STOP BLAMING JUDGES: Their position is wrong but NOT unreasonable

Anyone with enough money to do it can establish a false national narrative that is universally believed. It is done through false advertising and the heavy implementation of false labels that eventually are assumed by everyone to be true. The success of the venture depends on the ability to addict the players to the money flow, while the founders of the scheme stay in the background. Everyone else is disposable. When the financial reward is high enough, most people are willing to suspend any skepticism they have about a scheme and are willing to participate in it with maximum time, effort and money.

I have often been confronted with a situation in which there are reports of a judge that is bullying the lawyers or litigants. The result is that homeowners are blaming judges for entering rulings or judgments and cutting arguments short. And the perception is that the judges are part of some vast conspiracy to deny due process to homeowners.

There are very few judges on the bench in any state or federal court that hold malice in their heart toward homeowners or who have some personal interest in making sure that the homeowner loses their Homestead. That statement by me continually gets me into trouble with those who embrace conspiratorial thinking. I don’t blame them for their thinking. But I do think that adopting that perception and acting on it is probably the surest way for a homeowner to lose their homestead.

I think you are only half right. It’s definitely true that judges will bully the attorneys and litigants. And sometimes when a judge asserts his or her authority, it can appear like bullying if you don’t like the result. And you’re probably right that they know that most of the time they can do what they want without any accountability or consequences.

But it is also true that very few judges proceed with malice. Yes they are biased because they are human beings, but most judges are trying to get it right. The fact that they get it wrong so many times in foreclosure cases is a product of a combination of bias of the individual and bias of the system.

It is nearly universally assumed that these transactions are loans which means that there is a creditor and a debtor and the homeowner is the debtor. This leads to the nearly universal assumption that the promissory note is the principal source of evidence on the terms of the debt.

Because of the unique advantages given to holders of promissory notes, a judgment for monetary damages can be awarded to the holder, even if the holder has no economic damages. But because of a nearly universal erroneous perception, this has oddly led to the adoption of court precedent that disregards the essential protections and requirements for enforcement of any security instrument.

Posted in Uncategorized |