Homeowners Investigating Judges Conflict of Interest

It seems that many Judges have investments and many of those investments involve various types of income funds, from high yield to low yield and everything else you’d expect from someone who is saving money toward retirement. The problem is that some of their investments involve mortgage bonds, and other home loan derivatives which could be effected by their own decisions. Personally I think that even with the example shown below, the Judge’s attitude might be negative toward homeowners and toward defenses relating to securitization but I doubt if his personal investments have much to do with that. I am more of the opinion that he hasn’t been convinced yet of the efficacy of these arguments although he most certainly must be having some doubts about his own position. Political leanings and indirect influence probably also have their effect.

On the other hand I see the appearance of impropriety which certainly is something the courts should be watchful about. This is a huge issue and we don’t want to have a huge personal battle with Judges on the bench — they are our last hope. Here is an example of Judge Teilborg in Arizona whose disclosure shows that he has some of these investments which likely relate to those derivatives and mrotgage bonds. But frankly I doubt if he knows or understands the connection, and that is why I don’t think there is actual bias. If he DID know the connection and understand the significance his opinion might be exactly opposite and he would start ruling for the homeowners. But I’ll concede that this gets dicey when the personal money of the Judge appears to be at stake based upon his rulings.

I’m no expert on recusal. So I don’t have a strong opinion on this. And you have the difficulty of finding judges who don’t have any of these investments. But if “Bill” has a valid point, then the fact that many judges might have these kinds of relationships and investments should not be used to justify allowing decisions to be made when there is actual bias.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Neil:

Arizona USDC is the worst.  Judge Teilborg rules against everyone homeowner, every good Arizona Lawyer, including Beth Findsen, repeatedly.  I’ve counted about 40 cases so far.

Here is what I believe is the reason:    Judge Teilborg has so many conflicts of interest with securitized mortgages, it is breath-takingly scandalous.  He appears to have about 100 accounts including one with Goldman Sachs, and another with Met Life, a huge securitizer.

He should be recusing himself on securitiezed mortgage cases, and we now should be insisting on it.  He is to soon decide the huge MDL MERS cases, which will end up being the standard for the entire Western Coast, once the 9th Circuit gives its rubber stamp.

You can link to the site below for several years (or other judges).

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/teilborg-james

“Bill”

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |