Rescissions and Preemptive Lawsuits by Borrowers — 2 Things the Courts Dislike the Most.

For short-term results it is absolutely essential that discovery be pressed as hard as possible and that attorneys prep for a punishing cross examination of the corporate representative of the company claiming to be the servicer for the company that claims to be the trustee or successor for a trust that by implication claims to own the loan but won’t allege that. Layers upon layers.

I have heard dozens of judges caution the “banks” that they better show up with someone who doesn’t need to place a call or wait to get authorization. But that is exactly what they do.


Listen to Attorneys Neil Garfield and James Randy Ackley discuss this issue:



Based upon reports coming in across the country it appears that we are actually receding from the application of law again. The two things that the Courts obviously don’t like and essentially refuse to enforce are preemptive lawsuits and TILA Rescission, even where they give it lip service approval. What are now known as preemptive lawsuits in which the borrower tries to head off their title and collections problem by demanding the real data on identification of a creditor who owns the debt, note and mortgage or deed of trust are a bridge too far although California looks like it is edging toward that the fastest amongst the states. See Yvanova decision

In both cases the Courts are grasping at straws because of the fear of undermining the entire banking system causing another financial collapse. As I did in 2008-2009 I am predicting that these cases will be decided in favor of the borrower. And again it might take more years to get there. Having examined pleadings and orders from across the country there is no doubt in my mind that everything we have said is true and these are useful tools for the borrower.

But for short-term results it is absolutely essential that discovery be pressed as hard as possible and that attorneys prep for a punishing cross examination of the corporate representative of the company claiming to be the servicer for the company that claims to be the trustee or successor for a trust that by implication claims to own the loan but won’t allege that. Layers upon layers.

In 2008 I had a conversation (previously reported) with one of the architects of this scheme and he predicted that the legal presumptions attached to the notes and mortgages and assignments would overcome any factual rebuttal regardless of how persuasive the rebuttal. I thought he was wrong. He was right, but back then I could tell he wasn’t as sure as he is today. It worked. Millions of foreclosures proceeded in favor of entities who had already stolen the money from investors and now were stealing their security.

Proof of all my basic premises is abundantly clear but well hidden by confidential settlements under seal. Cash offers to settle the case seem almost always to produce a settlement that includes damages for wrongful foreclosure.

Mediations continue to proceed almost exclusively with “representatives” who lack full settlement authority and truth to be told, they lack any settlement authority. This point is getting under the skin of many judges and should be pressed. I even said to one judge who ordered mediation that I questioned when his orders “meant anything at all.” He was upset but he started entering other orders that required real action by my opposition.

Mediations by definition under Supreme Court rules require the presence of the parties with full settlement authority. Instead the alleged servicer shows up with representative that has only one duty — handover an application for modification without any discussion or authority to settle. That is the stuff of motions for sanctions. I have heard dozens of judges caution the “banks” that they better show up with someone who doesn’t need to place a call or wait to get authorization. But that is exactly what they do and frequently they get away with it. Don’t expect sanctions to be ordered until the “bank” fails to “show up” more than twice.

Usually the attorney represents the servicer and if pressed, sometimes you can get an admission that the attorney is not able to assert they represent the plaintiff. The representative also might admit that he is there on behalf of the servicer but not the Plaintiff. In those cases I think you are well on your way to getting sanctions, but not until you are ordered back into mediation multiple times.

The problem remains the same — the servicer derives its alleged authority from the Plaintiff who derives its power to enforce from legal presumptions derived from possession and its declaration that it is the “holder.” The Plaintiff rarely alleges that it owns the debt, loaned the money or anything like that and they never allege that they are holders in due course which would mean, by definition, that the trust paid for the loan. The trusts did not pay for the loan and the creditor is, at least according to some live testimony I got in court, a group of unnamed investors. By definition then in hearings for sanctions relating to mediation, you can elicit admissions that defeat the foreclosure.

Once you get to the fact that the Trust never was in operation and was never funded it goes without saying that as an inactive business with no history it could not possibly have paid for the debt or even accepted the assignment. Having cut the chain (the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone etc) the strawman figure must collapse. NO authority flows from such an entity —especially when the representative says the creditors are the investors.

My prediction is that while it may still take some time, the courts are eventually going to routinely require real proof instead of relying exclusively upon legal presumptions arising from fabricated, forged, robo-signed documents. Real proof means real transactions — something that will unwind claims by the servicer and Trustee or successor like pulling a thread from a poorly made sweater.



19 Responses

  1. Point 1 – Borrower can mail the rescission letter to the servicer of the loan, it is the servicer duty to inform the party or entity who allegedly owns the subject loan. The Dodd-Frank Act I believe put clarity on this issue of musical chairs, and the law now states that when you notify a servicer, it is to be deemed as you notified everyone in the chain.

    Point 2 – The rescission letter, when mailed before any alleged default or foreclosure complaint has been alleged or filed, supersedes the latter actions. As long as you mailed the rescission before the foreclosure was filed, it should prevent any plaintiff from being able to establish standing to foreclose on the void instruments, especially when that plaintiff took steps after the rescission such as assigning the mortgage or asserting and alledging a default had occurred on any payment after the date of rescission. The main thing the courts are ignoring is that the rescission requires that the true creditor or owner of the debt come forward …only the party who has ownership and authority to remove the mortgage lien from land records and who can return the cancelled note. No other party has any standing to be in court challenging the borrower who had rescinded under TILA. The wrong party bringing a foreclosure complaint should have never been able to proceed if the judge had any competence …the Appeals court is blaming the borrower for not objecting or appealing the fact that the plaintiff had no standing? Well that is something that goes hand in hand with rescission and should have been understood by the judge if that judge had a proper grasp and understanding of rescission. The problem stems from years of bad case law that these judges are still relying on…post-jesinoski.
    Is it the borrowers duty to educate the judges of the law? Do the Appeals courts have it right when they blame us for the judges incompetence?

  2. Well, TILA rescission if served on the right party is supposed to cancel the promissory note and return to the purported borrower all the funds they put into the mortgage as well as all the funds made from the promissory note.

    If the one receiving the rescission did not have the note, then they would not be returning the funds and all the other things made from having that note.

    Seems the missing piece is if they get the house from a good rescission where is the funds returned?

    If one clears their head and read the ‘opinion’ which one agreed to accept when they went to the appeal level, then one would see what they ‘presented’ to the court, and what the court ‘heard’, and what the court ‘ruled’ on.

    As I comprehend, appeals only listen to, and agree to listen to the issues the trial court errored on.

    So if they agreed to hear the TILA because the trial court errored, then what did the ‘paid for officer of the court’ give them to hear, and why was the ‘paid for officer of the court’, treated as if they did everything right.

    What I have learned, is when we ‘let someone else do it for us’, we are removed from being ‘adults’, to that of infants, ward of the state, or incompetent.

    Then from there, it’s a ‘well they get what they get’ attitude.

    We are the puppet, or dummy on the leg of the ventriloquist, and what he says comes out of our mouths even as we do not speak.

    Yes! We are like strawmen who do not speak, but words on paper convey thoughts we are supposed to have; like a scarecrow stuffed with papers of thoughts and ideas.

    Sorry to hear the appeals did not work.
    Glad to see the case made it into the appeals.

    Wishing, when the head is clear, and with an open mind, you’d take a look to see what they heard, [not what you wanted them to hear, or was there hoping they’d hear] but what they heard, what they decided on, and why.

    That attorney should have been giving you a check, if the TILA rescisision was recognized, because Scalia made sure we all knew it was exact, and that meant give me my signature back, and give me back everything that went into the house, and if I still want the house, I’ll give you what you want after you give me what you made, but if I walk away, I have everything you made off me getting into that deal, and you can keep the house and try that on someone else.

    If you can find a federal crime in there, then maybe you can move to your own Federal case, and get all of them back for being so criminal.

    Of course, everyone likes to do it their way.

    [ I know everyone that goes in there, thinks their case is different ]


    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  3. We LOST our appeals case on TILA Rescission
    If there has been one consistency in our TILA Rescission case, it is the mind boggling ignorance of the Washington State courts to grasp the meaning of this very simple, straight-forward legal action: Mortgage Rescission. It is as if you have to dice it up into ever-tinier pieces and feed it to them like small children. They simply refuse to get it.

    We actually had the trial court judge ask our attorney in arguments, “Why would they want to rescind their mortgage? Don’t they want to KEEP their home?” This display of ignorance of what she was ruling on caused us to know the outcome before the ruling was handed down. There was no possibility of prevailing in the face of such ignorance. Yes, it’s that bad. Our home was handed unceremoniously to a servicer who had no legal authority to take it, it was never even in default. For seven years we have been struggling to decode the law to these judges.

    The unthinkable alternative: That they refuse to abide by it, is too terrible to contemplate, but I admit that we are beginning to find little option but this sinister truth. They will NOT rule according to the law by some behind-the-curtain mandate that forbids them from hurting the trustees and servicers who are systematically pocketing the assets of homeowners, denying due process of law in a routine and cavalier manner. Please say it isn’t so. We have doggedly re-approached the bench again and again to reiterate the indisputable truth that a wrong was committed here. Their response is to create a mushroom cloud out of a perceived distant procedural error on our part, and hold that up as justification for the horrific crime that has been committed against us. Why the “trustee” in our case has worked so vigorously to discredit our TILA Rescission is a question I hope to ask in court some day.

    The opinion from the Washington State Court of Appeals Div II can be read CLICK HERE
    I can save you the time reading the 14 page opinion, which has all the appearances of being written by our opponents, the gist of it is this: Our TILA Rescission (which, in 2009 voided the promissory note ab initio by operation of law) is being ignored because our attorney should have APPEALED the fact that the action was being brought by the wrong beneficiary in 2010… Got that? It’s eye-popping insanity.

    You can listen to a discussion about this case on the Foreclosure Hour radio show:

    Foreclosure Workshop #13:
    Baker v. Northwest Trustee Services: A Case Study in How To Retroactively Reverse a Foreclosure Judgment Based on a Subsequent Change in Governing Case Law

    As the case law in several states appears to becoming increasingly friendlier to homeowners in foreclosure proceedings, old case precedents will gradually be overturned or substantially revised.

    That raises the question how borrowers who have already been foreclosed on can use such supervening court decisions to reopen their closed foreclosure cases.

    The Opinion in Baker v. Northwest Trustee Services, decided May 10, 2016 by the Washington State Court of Appeals, provides, in the context of a TILA rescission claim post-Jesinoski, a good lesson for homeowners on often completely unknown or commonly misunderstood options how to and how not to use a change in the law to retroactively vacate an earlier foreclosure judgment.

    You can listen online here:

    3:00 PM HAWAII
    6:00 PM PACIFIC
    9:00 PM EASTERN
    AND ON

    So stay tuned because it is our belief that the upper courts are going to have a much stronger understanding of what it means when the Supreme Court of The United States UNANIMOUSLY interprets law, it is to be heeded. We are requesting review by the Washington State Supreme Court, and beyond if necessary.

    For those of you who have been by our side from the beginning, those of you who have shared your journey and your expertise, you know who you are, we love you all, and thank you with all of our heart. The outpouring of support at this horrendous ruling has been humbling and has kept us breathing in and out when it got a little difficult at times.

    As pointed out by David Dayen in his new book (A MUST READ!!) CHAIN OF TITLE, only the most rabid, tenacious borrowers have the ability to fight this. That’s me.

    – See more at:

  4. 1st Admission in Court …. By Non Denial …You are the STRAWMAN identified in the complaint …


    Its Like Beating Yourself Up!

  5. Birth Certificates = Social Security #####

  6. Maybe someday this site will discuss the role the STRAWMAN plays in the Chain of Title

  7. In the early 60s our parents registered us for..
    Without disclosure or consent!!!!!

    Those born prior to the 60s have “Long Form Birth Records” *****_

    There is a Difference !

  8. Person = STRAWMAN

    Man or Woman Living Flesh = Straw Man

    Courts of Admiralty / Administration = Corporation Courts


    What Constutional Rights?

  9. Regarding: Realities of Rescission Post

    Replying to OnTheBubble and TL. Thank you for the reference to Bill Paatalo’s case–great stuff!!!! If anyone feels a need to include fraud issues in the TILA Complaint For Declaratory Relief, the matter is covered to some extent in Paatalo’s “…Opposition…” to Chase Motion To Dismiss. Paatalo’s situation is very distinct, but enough there to apply to any TILA rescission enforcement case.

    Reply to: TresspassUnwanted. Yes, I’m aware I can go into the US court and look at files. Distance, however, makes it impossible–no public transportation in rural Washington to other rural Washington about 1.5 hrs away. However, as I hear of an attorney working with rescission enforcement in Washington State, I call the court to get case numbers and then go to Pacer. Hope this helps someone else. Thank you for taking the time to write all that, TresspassUnwanted.

    Reply to: MN and OnTheBubble. Thanks for the comments. I agree with OnTheBubble on amending complaints, especially for Complaint For Declaratory Relief for enforcing TILA rescission. You are aware, OnTheBubble, that request to amend is only needed when defendants have anwered or entered?

    Reply to: Sandlin. That judge is wrong! Bakers ought to appeal to Supreme Court. I will look up work of Bakers’ attorney, Scott Stafne. He’s generally pretty sharp. I’ve talked with him a couple times when under foreclosure threat. He is, however, as MOST attorneys, very DISINCLINED, OPPOSED, to discuss a case using natural person consumer law against the note and DT–Washington Deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24. You can see this same opposition in Neil’s writing and in discussions and presentations on his radio program.

    We all have very good reasons why consummation did not occur. I’ve been building them on a single base of non-disclosure of commercial / business documents used fraudulently and contrary to consumer law effecting a natural man (“person”) consumer when acting “for personal, family, and household purposes”. That is what TILA is ALL about.

    But, as usual, most lawyers are diverting attention away from the heart and obvious of TILA and other laws and protections designed to protect a non-commercial, non-artificial entity, natural man. A friend and I have been articulating and refining this single front for many years now, his beginning nearly 20 yrs ago.

    Respectfully, Neil, I believe it is a mistake to put ANY claims and/or defenses into the rescission enforcement action. Consider the intent, authority, and power/ability of the elected legislators to bring into law TILA, as expressed in the statutes.

    When a judge is wrong, he’s wrong, and should be immediately appealed and/or be made subject to void judgment. It is not likely that an unanimous Supreme Court will overturn itself, especially in a matter that affects even them, their families and acquaintances for generations. We need to keep in mind how allowing a judge or court to make law or ignore the legislators from the bench thereby undermining the entire constitution, which is to bind down government from doing whatever any of them please, and make our situation so much worse. Perhaps, this is part of a plan. Not unimaginable, in the obvious. We certainly must stand against it and not cater to lawyers/judges/courts in lawbreaking.

    Instead of making a CLAIM or DEFENSE in the “Complaint for Declaratory Relief”, when perceived and done properly, i.e. according to TILA, I believe fraud is built into the right of rescission, and we ONLY point this out to the court. (1) It is in plain sight in front of you in the documents you signed; and (2) in your rescission.

    As I said, we don’t make a defense or claim for TILA rescission enforcement in our Complaint For Declaratory Relief. That turns the document into an arguable case, a contest on the issue. “Jury Demand” does the same thing. No! No! No! Then it is no longer ENFORCEMENT. Get the point?

    Neil, I believe you are dead wrong on this, and playing the typical lawyer. Beware! Is someone intimidating you, or threatening you? Your idea is WRONG, as you even said so!

    To assist our thinking: What is the context of TILA, statutorily? Who is it aimed at? For what purpose? Why was that body of law created by the legislators (you and me)? How is it made effective?

    Don’t drop your TILA case. You can also file your fraud case for deceptive practices, etc., under consumer law of your state and/or under FDCPA. I say get them as many ways as we can, and let Yehovah God pay us from them as we stand with Yehowshua’ (Jesus) His new Man against the evil, against this oppressive financial, emotional, dignity, rights raping of Men, male/female of all ages, and families, and society, etc.

    We have state law claims that are not extinguished by suit under federal law. Remember, TILA relief is based on violations regarding the papers. State law has that, too, and we can bring action for violations against our homestead, etc. Once we get enforcement Order, as in Paatalo, we can file criminal charges, RICO, and more, which will put in place deterrents to court/government approvals of continued lawlessness in and out of courts.
    As we get paid on one suit, we will have enough as our living to pursue other actions against the tort feasors. Every little bit helps at this point, since all time from other matters is used to stand against all manner of money, land, and property fraud, deception, and wrong-doing.

    I’ve never been able to speak with an attorney regarding TILA or with any attorney truly knowledgable about the note and DT from a deep sole consumer standpoint. Our loans were NEVER subject to securities, or securitization situations. I believe that most ALL attorneys KNOW this and are riding the money/profit wave of illegality as “foreclosure defense” lawyers and as lawyers for the banks, etc. Greedy, corrupt, and abusing the innocent people who only sought a true loan to purchase a homestead for personal, family, and household purposes.

    Have you experienced or ever noticed that lawyers representing “homeowners” want to get people into modification, or some other admission, and not entirely off the hook for bank and government violations of laws that protect the common Man who is acting ONLY for his personal, family, and household purposes?

    Having said that, I believe the term “natural person consumer” is a legal hook into the people that makes us amenable to laws outside of natural rights created only by Creator God Yehovah. Not the time right now for this discussion.

    Keep focused. You’re soon to cross the victory line in 1st place! by the grace and Love of Yehovah for you and yours. Let Him manifest and magnify Himself and the dominion of His new Man Yehowshua’ (Jesus–I prefer his Hebrew name, defined as Yehovah-saved, Yehovah-delivered.) How to win in court.

    A must for every pro se. Taught by a winning lawyer in practice, forum, consultation price for members.


    “A man who represents himself,
    has a lawyer with his best interest in mind.”
    – Bocetti

  10. Of course I never know legal things and would not want to.
    I know no thing, and if I think I know some things, I still know no thing.

    I do not give legal advice because I do not know legal things.

    The case is
    Hontz v. State, 105 Wn.2d 302, 714 P.2d 1176 (Wash., 1986)

    Relevant excerpts from the case

    Page 302
    105 Wn.2d 302
    714 P.2d 1176, 30 Ed. Law Rep. 1294
    Robin Louise HONTZ, Michael A. Nelson, Suzanne Miles, Eugene
    Grissinger, Sr., and David J. Hillard, for
    themselves and other similarly situated,
    STATE of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, County of
    King, King County Health Department, King County
    Sheriff’s Office, et al., Respondents.
    No. 51075-0.
    Supreme Court of Washington,
    En Banc.
    Feb. 27, 1986.
    Reconsideration Denied April 7, 1986.
    Header ends here. [714 P.2d 1177]

    We are only concerned here with the § 1983

    Page 309

    claims against Harborview Medical Center, King County, King County Health Department, King County Sheriff, and King County Detoxification Center. As to these claims, the trial court’s summary judgments in favor of defendants were proper and we affirm.

    A. Harborview

    42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 provides in relevant part:
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory … subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
    immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
    (Italics ours.) The trial court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claims against Harborview was premised on its conclusion that Harborview is not a “person” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


    The trial court found, based upon uncontroverted evidence, that Harborview is operated and managed by the University of Washington and all of its employees are employees of the University. See also RCW 36.62.290. Because the University of Washington is a state agency,
    Harborview, as operated and managed by the University, is an arm of the state. Its employees are state employees and claims against the University’s operation at Harborview are paid from a fund held by the State Treasurer. See RCW 28B.20.253. It is clear that, in the context of this case, a § 1983 suit against Harborview is in legal effect a suit against the State and cannot, therefore, be maintained.

    B. King County, King County Health Department, King County Sheriff, King County Detoxification Center

    Unlike the State and its agencies, municipalities and other local governmental entities are “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Thus, local governmental entities, such
    as the King County entity defendants here, may be subject to liability under § 1983 but only when “the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers” or when “constitutional deprivations [are] visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels.” Monell, at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36. [714 P.2d 1181] Respondeat superior may not be the basis for liability:
    [A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.

    My opinion: not worth anything since I know nothing.

    So from the above, unless you can prove it’s company policy to behave or act or trespass or criminalize certain activities within the company, then the suit is against the employees or agents, since they inflicted the harm.

    In other words, this hyperlink
    Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing

    when execution of a government’s policy or custom
    inflicts the injury
    that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.

    I have been on other sites, and some people are filing lawsuits, for things like [and I’m making this up because I can’t see their suit] but to have the right to travel or right to not have a driver’s license, or something.

    Their cases are being dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
    I have done some search and I am not finished, but my preliminary comprehension is they have to show an injury, to think there will be an injury or to try to prevent an injury by suing in advance of a perceived problem, does not give them standing.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  11. I wonder if Australia’s Government and social media blamed all the borrowers.

  12. Reblogged this on Dolores Peers.

  13. Hi Sheri,

    I do not give legal advice, those BAR attorneys control all the legal activity and I would never want to be one of those things nor do what they do.
    I have the following opinion for the following reasons.
    I believe the state is immune from suit.
    I remember reading a judgment for someone suing the University of Washington, for title 42 USC 1983 violation, and the ruling stated that the university was receiving state funding and was a state agency and could not be sued. Then it went further to say municipal courts are persons and can be sued, as well as the individuals who work there. And someone can bring a title 42 USC 1983 action at any time.
    I don’t have the case with me, but I did read it, and can surely find it again.

    I intend to use the individual actors for many things including title 42 USC 1983. Instead of getting my ducks in a row, I’m getting my elements of the ‘many things’ in a row.
    Being thorough takes time.

    My home was taken against my free will by a county court.
    I have learned real estate and the use and enjoyment of real property belongs in the Superior Court.
    The county court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case where false documents were used to make me appear to be a tenant, and the county court does not subject matter jurisdiction over use and enjoyment of real property.

    The thieves know it, and they know we did not know.
    That’s why when someone wants to get a TRO, they go to the superior court, it has jurisdiction over disputes over the use and enjoyment of real property.

    The more I know, the more I know that I do not know a lot of things, so I always say I know nothing, and if I think I know something, I know nothing.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  14. “… the courts are eventually going to routinely require real proof instead of relying exclusively upon legal presumptions arising from fabricated, forged, robo-signed documents. Real proof means real transactions — something that will unwind claims by the servicer and Trustee or successor like pulling a thread from a poorly made sweater. ”

    ~Bingo!! Nuff said.

  15. Even if you get a settlement agreement, they will breach it anyway.

  16. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.

  17. Typically what you end up with is a “conference” conducted by a judge trial referee, someone too old to conduct court trials, and the plaintiff shows up with the “settlement woman” whose instructions are to simply refuse any settlement other than full payment. By doing nothing more than showing up and saying “no” to the defendant’s settlement offer(s), plaintiff has fulfilled the bare essentials of the Ordered conference – show up and hear the Offer. Since there is no obligation to say “yes,” the instructions are to say “no.”

    Is that charade a fraud on the Court? Of course it is. Mortgage plaintiffs do it as a matter of course; all day, every day. The “referee” judges do nothing about it. But let the Defendant show up and say: “Your note was insured, you already collected from the insurer, so I offer you $500 to go away,” and expect the roof to cave on on that defendant’s head.

  18. “Don’t expect sanctions to be ordered until the “bank” fails to “show up” more than twice.” Really? The “bank” (foreclosure mill attorney) had not answer and wasn’t even going to show up to my one and only shot at a hearing. The judge sent a message via his clerk to my attorney – saying that he wanted to “wait to hear from the other side” and so we got postponed. How was ANY of this fair? My attorney who had practiced at the same location for 30 years just gave me a shrug and a palms up. I think he was afraid of looking like an ass in front of this judge! His ego was more important. So instead of throwing a fit, he simply gather my files and walked away. He was more concerned with preserving his reputation. After all – all we people who show up to court contesting a foreclosure are just deadbeats who don’t want to pay our mortgage and want a free house. Right?

    As a result of all this I have zero belief and faith in our judicial system.

  19. I am contemplating suing the state court in federal court. Has anyone done this?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: