Here's a question specifically for Shoonra.

[phreeman2003]

As you seem to play the resident scholar for the court system, you should have some sort of knowledge of the random case assignment process.

Now, I would like to hear your explantion how two separate unrelated 7th circuit appellate cases, but between the same parties, three years apart would coincidently get a judge, of alleged national renoun, randomly assigned to each panel? I might even venture to think the first three should have even been excluded to hear the second issue, due prior contact with the parties. For that matter, the judge of renoun should have recused himself for having financial interest in mortgage securities.

[Shoonra]

You don't identify the cases, so I will be limited to generalities.

As a generality, a judge is not recused simply because he has dealt with one or both parties in previous cases. If this were true, then each judge in the federal circuit could hear only one IRS case in his entire life.

And as a generality, a judge is not recused unless his interest in the outcome is significant and non-ubiquitous. In the description you give -- "having a financial interest in mortgage securities" -- is so vague and broad that it may be said that virtually every judge, (almost) every possible member of jury, etc., has a "financial interest in mortgage securities"; if they have bank accounts, or policies with most insurance companies, or even retirement funds or pensions, they are all to some degree "interested" in the outcome of the mortgage crisis.
If all the judges are, more or less, equally affected by the outcome of the case, then there's no point in having one recuse himself for another.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You don't identify the cases, so I will be limited to generalities.

As a generality, a judge is not recused simply because he has dealt with one or both parties in previous cases. If this were true, then each judge in the federal circuit could hear only one IRS case in his entire life.

And as a generality, a judge is not recused unless his interest in the outcome is significant and non-ubiquitous. In the description you give -- "having a financial interest in mortgage securities" -- is so vague and broad that it may be said that virtually every judge, (almost) every possible member of jury, etc., has a "financial interest in mortgage securities"; if they have bank accounts, or policies with most insurance companies, or even retirement funds or pensions, they are all to some degree "interested" in the outcome of the mortgage crisis.

If all the judges are, more or less, equally affected by the outcome of the case, then there's no point in having one recuse himself for another.

I think there is a certain amount of discretion that the judges allow the clerks. When suitors began redeeming lawful money, the cases are almost always sent to the chief judges. No explanation; just an observation.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...04912516&hl=en

Recently one suitor was told he had to specify who he was using for a process server before they would file the LoR (Libel of Review)! Now that is blatant legal advice under the guise of Local Rules, which by the way are bogus if they interfere with the clerk's rosponsibilities like running business. I believe if you insisted that the clerk honestly pick at random, he might ignore the chief judge's request for lawful money purchases of cognizance.

There is a place on the Civil Cover Sheet for Related Cases, so that shows that one judge may get the case due to you wanting a similar decision - citing for example:

http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...Dismissals.pdf

While drafting the Summons to the mortgage company:

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon

Suitor
Anywhere Drive
Anytown, USA. [xxxxx]

AND FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, consisting of a certified true and correct copy of the original Note mentioned in the letter of XXXXX XX, 2008 herein the counterclaim, and to bring that certified copy with the actual original note to show the US clerk of court when you file it physically at the US courthouse, within 20 days of service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Clerk of Court - Deputy Clerk


_________________________________
Deputy Clerk

(Seal of Court)

On recusal; Miscellaneous §18 of the State of Colorado constitution says:

No supreme court justice, judge of any intermediate appellate court, district court judge, probate judge, or juvenile judge shall engage in the practice of law.

Simple enough to understand but attorneys are a private court system. See the attachment. The county courts were abolished in 1933 and replaced as well as the current verbiage being toned down quite a bit. But informed suitors have requested the "judge" to state his or her attorney registration # on the record and when he does, he is recused by Conflict of Interest - even in "county court".




Regards,

David Merrill.

[phreeman2003]

I thought I made it clear this was at the 7th circuit appellate level. The civil cases were done prior to start of my redeeming lawful money. I was only using all rights reserved and sui juris to signify a flesh and blood party of interest.

The first dealt with verification via the FDCPA, which could essentially be interpretated to have the same effects as a bankruptcy stay via prior 7th circuit landmark rulings, such as Hientz, which went to the U.S. supreme court. (N.D. you can hold your tongue as both the 7th circuit and supremes long past have decided contrary to your opinions concerning attorney bill collectors)

And, the next was a violation of the Bankruptcy Rule 3007 hearing notice on objection to claims.

The judge in question reported signficant investment in Fannie Mae on his finnacial disclosure documents. Besides, parties are never apprised of such information prior to case assignment. Most likely why the judges have the self-recusal obligation.

[ZOBOLI]

Here is a diversionary tactic used by mainstream media
on notes, and remember, that back, a few decades ago,
most "editors" of mainstream medias, radio, tv, and print, where positioned BAR MEMBERS, the most ammoral ones:

How One Borrower Beat the Foreclosure Machine
Jessica McGowan for The New York Times
Mamie Ruth Palmer won a fight against the Bank of New York, which tried to foreclose before it owned the note on her house.



By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: July 27, 2008
MAMIE RUTH PALMER isn’t a celebrity. People magazine doesn’t chronicle her every move. The paparazzi don’t wait for a photo op outside of the modest Atlanta home where she has lived since 1987.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Columnist Page: Gretchen Morgenson
Times Topics: Mortgages and the Markets
Add to Portfolio
Bank of New York Company

Go to your Portfolio »
But in some mortgage circles, Ms. Palmer, a 74-year-old former housekeeper, has earned her moment of fame. After enduring six years in foreclosure hell, almost losing her home twice, Ms. Palmer has escaped intact.

Last month she received a settlement from the Bank of New York, the trustee for a vast pool of mortgages that included hers. Under the terms of the deal, the bank reduced Ms. Palmer’s loan balance to $59,000 from about $100,000 and has agreed to accept the proceeds of a reverse mortgage in full satisfaction of her obligation.

The settlement also eliminated about $12,000 in foreclosure fees added to her debt and called for the installation of central air-conditioning in Ms. Palmer’s home.

Roughly $10,000 in legal fees billed over five years by Ms. Palmer’s lawyer, Howard D. Rothbloom, will be covered by payments she has made toward her mortgage while she was battling foreclosure.

“I feel good,” Ms. Palmer said last week. “It’s been a long time coming.” To celebrate, she said, she is going to Florida to fish with her nephew.

Ms. Palmer’s case is hardly unique. It’s just one of a swelling number that revolve around the thorny issue of who owns the note on a home when it’s forced into foreclosure proceedings.

In the seemingly long-ago era when banks held on to the mortgage loans they made, this was a straightforward matter. But today, amid the freewheeling packaging of mortgage loans into securities that are sold off to investors, it’s much less clear who controls the note — all of which promises to cause banks enormous legal and financial headaches as foreclosures mount.

The added twist is that some judges are taking the borrowers’ side in foreclosure disputes, precisely because of murkiness surrounding notes.

In 2002, Ms. Palmer filed for bankruptcy protection to protect her home from a quick sale on the courthouse steps. She continued to make mortgage payments, to the bankruptcy court.

Mr. Rothbloom took her case in 2003, suing the Bank of New York for levying fees on Ms. Palmer that had not been authorized by the bankruptcy court. The note securing the property was assigned to Bank of New York in September 2002, two months after it had begun foreclosure proceedings against Ms. Palmer. As a result, Mr. Rothbloom maintained, the bank had no standing to foreclose.

The two sides battled for five years, until last month.

“The Ms. Palmers of the world can’t afford to resolve these types of disputes,” Mr. Rothbloom said. “So they usually wind up losing their homes.”

Bank of New York declined to comment on the settlement.

The problems associated with banks that begin foreclosure proceedings when they do not have proper legal standing are now looming larger in the mortgage meltdown. Loans were heaped into trusts with little documentation of ownership or proper loan assignments — it was all about volume and the fees that came with it — and now that sloppiness is hurting both lenders and borrowers.

Mr. Rothbloom said he had another case in which the lender’s representative has been unable to prove ownership for two and a half years.

Meanwhile, consumer lawyers fear that borrowers are being pushed out of their homes by companies that have no right to do so. Such a prospect is particularly worrisome for residents in states that allow lenders to foreclose without court supervision, known as nonjudicial foreclosure states.

Georgia is one; its borrowers can lose their homes on the courthouse steps less than a month after foreclosure notices have been posted.

To try to protect its borrowers, Georgia just instituted a law requiring that lenders moving to foreclose on a borrower must file proof in county records that they own the underlying property before the home goes to foreclosure sale.

“We believe that many of these companies can’t find the assignments,” said William J. Brennan Jr., director of the Home Defense Program of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. “If they can never prove ownership, then they can never foreclose.”

[David Merrill]

I thought I made it clear this was at the 7th circuit appellate level. The civil cases were done prior to start of my redeeming lawful money. I was only using all rights reserved and sui juris to signify a flesh and blood party of interest.

The only right you retained was your right to be an attorney. "Appellate level" tells us you were not accessing the Original side of the 7th Circuit and therefore were not introducing anything new; just asking for review of a trial court on a lower level. Which is where there is a Register of Action that has a box marked "Pro Se" or a line where the "judge" filled in your attorney's name and registration #.

You were not sui juris within the scope of that private system. You were your own attorney among them and they consider you pretty stupid in your training by the way.

I was the first I know of to request the Attorney Registration # and unprepared for the Prosecutor to object - that I had already been Arraigned and therefore had no right to inquire about the nature of the court or qualifications of the "judge". In hindsight I should have said, "I obviously have not been arraigned if I am still confused about the nature and cause of this court; and you will not inform me about being an active attorney."

But I was trying to get my motorscooter back through the courts and so gave the attorneys a stint in jail to use in attempts to discredit me.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[phreeman2003]

Aren't all proceeding in that private attorney arena required to obey their rules of procedure to keep the pretense of legitimacy going/ keep the ship afloat? Isn't it the captain's obligation to reprimand violations of rules of procedure?

[Shoonra]

In case anyone is wondering, the 7th Circuit covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, and deals with thousands of cases every year, so simply saying they were 7th Circuit cases, without more, is like trying pointing to a dot in an aerial photo of New York City and asking for a personal evaluation.
.

[phreeman2003]

Shoonra,

I'm willing to accept it may have been coincidental.

Though the process bears a taint of specific intent, as prior to even expecting to file any appeal, a local court watchguard advised me that this particular judge and his right hand stooge usually gets assigned to any banking related appeal.

However, after assignment the judge or judge's clerk is obligated to do preliminary inquiry for conflicts of interest, which should have barred his case assignment the second time around.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Aren't all proceeding in that private attorney arena required to obey their rules of procedure to keep the pretense of legitimacy going/ keep the ship afloat? Isn't it the captain's obligation to reprimand violations of rules of procedure?

Yes indeed; that is why you can enter the district courts of the US under Rule E(8) - Restricted Appearance and confine jurisdiction to only the express contract being considered.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/index.html#supp
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleE.htm

(8) Restricted Appearance.

An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.