Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show
Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays
A typical seasoned judge in a community with dense demographics might have been the primary judge or at least a participating or covering judge in about 10,000 foreclosure cases before he hears anything about your case.
In each case the judge renders multiple rulings, opinions and judgment. On average it’s probably about 5 rulings (orders) per case because nearly all cases are not contested by homeowners. That’s around 50,000 orders by that one judge. The odds of any judge saying he or she was wrong 50,000 times is at best delusional.
The odds of any judge entering the courtroom without prior opinions and biases is zero. Period. They are human and if you want something else go to a planet where robots do everything including all the thinking.
So how do I win and how do other attorneys win in foreclosure cases. More importantly if you are a homeowner who is facing foreclosure or who has been subject to foreclosure, how do you plead a claim or defense that ends up being considered credible to a judge who walks into the courtroom believing that he or she has already ruled on this matter 50,000 times and he or she wasn’t wrong.
Start with hiring a trial lawyer.
Tonight I will discuss what I think is on the Judge’s mind and how to gain entry to his or her mindset such that you can persuade the Judge to see things your way — or at least enough to rule in your favor.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Kalifornia- I’ve been harping on this exact same point for 10 years now, specifically “bank owned” signs on foreclosed homes . I’ve tried to explain this to various people until I just decided to stop trying. When you know that a bank has nothing whatsoever to do with the foreclosure it is infuriating. It reinforces the idea that the homeowner didn’t make their payments and the bank wants their money. And so it goes. It’s misuse of the English language, (and the law) , sort of like a fake ID.
@ ALL
Oversimplify-ingly, it is a well established fact that case facts are INTERPRETED by the BIAS of the perceiver, in this context, a judge who then “cherry-picks” and [mis]construes specific facts to support the conclusion(s) that fit his/her CONFIRMATION BIAS; while simultaneously disregarding controlling factual elements established by the historical rule(s) of law(s) for a/any CAUSE OF ACTION to proceed.
In two words, the result of the foregoing MANIPULATION is: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
So, “david snieckus” is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in part; but, a FACTUAL admonishment exists that there is SO important of a distinction in the repeating of words/language that have legal implication(s) super-relevant to the foreclosure case(s), to wit: any continuation of mis-referencing the legally distinct activities of a purported SERVICING CAPACITY by a BANK-IN-NAME ONLY.
Thus, there must be deeper critical thinking and analysis applied to the layers, specifically to educating a judge on the law’s overriding factual interpretation on the legal capacity/capacities of the opposition, in the context of a foreclosure case.
The foregoing paradigm shift begins with education on not only the various capacities of a BANK-IN NAME ONLY, but more specifically parsed by LEGISLATIVELY ESTABLISHED LAW, to wit:
“12 CFR § 225.28 – List of permissible nonbanking activities.”
Therein any reference to “servicer” or “servicing” CAPACITY by a BANK-IN-NAME-ONLY is an indisputable LEGAL FACT of a non-depositary activity that is not banking as a matter of law.
Accordingly, EVERYONE MUST STOP using the word(s) that suggest the opposition is a “bank,” “banker,” “creditor,” and last, but not least, most importantly: LENDER.
SIGH!!!!
We all have closely held beliefs that form the basis of much of our thinking and actions. What does it take to shift them?
First off, “don’t always look at the facts to do the trick. As compelling as they may be, facts aren’t how we fundamentally build our opinions. People think they think like scientists, but they really think a lot like attorneys,” says Pete Ditto , a professor of psychological science at University of California, Irvine. “That is, rather than developing our beliefs based on the best available facts, most of us (including Court Judges) decide what we/they believe and then select the facts that support it. So when we/they hear an argument that doesn’t align with our/their beliefs, we tend to disregard it.” (This is what is happening in many foreclosure cases case. The judges believe that XYZ is trying to get a free home ((the appearance of the truth)) when really the bankers or the foreclosing party is trying to get a free home.)((the truth)).
Ewwww…. talk about wading in a toxic mind…. waterproof waders and breathing apparatus highly suggested.