Center for Public Integrity Seeking Emails Between Florida Judges


This is why I think that the bell ringers of each state should collaborate and not just compete. Tom Ice is one of those bell ringer lawyers who is constantly looking for new ways, out of the box, that will produce the truth about the due process allegedly afforded borrowers in the court. All of us who have been to court know the same thing: that the due process is an illusion on the rocket dockets with senior retired Judges whose payroll is funded by the banks.

Going into any courtroom anywhere in the state and you hear the same phrases used by the sitting Judge. It is as though they were all getting scripts from the same source. In fact any experienced lawyer would tell you that where the wording is the same amongst a number of different people on the same subject, that alone is evidence of a common source, whether disclosed or not.

So Tom Ice is working with the Center for Public Integrity to get the emails between the Judges — and any other public information  guaranteed under the Sunshine Law. Except that they are encountering considerable resistance that only adds to the suspicion that foreclosure cases are decided long before any evidence is heard. Government agencies who have the information are keeping the emails and other records where the sun doesn’t shine.

I would suggest that Tom Ice be given any help that he needs or asks for and that the chief bell ringers of the state (you know who you are) contact Tom and offer support, which I am doing right here on this post. My feeling is that there is an action lurking here that could be brought in Federal Court against the state of Florida for systematically depriving homeowners of due process and treating them differently than other debtors. I think the action could be broadened to state that the banks are favored from the first instant not because of experience but because the Judges are under pressure to clear the cases off the calendar and because they have been told the way to do that is to enter rulings and judgments against borrowers.

Judges could just as easily have been told to require that the foreclosing party have everything lined up before they set foot in court. Plenty of local rules have done that with certain types of cases. Had they done so, experience shows, the foreclosure “backlog” would have vanished because the foreclosing parties cannot prove ownership, balance or default — unless they treated as though they were holders in due course without ever having alleged that and without ever having to prove that they purchased for value in good faith and without knowledge of borrower’s defenses. If those elements are not ALL there, then the foreclosing party probably has unclean hands by definition — which accounts for why they filed cases and then sat on them while the statute of limitations appeared to run out on TILA claims and deceptive loan practices. The judicial system, instead of dismissing for lack of prosecution allowed these cases to fester until at least some of the borrower’s claims could be considered arguably barred by the statute of limitations.

And it is all because the banks “own the place.” It is bank money fueling the judicial system and it is bank owned politicians who are either not enforcing the laws or making up new laws that are clearly prejudicial to the interests of borrowers. If they really owned the debt, note and mortgage they wouldn’t need to wait. If they really don’t own the debt, note and mortgage then they shouldn’t be allowed to force a family out of their home on the supposition that someone somewhere is owed the money and must have suffered a default because the borrower stopped paying and that someone must have an interest in the note and mortgage that can be enforced. Since we don’t have any evidence we will just presume all that to be true.

This is clearly a case of the old West where they decide whose guilty, and then have a mock trial before they hang him — something they do simply because it takes time to build the scaffold for the hanging. Everybody feels good about “justice,” even though justice was never served. Here is my challenge: make the banks prove ownership,balance and default not with hearsay documents that ABOUT the underlying transactions but with actual evidence that the underlying transactions truly exist. If they had it, they would have produced it.

When you ask for it they say we are not entitled to it. Why not? Remember that presumptions at trial are irrelevant in discovery, where the borrower is absolutely entitled to ask questions about the underlying transactions and demand that the transaction documents be produced so the borrower can rebut the presumptions that would be used at trial. Failure to allow discovery on these issues closes off any hope for most borrowers to get the information from the only source that has it. It is circular reasoning to think that the presumption at trial is a bar to interrogatories or a Request to Produce before trial.

54 Responses

  1. Its a lot like safe sex. You ask for protection but the other party doesn’t want to go thru the trouble or expense. Tic Toc Tic Toc the mouse ran up the clock.

  2. But Ian’s correct and devil really is in the details, in law every word matters and loaded like a gun.

  3. Ian
    That’s the point of Matthew 😉

  4. Deb Wynn- I think you mean “gnat”.

  5. ” knat” . Small insect

  6. on a lighter note, discovery list of admissions :

    1. Do you and your partners consider yourself a a) Kant swallower or b) camel chugger

    A) yes——- no——-
    B) yes ——–no

    2. Are you a hypocrit

  7. You never know who reads this blogg and I’m of Not of any ” religious” following I simply believe in God and the source of all thats good. I usually follow up on my super consciousness, a dream – it lead me to the following and its relevant I hope no one is offended by my sharing this as that’s never the intent.

    The Expository Files
    Straining Out Gnats and Swallowing Camels

    Matthew 23:23,24

    “Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:23,24)

    Given my druthers, I wouldn’t swallow a gnat or a camel, but if forced to choose between the two I’d quickly be heading out the door with my gnat trap. The Pharisees, on the other hand, seemed to have a more ambitious appetite. Even though they painstakingly avoided swallowing a tiny gnat, they did seem to enjoy stuffing huge, gangly camels into their mouths.

    Actually the Pharisees did well to avoid eating gnats as they were unclean (albeit the most minute of the unclean animals). The Pharisees would obey the law to the extent of literally straining their wine or drinking water through a cloth in order to avoid the possibility of swallowing an unclean insect. But they would then turn around and engage in religious activity that was grossly unlawful, immoral and ungodly, not thinking anything about it. And this disorderly activity Jesus likens to the eating of a camel.

    The ungodliness of the Pharisees is also illustrated in reference to their tithing. One tenth of the harvest was to be given to God (usually going to the priests and Levites – Nu 18:20-24; Dt 14:24-29). The Pharisees would go so far as to pay tithes on a mint, dill, and cummin (three tiny garden herbs grown for seasoning and flavoring their food). To pay tithes on these crops was to be scrupulously obedient. For the tithe was scarcely worth the trouble of removing it from the garden. Jesus did not condemn this tithing, but he did condemn leaving undone the more important matters; an omission of which the Pharisees were guilty.

    The Pharisees dismissed as needing no attention at all the more important spiritual parts of the law such as justice (the act of righteously judging our fellow man), mercy (forbearance toward the guilty and compassion for the suffering), and faithfulness (manifesting belief in our lives).

    Could it be that we too are guilty of the same legalistic attitude which prompted such a stern Messianic rebuke? Is it possible that in our enlightened spiritual environment we could be replacing more important matters of the Lord’s work with the less important details? It would be the height of religious arrogance to assume that it could not happen to us.

    When it comes to justice, we are judging the worth of others based upon the details of clothing, financial status and social position rather than on the eternal value of their soul? Are we more concerned about community gossip and the standards of other religious groups in judging people than we are of the standard of God? Are we reflecting the justice of God when we become upset over the orderliness of worship but not upset over the lost souls of those who may be disorderly?

    When it comes to mercy, we must follow the example of Jesus who often attended to physical needs such as hunger and sickness, but was primarily concerned with man’s spiritual needs. To show mercy by helping a needy person with a handout is certainly commendable, but to assist that same person in obtaining a saving knowledge of the Word of God is even more important.

    As far as faithfulness is concerned, we all realize the importance of attending worship services and avoiding any public display of ungodliness. But what about when our actions are hidden from the public? How do we treat our spouse and our children in the privacy of our home? What about our thoughts, our true desires? Are we as spiritual inwardly as we appear to be?

    The message of Jesus in Matthew 23:23,24 is not that we neglect the details of obedience, but that we also remember the more important matters. Giving perfectionistic attention to the details while neglecting true service to God and our fellow man will only result in our condemnation as one who strains out the gnats and swallows the camel.

    By Ed Barnes
    From Expository Files 6.11; November 1999

  8. Hey, Dwight, make a reservation in your discovery that says if you locate any further documents or find research or remember anything that is applicable, you will supply same. Keep your options open. Remember, you can always reserve your rights, but you need to state in open court before a court reporter or put in your dox. Good luck. Not worried about your discovery, just THEIR discovery or lack thereof.

  9. Good point Dwight you are in discovery Im telling you the Nolo series of legal books includes and talks about discovery its easy read buy off Amazon perhaps. Not real expensive. Used books online may have too. Have faith and good luck
    My own cases took twists and turns that did not bring me joy at all but I’ll say this I still have motivation after five long years and I’m still in court. Onward!

  10. Deb .. appreciate the feedback … too late to hire lawyer, have tried and wrote about the dilemma in prior posts .. Oct 22 is deadline for discovery to be mailed out .. no time for books or lawyers right now , just looking for any last minute tips before it gets mailed. I know It’s a burden on others when a Pro Se comes in looking for suggestions, but understand I’m not asking for every single step-by-step procedure, I’m asking for people to try to collectively start bringing together the most important basics that we have all learned in this long journey … break it down and share the key points with each other … it has changed as we have come along .. but lately we are pin-pointing the best strategy to get traction in the court rooms … so as I put together my questions, I’m just asking others if there are any really good, key questions that I should consider asking ..before I mail it out . Please understand that I’m not asking for you to hold my hand and do all the work in my case. We all have to do a better job in condensing the key information we have all learned , and figure out how to list it in a way that can be shared with each other, or others that may need to refer to it.

    I apologize to you and others for being in this situation and I know its a pain in the ass to deal with Pro se homeowners who are fighting the good fight .. I just wish we could find a way to list our best points learned over the years , and arrange them in a way that could be useful. Like discovery for example .. what have we learned all these years about the opportunity to reach the discovery phase ?? its an important phase to have reached .. not everyone is so fortunate to be in my shoes … NG even writes about how the whole case and narrative could be won or lost in this phase. I just want to make sure I’m not leaving out a critical question, or request for documents , etc .. that could hurt me later .. I know I’m asking a lot, we all have our own problems.. just looking for last second advice .. people here tend to talk in abbreviated ways , very few simplify the information they learned and spell it out for others to utilize .. most keep saying “go hire a lawyer” .. so I understand the frustration, but I have to try for the sake of my family .. its very humiliating and embarrassing that I even have to be here begging for any help. God Bless us all.

  11. Preservation is a good thing Louise .

  12. I have figured out that i DO not want to do another motion before appealing. It only leaves you open to more of your case and evidence that will be ruled out. I am filing the Notice of Appeal next week not in 30 days.

  13. Woops- I mean try to HAVE a ” back door escape plan”

  14. Dwight
    You need council
    I see you are missing time lines already
    Look up ” interlocutory appeal”

    It’s frustrsting to see you struggle
    Not an attorney but legal advice you must look this up. Stay focused and don’t read broadly if judge talked about standing that’s what he is comfortable with then you might focus more so in it but try not to have a ” back door escape plan”. Think defensively,

  15. We are all struggling Dwight make no mistake about that ! I I share as a pro se r, I hate what you are going through because im in this chit too.
    You do not have to depose ( it’s will cost you thousands and you will need to pay for the transcripts ( one of mine cost $375 ) you can try to get what you need through interrogatories and Admissions. First get your disclosures out as they should have done theirs,
    If they don’t answer your questions on paper they arnt going to answer at deposition – then you motion to compel / and or ask for sanctions if it’s obstructive of discovery rules and not ” overly burdensome / stuff they should have on hand if they are who they say they are and then you can always do a subpoena duces tecum for documents you know exist which you might get them to admit to in your interrogatories
    Did you buy the NOLO book Dwight
    It offers direction

  16. From the case below …

    *This decision also reaffirms the importance of ensuring that all appropriate assignments and documents evidencing a proper chain of title are promptly recorded.

    *Not sure whose opinion that is , but they seem to think the Appeals Court Judges still rely on assignments and chain of title.

  17. A recent New Jersey Appeals Court Ruling ….

    New Jersey Homeowners Now Using Quiet Title Actions to Affirmatively Challenge a Party’s Standing to Foreclose

    November 14, 2013


    On November 4, 2013, the New Jersey Appellate Division in Suser v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, et al. affirmed a homeowner’s right to file a prospective quiet title action to affirmatively challenge a bank’s standing to foreclose on a particular piece of property. This ruling may result in additional litigation for banks and lenders because homeowners can affirmatively bring these actions without waiting for a bank or lender to initiate foreclosure.

    The plaintiff in Suser initiated this action by filing a quiet title action against Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (“Wachovia”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey. While Plaintiff’s complaint sought to discharge the mortgages held by Wachovia and Deutsche Bank, the main thrust of his argument sought to challenge the defendants’ standing to seek foreclosure of their respective mortgages. Among other things, Plaintiff asserted that the subject mortgage loans were not properly assigned to the defendants and they should be estopped from maintaining their liens under the doctrines of laches and waiver. During discovery, the lower court denied the plaintiff’s discovery requests looking into the circumstances surrounding the assignment of the mortgage allegedly held by Deutsche Bank. The lower court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.

    The plaintiff appealed the lower court’s orders granting summary judgment and denying him discovery of the circumstances surrounding the assignment of the mortgage allegedly held by Deutsche Bank. The Appellate Division upheld the order granting summary judgment in favor of Wachovia, but reversed and remanded the lower court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank and the order precluding the plaintiff from discovery relating to the subject assignments. The Appellate Division held that in viewing the facts most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a legitimate dispute as to whether Deutsche Bank obtained an effective assignment for the subject loan and as a result, whether it had the right to foreclose or whether such right would reside with the assignor or some other entity.

    The Appellate Division also held that the plaintiff was permitted to affirmatively file an action for quiet title because the question of whether Deutsche Bank was the proper holder of the subject mortgage with the right to foreclose is properly adjudicated through a quiet title action. Specifically, one of the purposes of N.J.S.A. 2A:62-1 “is to permit a landowner to sue for clarification of the validity or reach of his title in circumstances that otherwise preclude a forum for the resolution of such a dispute.” The Appellate Division also held that Deutsche Bank may in the near or distant future seek to foreclose on the subject property and that “could sufficiently enshroud plaintiff’s title” to permit him to file a quiet title action.

    The import of this decision is that it permits homeowners to preemptively challenge a bank or lender’s standing to bring a foreclosure action. This finding provides homeowners with another avenue to raise potential foreclosure defenses and may lead to additional litigation on these issues prior to a foreclosure action ever being filed. This decision also reaffirms the importance of ensuring that all appropriate assignments and documents evidencing a proper chain of title are promptly recorded.

  18. But is that something that can even be appealed? This was a Motion to Strike my affirmative defenses and counterclaims before the actual trial took place. Can an appeals court review what was ruled on before the actual trial ? Or can they only look at the trial itself?

    I would need to appeal this after the trial? or do I appeal the ruling on the motion now?

  19. Same here. I still have breach of contract, however, for my appeal.

  20. Appeal. Look through your documents from servicer and find one that has the notice on it that they are a debt collector. Should be at the end of the letter/notice/mortgage statement.

  21. The Judge did not put anything in writing regarding my “Standing” defense … he simply stated it verbally that he was allowing that issue to proceed to trial. He had wiped out virtually all of my defenses and counterclaims .. and he looked like he was meekly trying to show his remorse by throwing me a bone “but I’m allowing the case to go to trial on the standing issue”.

  22. Thanks Deb … no I have not filed any reconsideration , I’m in way over my head at this point and struggling just to get my Discovery out on time , 30 days to mail discovery = Oct. 22nd

    After Discovery is mailed , they get 60 days to respond = Dec 22nd

    Facts and Deps completed (each party responsible for deps they want) by Jan 22nd

    (I’m not even sure what that means, depositions? how or when do I take deps? After I receive the answers back from discovery? The persons they have certify in their replies? I assume I would have to quickly request a deposition if I want any?)

    Trial Readiness Conference = Jan 26th 9 am

  23. I’m in my final days of Discovery to Wells Fargo in my case. I have had a difficult time finding any examples/samples of Discovery and Interog questions to use .. the QWR questions listed at this blog site seem to be pretty thorough and focus in on most of the important questions.

    Before I mail it to them on Monday morning, if anyone would like to throw out an idea or question to ask my servicer , I’m open to it.

    All they have is a fabricated note that they had a stamp added to from the old owner Washington Mutual , stamped in blank, endorsed.
    Wells Fargo says they do not own the note, they claim they are the “holders” and that Fannie Mae is the “investor”.

    The original lender on the Mortgage is “Commerce Bank” …
    The original Mortgage document lists MERS as nominee

    The original note shows it was already stamped and endorsed to Washington Mutual before our closing … Commerce Bank had already stamped our note “pay to the order of Washington Mutual”

    Charles says I need to drill down on this point and convince the Judge that he needs to see that neither Wells Fargo nor Fannie Mae holds legal title to this property .

    I’m just having trouble on knowing how I articulate that argument in order to get the Judge to agree … most holders in court never have to show proof of purchase , they are mere holders and the court accepts that .. how do I bridge this narrow view by the court and make them understand that they need to see proof of purchases all the way thru the entire chain ?

  24. Dwight
    That question of standing – post the wording of what judge said word for word. In confused here

  25. Dwight
    Did you do a motion for reconsideration so judge would take a second more closer look ? You might be past your time to do so now. I’d check on that. Get any extra case law in to back up your motion for reconsideration. You know I’m not an attorney si I can’t give legal advice I’m sending you info as I’ve done this research so I know you can. Best of luck.

  26. And New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been very aggressive and out-spoken against the banks in regards to the mortgage/foreclosure scandal. Recently he jumped on board when an attorney in a case raised the issue of the Wells Fargo Handbook which apparently showed that they are still back-engineering documents and or fabricating them to fit their cases .. I’m not sure of the status of that case..I know the Judge had ruled to allow the Handbook in as evidence

    As I wrap up my own discovery questions this weekend, Im thinking I should ask a few questions to WF about whether they used the handbook directives to “fix” the problems with my documents ..

    Am I allowed to amend my answer to the complaint , even now that the Judge has already dismissed most of my original answers? He left open the question of “Standing” .. and my asserting that “No valid loan ever took place at origination”. I guess I have no right to appeal his decision to dismiss some of those defenses and counterclaims? Or will an Appeals Court review them later after this case is decided? Do they look at things like that? Pre-Trial Motions when the Judge dismissed your defenses and counterclaims?

  27. New Az campaign for Terry Goddard -noticed it, says about staying away from the ” dark money”
    could he be referring to the money laundering and same banks supporting presidential campaigns and the same banks that the DOJ wimped out on properly prosecuting because they said if they did it would hurt the world aka ” too big to fail ( that phrase makes my ar#* twitch) I liked mr Goddard as atty G, at least he was more ” present” than this last one who’s name I chose to not remember anyway Tom somebody or other – anyhoo in Az Goddard is running for sec of State. Sorry off track but it starts ” in the village’ change that is.

  28. Louise .. Agree .. and I did state the FDCPA as one of my counterclaims .. which the Judge dismissed with prejudice because the Wells Fargo lawyer motioned and argued that “it doesn’t apply to them”, saying that “they are not a debt collector, they are a creditor”.
    The Judge never allowed me to respond and rubber stamped it as dismissed with prejudice. (I tried to object, and he said I couldn’t).

    But they are not the creditor, they are a stranger/third party servicer to an alleged transaction that that may have taken place between myself and some other party but was never completed, it was based on fraud and misrepresentations and is invalid.

    The chain absolutely needs to be proven as far as I’m concerned, but as I read a lot of decisions I see the Judges putting most of their reasoning into the same lame theory “the holder of the note and the mortgage has the right to enforce them” .. I see this over and over. They don’t seem to care much about missing chains as much as they want to spin and blow smoke about “who holds the note?”
    It’s a big hurdle to overcome , but one that we have to win.

  29. @DwightNJ: you know another thing is the fact that the big banks run our govt not the other way around. We still need to get rid of the Fed for the benefit of not only Americans but for the whole world. Everybody who gets elected takes money from the big banks. Does not matter which end of the spectrum they are located.

  30. FYI, please read Fair Debt Collections practices Act and FIRREA. FIRREA “use with respect to the subprime mortgage crisis–The act, which has less stringent requirements to establish liability than commercial fraud statutes, was used after the subprime mortgage crisis to attempt to establish the liability of banks which allegedly misrepresented the quality of loans to the Federal Housing Admin which relying on the representations of the banks,insured them and subsequently suffered losses.”

    FDCPA requires a complete chain of documentation for debt or a mortgage loan, and the servicers/banks do not have that chain.

    FIRREA was put in place in 1989 and the FDCPA was put in place in the seventies. So judges who just put it on the homeowners/borrowers are not only violating due process, but these two statutes, too.

  31. Louise , the reason the Judges are ignoring the fraud, lack of standing, missing chain of title and faulty mortgage documents is not just based on their own pensions in my opinion. The federal government has made it clear that “it’s the right thing to do” for the sake of the nation. They look at it as if the greater harm to the majority of citizens would happen if everyone realized that their mortgages were invalid. They fear it would cause a total collapse of the system and economy. So when they deny us of our due process and rights, in their minds they think they are doing the right thing for the greater good of everyone. This isn’t my opinion, I read it on some white paper report that was explaining the best way to deal with the crisis. Of course I don’t agree with it, but just wanted to let everyone know what their thinking is in all of this .. they think they are doing the right thing by allowing these bad foreclosures to go thru. The question is , how do we get our voices heard and change their misguided way of thinking? The shit will never hit the fan because they control the fan and will just unplug it.

  32. As a BONYM investor I advise you to hire an attorney. If you don’t .. ? There is no reason people should be losing their homes. You just might be surprised of the outcome when you remove the elephant in the room and work with the investors.

  33. UKG, I just thought of something else. I have been looking into e-discovery and how it works. I am sure the judges and/or prosecutors and possibly attys across the country must have something like Linkedin to compare notes, etc. If I was still working in law firms, I would know more, but I think I will see what I can find out.

  34. Just in Harris County TX in month of September 2014, Land Records found with Assignment of Deed of Trust being Fabricated by MERS Assistant Secretary Mercedes Judilla for America’s Wholesale Lender to Bank of New York Mellon. Also found Ex Bank of America Employee on another document from Green Tree Services. LinkedIn shows this person hasn’t been employed by Bank of America since Feb 2013. Lies Lies and more Lies. America’s Wholesale Lender in Harris County TX Land Records is being eaten up by Banks and Attorneys. Question is, how is America’s Wholesale Lender who is fictitious, assumed, dba, not licensed to do business having power to assign MERS and the MERS having power to Assign BONY giving Bank of America and Attorney’s standing to foreclose. Lies Lies and more Lies. What this tells anyone going through this is that judges are not listening to the facts presented. All they hear is borrower stopped making payments. Who is the borrower paying? Who is the Lender? Bank of America or Bank of New York or MERS is a Lender. They are Servicer, Trustee and Beneficiary. America’s Wholesale Lender is not a MERS Member. Never has been and can’t be one now. But one thing is for sure…. Banks will take whatever the judge gives to them and it doesn’t matter what the facts are. Goes back to what I said a couple of years back….. Judges need to educate themselves and need to List to the Facts before them. Even more important, Attorney’s who are representing borrowers need to study these winning cases and go for the jugular. There is too much factual evidence against the bank, Trustee, MERS. Such as BONY Mellon states BONY is not a Lender, has not say in Loan Modifications, does not own loan or property……Bank of America is Servicer…… MERS is nominee and Beneficiary for a non existent Lender….. Look at the facts, Judge should be wondering by now then who has standing to foreclose??? The Noteholder????? Well Michelle Sjolander Stamp on Promissory note reads “Without Recourse” Countrywide Home Loans dba America’s Wholesale Lender. Uhhhh Pardon me….where on the DOT or the Note is Countrywide Home Loans Mentioned????
    Old Robo Signers names are turning up again, the banks are back to their old way of doing things and as long as the banks are winning, they will continue to do this knowing no investigation will be done giving them the power to control land and county properties.

  35. Usedkarguy: There must be an e-mail stream set up so that the judges can compare notes, motions, trials, etc. It must be nationwide. What’s more it has to save everything, because they have to know what is going on in Arkansas, New York or Minnesota. My next question is: is it only the pensions that are motivating this behavior. Due process is constitutional, and they are fully aware that they are doing wrong. If we get our hands on those e-mails, the proverbial S^&t will hit the fan.

  36. I’ve paid mortgage payments for over 30yrs. I’ve saved for retirement for over 30yrs just like our retired public servants. It pisses me off that people want free houses even if it means wiping out an entire generation of middle class who worked their entire life over bankster/middleman fraud. In addition to wiping us out, the balance will take our children and Yours 30yrs to repay the losses. Is that what you want? When you decide to do the right thing, you won’t have a problem finding an attorney. And for those who don’t pay the mortgage, the taxes or an attorney, I’m tired of supporting you! You either need to stop living beyond your means or find a job.

  37. Well the current President and Dept. of Justice was the driving force behind the settlements between the banks and the states attorney generals .. the Feds and the States all received enormous amounts of money. But after the settlements were done and the monies were paid, the courts went right back to business as usual, acting like nothing had happened? This tells us that the courts were told how to deal with the foreclosures , that they were told to accept the faulty documents and rule in the banks favor. They were clearly told to disregard all of the defenses raised regarding securitization, broken chains, standing, proof of ownership of the debts, etc., etc.

    In other words, our own Federal government put a directive out to the courts on how they were to rule on the foreclosure cases and in the interest of “national security” they could not allow for millions of foreclosures to be deemed invalid. The banks and institutions were more important than the citizens property rights. And the Judges are all in on it. They sleep well at night by justifying it as being the right thing to do. They justify their treasonous actions against our constitutional rights and the rule of law by thinking “these people don’t deserve a free house” .. they may even understand the truth, that the entire thing was a Ponzi scheme and that the banks never lost anything. But they have sold their souls to the devil, they have bought into the belief that they are not their brothers keeper , that its ok to watch millions of others suffer from an injustice , because “it doesn’t affect me” … because “those people missed their payments” … because “our country comes first, and a massive foreclosure crisis where the mortgages were deemed invalid, would do more harm to our country than it will do to the families losing their homes” .

    So these Judges have proven that they are ok with allowing the crime to continue. They believe they are doing the “right thing” by ruling against the homeowners. And they have probably been told why this is the “correct way” to deal with this crisis. It all comes from the big settlement with the 50 states attorney generals .. this is the smoking gun which changed the legal landscape Money changed hands and now we don’t get justice. I would like to know what all the AG’s have to say now .. all of those AG’s that were lined up chomping at the bit to go after the banks .. where are they now as they witness their own citizens lose homes due to the same fraud that they were about to prosecute?
    What was the purpose of the settlements if the invalid mortgages are still being foreclosed? They’re all in on it, and it came right from the top .. Obama and Eric Holder .. they put a stop to the AG’s as they were about to expose the whole thing for the world to see.

    And sadly we don’t have any real men who sit on the bench, we have cowards who are afraid to do the right thing. They simply play along with the script they’ve been emailed.

  38. We have had judges 300 miles apart use the same phrase within hours of each other against the same attorney. Don’t think it can’t happen….it is.

  39. Or the cherry picked ones ! Louise

  40. Same krap going on in the Carolinas. We need all the e-mails not just the ones in FL.

  41. FYI ,

    I’ve e:mailed the “Center For Public Integrity” about fundraising for the release of these e:mails … I’ll let you know what their decision is… I already have received a response indicating that this will be presented to a decisionmaker/makers…

  42. I want justice

  43. My cases are public record
    The state action is cAse number
    Cv 2010 – 094162. I have a motion for re consuderation pending ( I will appeal)
    My details are on the document

  44. The Law says if you Pay the wrong party you are still liable to the real creditor. So Yes, you dag gone well better not pay a non party to the contract without Proof of their Claim. I made that mistake once and it won’t happen again. Neil, Debs a Good Apple n your the AZ go to man. Help Her! Deb post your email address. Anyone else seeking referals post your Email

  45. If by design it equates to being unconstitutional then it’s called treason – the new “f” word isn’t it . Nothing is more fundamental to the justice system than due process if that boundary becomes grey society has a huge problem, it should be held sacred above all else. Tom Ice is making history, good for him. Any attorney in AZ willing to walk the walk call me. My forcible detainer case is a fine example and no doubt in my mind there are God only knows how many others with same claim – judgements against them and they don’t even know it. The foreclosure mills need to be held to account also for abusing the system and concealing facts that would/ should have affected the outcome , this is petveryingbthe course of justice, could anything be worse- all I artful pleadings aside. my case in state court Is exactly what Neil describes and I need help getting the injustice corrected.

  46. The Definition of bribery

    money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust


  47. Contract Law 101.

  48. The note says yada yada but the mortgage says yackty yack. Yackty Yack Don’t Come Back.

  49. And while we’re on the subject, we citizens also deserve any and all information surrounding the settlements and consent orders that these banks agreed to with our States Attorneys General and the Federal Department of Justice. This vital information on which the settlements were based and negotiated should be open to the public. We do understand that none of it was proven in a court of law and that the settlements were agreed to in order to prevent facing criminal charges, but it still behooves the tax paying homeowners to be allowed access to the information which led to the settlements. Those who profited from the settlement monies work for us, we pay them and they are our employees. Therefore we have every right to have access to the information that was held over the banks heads by law enforcement officials who represent us and are charged with a duty to protect us, the citizens and homeowners from criminal activities they find.

    So by what right do they keep all of this information secret And hidden from the public who are the targets and victims of the crimes?

    If all of the inside information and proof of the criminal activity found that led to the settlements was made public, the courts would have to consider and understand that all those banks who agreed to such settlements now lose any presumptions in their foreclosure cases. And by losing presumptions, they are not being denied their own due process as plaintiffs, they are only being held to the stricter threshold that was always intended by the framers and lawmakers who placed the burden of proof on plaintiffs in the first place.

  50. When things are hidden where the Sun don’t Shine, light a fire under their grr’ass.

  51. The only party I want to talk to is the party with the authority to file a satisfction of mortgage and it aint John Wayne.

  52. That’s exactly what they do, leave the case open for years, on current loans to. It took me 2yrs to get them to dismiss the case, and another 2yrs to release the LP from title and 5yrs total to get the payoff. Does anyone see the harm here? That additional harm was to cover up something much bigger, something that happened and/or didn’t happen at origination.

  53. We have retired judges working in our local courthouse, and I would like to see their e-mails, too.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: