure forms shorter and easier to read, and simplifying mortgage documents. Her first major speech since joining the administration was a Sept. 29 address to the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group representing firms like JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock and State Farm. She asked the assembled executives to work with her to create a new system of consumer regulation focused on core principles rather than a mountain of specific rules.
    *************************

  17. I found something to be thankful for. Okay, here it is:

    “I am thankful that I am NOT a mortgage banker.”

  18. Tomorrow find something to be THANKFUL for…banks can not take away gratitude!
    Hoping for THANKSGIVING for everyone.

  19. Concept. I’m not arguing I took the money I’m arguing I was duped into borrowing the money theta a huge difference.

  20. Everyone, I downloaded every Judge in CA. I isolated the Judges in Fresno County, CA where I live. There are 41 Judges in our county and 27 of them have MERS ON THEIR MORTGAGE according to the County Recorders Website. I determined that the Judge in my case not only has one he has two mortgages with MERS AS BENEFICIARY on two different properties. It is my understanding that since a DEED OF TRUST IS A CONTRACT I HAVE A CONTRACT WITH MERS AND SO DOES THE JUDGE. BASED ON THAT DOESN’T HE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN DECIDING MY CASE AND SHOULDN’T HE RECUSE HIMSELF ? I HAVEN’T BROUGHT THIS TO HIS ATTENTION YET AND I BET HE HAS NO IDEA ABOUT MERS. Can anyone tell me whether I’m right about this or not.
    We have been fighting the BANKSTERS SINCE OCTOBER 2007 PRO SE AND OUR NEXT COURT DATE IS JAN.27, 2011.
    THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP AND KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT.

    HYDROGENE

  21. Securitized notes – 14 Foreclosure Cases Dismissed
    By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

    A federal judge in Ohio has ruled against a longstanding foreclosure practice, potentially creating an obstacle for lenders trying to reclaim properties from troubled borrowers and raising questions about the legal standing of investors in mortgage securities pools.

    Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

    The pooling of home loans into securities has been practiced for decades and helped propel real estate prices in recent years as investors sought the higher yields that such mortgage trusts could provide. Some $6.5 trillion of securitized mortgage debt was outstanding at the end of 2006.

    But as foreclosures have surged, the complex structure and disparate ownership of mortgage securities have made it harder for borrowers to work out troubled loans, in part because they cannot identify who holds the mortgage notes, consumer advocates say.

    Now, the Ohio ruling indicates that the intricacies of the mortgage pools are starting to create problems for lenders as well. Lawyers for troubled homeowners are expected to seize upon the district judge’s opinion as a way to impede foreclosures across the country or force investors to settle with homeowners. And it may encourage judges in other courts to demand more documentation of ownership from lenders trying to foreclose.

    The ruling was issued Oct. 31 by Judge Boyko, and relates to 14 foreclosure cases brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. The bank is trustee for securitization pools, issued as recently as June 2006, claiming to hold mortgages underlying the foreclosed properties.

    On Oct. 10, Judge Boyko, 53, ordered the lenders’ representative to file copies of loan assignments showing that the lender was indeed the owner of the note and mortgage on each property when the foreclosure was filed. But lawyers for Deutsche Bank supplied documents showing only an intent to convey the rights in the mortgages rather than proof of ownership as of the foreclosure date.

    Saying that Deutsche Bank’s arguments of legal standing fell woefully short, the judge wrote: “The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.”

    A spokesman for Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the ruling. But the inability of Deutsche Bank, as trustee for the pools, to produce proof of ownership at the time of the foreclosures will fuel borrowers’ concerns that they are being forced out of their homes by entities that may not even hold the underlying loans.

    “This is the miracle of not having securities mapped to the underlying loans,” said Josh Rosner, a specialist in mortgage securities at Graham-Fisher, an independent research firm in New York. “There is no industry repository for mortgage loans. I have heard of instances where the same loan is in two or three pools.”

    The process of putting together a mortgage pool begins when a home loan is originated by a bank or mortgage lender. That loan is typically sold to a Wall Street firm that pools it with thousands of others. Once a pool is packaged, it is sold to investors in different slices, based on risk. A trustee bank oversees the pool’s operations, ensuring that payments made by borrowers go to the appropriate investors.

    Lawyers who represent troubled borrowers complain that trustees overseeing home loan pools often do not produce proof, usually in the form of a mortgage note, that their investors own a foreclosed property. And a recent study of 1,733 foreclosures by Katherine M. Porter, an associate professor of law at the University of Iowa, found that 40 percent of the creditors foreclosing on borrowers did not show proof of ownership. Such proof gives a creditor standing to foreclose against a borrower and is required by law.

    “The big issue in all these cases, whether we are dealing with a bankruptcy court, a state court or a federal court, is who really owns the mortgage note, and that is allegedly what they securitized,” said O. Max Gardner III, a lawyer who represents borrowers in foreclosure in Shelby, N.C. “A collateral question is, has that mortgage note really been transferred and assigned to the securitization trust? If not, then they really don’t have standing. It’s Law School 101.”

    When a loan goes into a securitization, the mortgage note is not sent to the trust. Instead it shows up as a data transfer with the physical note being kept at a separate document repository company. Such practices keep the process fast and cheap.

    Because most foreclosures proceed without challenges from borrowers, few judges have forced trustees like Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York to prove ownership by producing a mortgage note in each case.

    Borrower advocates cheered Judge Boyko’s ruling.

    The plaintiff’s argument that “‘Judge, you just don’t understand how things work,’” the judge wrote, “reveals a condescending mindset and quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still control, the foreclosure process.” The cases could be filed again in state court, however.

    April Charney, a consumer lawyer at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida, who has been practicing foreclosure law since the late 1980s, said she rarely sees proof of ownership in cases involving securitization trusts. Her group has 30 to 50 such cases and not one of the lenders’ representatives has produced proof of ownership predating the foreclosure action.

    “We see a trend toward judges having enough of this trampling of the rules and procedure and care and reverence with which lawyers and litigants and participants in the judicial process should comply,” Ms. Charney said. “Hopefully this will convince everybody that the time to work out these home loans is now.”

  22. Looked into filing a complaint against the judge for not even looking at my evidence in Calif. But where under the Code of Judicial Ethics says they have to?

    http://cjp.ca.gov/

  23. Password for me also ,, Thanks

  24. If there’s bias wouldn’t it be a void order?

  25. Arizona courts just plain Suck!!!!!! By more Ammo !!!!!!!!!!

  26. So what’s a gal to do with a judge who thinks mers is ok to legalize retroactively and thinks the note isn’t an issue. Question. cAN you infact make a district court judge recuse himself the point is if he doesn’t understand the sm and I believe the one on question may not then bring bias doesn’t come into it he lacks understanding of the complexity of the sm. We all probably know more than him so what to do. Dies anyone know if you do I’d love to hear it. My judge is teilborg and I’m very very perturbed now to say the least

  27. Neil my password don’t work for the other site
    thanks
    dave

  28. To Spinfall:
    Being an advocate for the people, I was in Court one day when the homeowner and the attorney for the lender walked up to the bench. The Judge came in, sat down and said: I don’t know anything about mortgages, but I know if you have one, you have to pay it. It never dawned him that the lender should have to prove it and when the homeowner tried, that went no where. Since he did not look at the briefs that had been filed, he did not know that the homeowner had presented him with strong evidence that the lender did not own the debt and in fact was using a fabricated assignment to win their msj and they did and are proceeding to foreclose. Homeowner has stopped them several times from f/c by various filings with ancilliary judges who knew a little more. Tthat case too is now in appeals. Thanks to this website and everyones general comments, we have a lot more to help these homeowners defend themselves and they are doing better.

  29. Listen-up people,

    It is my understanding that ANYONE can file a complaint against a JUDGE, foreclosure mill and/or specific attorney or anybody else for that matter with grand jury.

    Lets all explore this and lets let our peers judge the evidence on its merits.

    i welcome your comments at:

    providencegroup@ymail.com

  30. Well, Harris won AG for Ca. What’s it mean?

  31. God might have the last word but I’ll be sweating the reset on my arm after paying all these years. My payments can’t keep up with the value dropping because of all the repo’s. I have three kids I’ll have to jerk out of there normal school district. I can’t believe this shit!

  32. How do you go about getting the password to the “ALL 66 Million Mortgages are Wild Instruments” website? Until I see some actual justice being meted out, to include jail time for most of the perpetrators don’t talk to me about America being a nation of laws. This situation stinks to High Heaven and I am confident that GOD will have the last word!

  33. How do we get a password for that other post???

  34. As I have stated multiple times prior all over this website, Blackrock (which handles Maiden Lane) also manages all 3 of the federal judges’ retirement plans, including all the offerings (of RMBS etc.). When I tried under the FOIA to get a list of the RMBS investment options from the organization which manages the federal judge’s retirement plans, I was denied.

    Companies such as Blackrock handle institutional investors, such as the federal government employees (FBI, Congress, FDIC, OCC etc).

    IN JPMAC2006-NC1, the minimum amount for an investor (and we are talking only institutional investors) was 1 million dollars.

    JPMAC2006-NC1 contains my loan.

    You should also realize that probably most state judge’s retirement plans contain offerings of RMBS.

  35. It’s crazy but in Federal court after remand you get the same judge.

  36. CAN A PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A CASE ASK FOR A DIFFERENT JUDGE, COURT, ETC?

    IN CRIMINAL CASES OR CASES OF SOME RELEVANCE THE JUDGES ARE REMOVED, REPLACED OR THE VENUE IS CHANGED.

    WHAT CAN BE DONE REGARDING THIS IN EACH PARTICULAR STATE. IF THE JUDGES DECISIONS ARE ONE SIDED TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THEN CAN WE APPEAL EACH ONE OF HIS DECISIONS?

    AS LONG AS THERE ARE NO DECISIONS ON THE RECORDS THAT BACK US UP NATIONWIDE, WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS REALITY. REMEMBER THE OTHER SIDE, THE THIEVES AND CRIMINALS OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY AND THE CORRUPT AND PIMPED OUT LAWYERS FOR THE FORECLOSURE MILLS HAVE YEARS OF UNCONTESTED FRAUD UNDER THEIR BELT. THE DECISIONS FAVORABLE TO US THE CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN VERY FEW AND ARE SOMETIMES JUST RELEGATED TO THE MOST HORRIFIC, FLAGRANT AND CRIMINAL ABUSES.

    NOW THAT IT IS NOT ONLY US, HOME OWNERS, WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FRAUD, BUT IT ALSO THE INVESTORS WHO WANT THEIR MONEY BACK AND WHO ARE NOW ENGAGING IN MORTGAGE FORENSIC REVIEWS AND ANALYSIS TO GO AFTER THE REAL CROOKS THE BANKS AND THEIR MINIONS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

    YOU SEE, THEY WILL ALWAYS DEFEND THEMSELVES UNTIL THE BITTER END AND THEY DO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THAT. WE HAVE HAD TO SETTLE FOR SECOND EST ALL THE TIME, WE CANNOT HIRE THE EXPENSIVE LAWYERS, WE CANNOT AFFORD THE GOLF TOURNAMENTS, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL PARTIES, WE ARE ON THE FRINGE OF SOCIETY AND FROM WITHIN THE FINANCIAL ROYAL HOUSE, WE ARE BELIEVED TO BE OUTCASTS. THEIR AIM IS TO TOTALLY SILENCE US AND TO MAKE SURE THEIR CRIMINAL DEEDS REMAIN COVERED UP.

    THEIR SOLUTION TO THEIR CRIME IS MORE BAIL OUTS, MORE LOANS, ETC.

    JUST LOOK AT IRELAND, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY ARE BROKE, THEY ARE LESS THAN 8,000,000 PEOPLE AND THEY WERE GIVEN AN EMERGENCY LOAN OF e 100,000,000,000.00 (EUROS). THE IRISH POPULACE WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, THE BANKERS WILL GET MERGED, SOME BANKS WILL CLOSE, SOME WILL BE SOLD, BUT NO CONVICTIONS, NO CRIMES PROSECUTED. THE CRIMINAL GET TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND TO ENSLAVE A WHOLE COUNTRY AND PLACE THEM INTO A NEVER ENDING POSITION OF TOTAL SERVITUDE.

    GUESS WHAT AMERICA WE OWE MORE THAN 20 TRILLION DOLLARS, OUR TIME IS COMING NEAR. THEY STARTED WITH OUR HOMES, BANK ACCOUNTS, RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, KIDS COLLEGE FUNDS, AND OUR SOLUTION TO THIS MESS IS TO ISSUE MORE DEBT.

    I GUESS OUR LEADERS ARE JUST GENIUSES.

    WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS ABUSE?

  37. Someone said “Arizona USDC is the worst”

    Wrong…………try the 13 JC in Tampa FL.. Its like a Frat House of Conflict, run by a Chief Judge that has no control over the Juvenile Delinquents that impersonate Judges.

  38. Here’s how you beat a thief like Judge Teilborg!

    Either appeal his Ignorance, or let a Federal Judge Whip his bureaucratic azz in BK Court!

  39. Why not go to public records, and see what your JUDGE OWNS?? Is he a house Flipper? Is he a Slum LORD? Is a Private investor who LOAN SHARKS HARD MONEY through a local Lender??

    HUMMMMMMMMMMMM……….and you thought they just show-up with a Black ROBE,and act speak Latin?

    Fact is, most Judges should recuse themselves if they have a mortgage ( MBS).

    End of Story!

  40. Anyone who thinks a Judge is not biased to the Foreclosure process is a FOOL.

    They are no different than you or I. They too have UNDERWATER Real Estate Investments, and are upside down as well. They also dont have a clue who OWNS their mortgage(s), or which Trust their retirement/Pensions are locked-up in!

    IMO, I believe most Judges seek to protect a financial system they are completely ignorant which is skewed by personal Investment they SEEK TO PRESERVE.

    You think for moment they

  41. Re case below from Joyce –

    Homeowner has had to file a TRO to stop the foreclosure and low and behold, guess which judge got the TRO Injunction request. YOu guessed it. So now we are having to go another route by going through an ancilliary judge.

  42. This is a very difficult and complex issue with respect to how certain influences affect a judge who might be hearing a case, particularly one where the loan has been securitized. Although in one case, fraud on the court was provided to show that the lender had prepared the false affidiavit and allonge, the judge said to the homeowner, well you took the money to buy the house so you owe it to somebody. The word somebody is key. He had a note that was not properly endorsed over to a trustee and no valid assignment of the debt and still award the MSJ to the lender. After telling the judge that the company that truly owns the note was paid in full by the depositor so they are owned nothing and the fact that the investors purchased securities, not the loans, then the bill had already been paid. Now that I know is questionable, but the evidence provided as to the note and lien not being owed to the same company means there is no lien to foreclose on and this was fully supported by the homeowner. The judge could have cared less and awarded the lender.

  43. forgot password, need password resent.
    Thanks,
    mark

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: