Tonight! Open Rebellion By Inferior Courts Threatens Authority of SCOTUS!

Lecturing Courts on Their Duty to Comply with SCOTUS Decisions

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

While the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  unanimously (9-0) put to bed all of the arguments against the effectiveness of a notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), all inferior and lower courts have been ruling the other way. Any dispute raised by anyone, even if they have no legal standing to do so, is taken as an excuse for the lower courts to impose conditions not included in the TILA Rescission statute and banned or barred by SCOTUS.

Join me tonight as we discuss what to do about rebellious judges and how to preserve your interest in real property despite a negative ruling from a trial judge, even if it is affirmed by an appellate court other than SCOTUS, the highest court in the land.

2 Responses

  1. Hey, Steve, this little ditty is added in to the order for judgment of foreclosure on my Wells private label loan….

    19. That in the event the United States is a party to this action, it shall have the post sale redemption rights specified in 28 U.S.C. 2410(c).

    There you go…..

  2. ” 0, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, eta. 6, st. 17 (1808).

    see….The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Czyewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 197 L.Ed.2d 398 (2017) identified and clarified the manner of distributions in to creditors under the Code.  In that ruling, the United States Supreme Court stated “The Code makes clear that distributions in a Chapter 7 liquidation must follow this prescribed order. §§725,

    In my case an appointee of the Office of the United States Trustee explained to the Court – after being sworn under oath and testifying before the Court on the stand as the individual appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee to administer a case under Title 11 — set forth:

    EXCERPT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING —

    BY THE WITNESS:

    “I want to make it clear, though, for our purposes, it doesn’t matter who holds the first mortgage. It is held by someone.”

    What? “It doesn’t matter” because the Trustee had negotiated carve-outs to unjustly enrich his position and the position of the Banksters In violation of law.

    ….
    The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Czyewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 197 L.Ed.2d 398 (2017) identified and clarified the manner of distributions in to creditors under the Code.  
    In that ruling, the United States Supreme Court stated “The Code makes clear that distributions in a Chapter 7 liquidation must follow this prescribed order. §§725,

    Mr. Garfield, I wonder that if the position of a division of the United States Department of Justice as set forth by the above appointed officer swears and states that “for our purposes, it doesn’t matter who holds the first mortgage” …who is left for debtors under Title 11 to turn to for fraud, obstruction of justice, extortion, etc.

    Exactly what do the words “for our purposes” seem to imply. Maybe, just maybe, the appointed individual was implicitly stated that – at least this appointee of the Department of Justice…was working to help the Banksters unlawfully steal homes of everyday folks.

    Since SCOTUS clarified this conduct to be unlawful…maybe it goes along with your radio show tonight as well.

    Question: What is the intent that underlies this appointee’s statements?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: