PART I – CLUELESS KANGAROO – When the Court Jumps Over the Facts and Awards Foreclosure to the Banks

By Sydney Sullivan

PART I – CLUELESS KANGAROO

KANGAROO JUDGEWe see all sorts of cases in foreclosure defense and just as many judicial personalities… goofy decisions, irresponsible and / or clueless judges but this one takes the cake! You would think that if you’re going to have your case heard by a trial judge – that he would be required to have some knowledge on the subject, right? Apparently, not in Hawaii’s Second Circuit Court.

A few years ago it appeared that many judges were just not up to speed on the foreclosure scheme, but lately it seems like there has to be a higher ilk that commands lower court to squash the homeowner and if they can afford to appeal, maybe then they’ll be worthy of some justice. Otherwise, presented with the evidence, acknowledging the bad paperwork and still ruling against the homeowner would be crazy or corrupt… or maybe both. This appears to be a case that would certainly seem to fit that synopsis. Continue reading

Incredible! New Century Bankruptcy Judge’s Order Against Homeowner Vacated… “[d]ue process affords a re-do”

Vacated NCTenacity pays off! Maybe the jig is up… This is the bankruptcy court that wanted to DESTROY the homeowner files.

“I. INTRODUCTION
Appellants Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (“White”) (“appellants”) filed this bankruptcy appeal on October 18, 2013. (D.1. 1) They appear pro se. The appeal arises from an order entered by the bankruptcy court on August 30, 2013, that determined debtors complied with the bankruptcy court’s order establishing bar dates for ‘filing proofs of claim and approving the form, manner, and sufficiency of the notice as applied to unknown creditors.” Continue reading

THE 3 STOOGES OF MERS – DISORDER IN THE COURT

MERS 3-STOOGESA landmark decision was made this week in Culhane v. Aurora in the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit without a complete set of facts set out before what  appears to be its clueless judges.

The case decision, an APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS was to some degree based on the merits of standing answering the question: “Whether a mortgagor has standing to challenge the assignment of her mortgage — an assignment to which she is not a party and of which she is not a third-party beneficiary — is a matter of first impression for this court.” Continue reading