It IS Not the Home the Banks Want It is the Foreclosure Judgment or Sale >>Posted on July 2, 2013, Neil Garfield >>THE MYTH OF FORECLOSURE SINCE 2001: “why would the banks foreclose unless they had to? The banks don’t want the homes and they don’t want to foreclose. The banks just want to get repaid for a legitimate loan.”
- There is a natural tendency to believe that the bank would not be in the courtroom seeking a foreclosure in the absence of an actual loan that was unpaid
- The presumption of the judge naturally moves towards the statistical certainty that banks would not incur the expense of foreclosing on property in which they had no interest
- Thus for all of the flagrant criminal and civil violations committed by the banks in the enforcement of loans, the thoughts of any reasonable judge naturally drift to the idea that our marketplace will be completely corrupted and un-trusted if we let borrowers off the hook on legitimate debts
- I think that this is the reasoning that dominates the thinking of judges and justices on the trial bench and the appellate courts
- And it is not unreasonable for them to have that knee-jerk reaction after centuries of statistical evidence showing that the above presumption has been correct millions of times
- This is why lawyers are necessary and pro se litigants probably will fare poorly most of the time
- As a rule of thumb, [TERRIBLE VISUAL, THIS WAS WHEN MEN COULD BEAT THEIR WOMEN WITH A 'STICK' NO BIGGER THAN THE THUMB, MEASURE IN COURT FOR THE 'MAN' TO 'RULE' 'WOMAN'] ... I tell attorneys whom I am mentoring that they have approximately 30 seconds to get the judge’s attention before the judge’s mind wanders off into the knee-jerk land that is described above
- I suggest that you will get the judge’s attention through the establishment of rapport
- Real rapport is established when you introduce your argument using terms and doctrines and common sense that you already know live in the mind of the judge
- So you may as well say that all things being equal, you would normally rule in favor of the bank and against the borrower regardless of the hardship and regardless of the empathy that one might feel towards the borrower
- You might also say that all things being equal, your empathy toward the borrower would be mitigated by their lack of judgment in taking a loan that they could not afford
PROBLEM: First, it's not about pro se or not. It's about the fact that DERIVATIVES are sold as though an ok product for consuming Americans who don't know what digital credit sold as debt to them is.
Until every American is educated about money in the USA, and this of course has to include the judges who are supposedly educated at the GRADUATE LEVEL OF JURISPRUDENCE DOCTOR, I believe this very powerful 'power' should know the money contract law with respect to the US Constitution:
Article I, Section IX, Clause VII, has not been met with respect to 'DERIVATIVES' and what has been earned via the Federal Reserve System and its' cabal of global foreign investors', on the 'homes' of USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment