Nothing is more depressing than a state court judge that obviously favors the bank’s attorneys – even when the evidence clearly says the trust bank claiming to hold the documents is not the real party in interest. How could a securitized trust not have to follow the UCC securities code, Articles 7-9?
How could an actively trading trust with certificates issues against a static financial asset become a “Holder” under UCC Article 3 when the financial instrument is supposed to be non-negotiable until it is purchased at face value from the trust (to pay off the certificate holders)?
Personally, every case that gets reviewed and every transcript that is read where the Assignment of Mortgages are plainly fabricated and the judge turns a blind eye when he knows the bank attorneys are defrauding the court, just smacks of judicial corruption. And in America – this is very, very sad. Continue reading