Yes, I know Trump has the guts to say what most of us are feeling about the empire.

He puts on his baseball cap and rants.

Trump tells the world he is tired of the corruption, including judicial corruption!!! And those of us who also feel abused by a government that caters only to the 1% cheer him on.

Some of us may even vote for him.

I get it!!!.

Indeed, I would vote for Trump over Hillary.

But I wouldn’t vote for Trump over anybody else … And here is why:

Trump is a bully. When something happens he doesn’t like, his first reaction is to shoot his mouth off. And this works well for him now because he challenges an empire most of us have come to fear and despise. And the fact Trump voices our frustration is cool except when Trump’s rants have no logical nexus to that which he is complaining about and therefore make an important issue look less important than it really is.

I wouldn’t be blogging about Trump’s criticism of a federal judge with a Mexican heritage except for the fact that it appears so off base as to disparage the legitimate criticism of our justice system and its courts which is currently ongoing throughout the land. This is an issue which needs to be discussed and not simply dismissed because of Trump’s rant.

Hillary used the comment to denounce Trump as a bigot (which is something most of us already know) and defend the federal judiciary. Indeed, this was the reaction of many who used Trump’s criticism to drum up support for the federal judiciary.

Fortunately, many people (especially those who have experienced being hailed before a federal judicial demi-god) have not rallied behind the federal justice system because they understand it is not working for most of us who are forced into it. Although we understand Trump’s comments about this judge may be off-base, we understand they are aimed at a legitimate target, federal judges generally who abuse their power when they refuse to articulate well reasoned decisions in support of their judgments.

Our founders gave federal judges life time tenure based on the premise that the judicial department would be the weakest branch of government. Further, they presumed that the authority of judge’s decisions would be apparent from the persuasive force of judge’s reasoning. Indeed, the author’s of the Federalist 78 specifically noted that the judicial department would be completely dependent on the other branches of government to enforce its decrees because the executive had the power of the sword and the legislative branch had to power of the purse.

Unfortunately, the other branches of our federal government have completely abdicated their oversight roles with regard to federal judges.

This has caused huge problems for 99% of us.

A good example of the federal judicial system not working and causing intolerable injustice for millions of people is the this nation’s longstanding foreclosure crisis.

Banking institutions and servicers inappropriately turned to the federal courts (their natural benefactors) to interpret state laws to lead the charge in forcing millions of people from their homes. Indeed, it was the federal courts, on the basis of flawed reasoning and unlikely jurisdiction, which began the epidemic of homelessness which I believe was intended to result in a genocide of the elderly and vulnerable in order to redistribute wealth and property to the already wealthy.

The illegitimacy of the federal courts’ efforts to advance crony capitalism by their support of business entities  and their attorney representatives (i.e. members of the federal bar) has been apparent from the very beginning of the foreclosure crisis from the lack of competent judicial reasoning.

In recently unsealed court documents the Department of Justice (DOJ)  confirmed that even the U.S. Government could not determine who owned securitized loans and had the right to collect payments. In this regard, the DOG (DOJ) states in a sentencing memorandum relating to the lowest wrong doer on the totem pole:

The originating lenders who made loans to purchase DSI properties, including Wells Fargo and  J.P. Morgan Chase, generally would not keep the mortgages and thus did not end up losing money as a result of the DSI fraud scheme. Instead, they would sell the mortgages to other banks who would package them in securities that were sold to other investors. These securities failed when the underlying mortgages went into default. It was impossible to trace the majority of the mortgage loans on the over 300 homes sold by DSI that were the subject of the FBI investigation; it would have been harder yet to identify individual victims of the fraud given that the mortgages were securitized and traded. (Emphasis added.)

If you would like to read this pleading, please click here.

In my experience the observation that it is impossible to identify those investors in securitized loan trusts who are actually inured is always the case. This is significant because the victims of the frauds which precipitated our homelessness crisis, i.e. the persons to whom the money is owed cannot be determined, what is now occurring is the loan’s servicers are claiming this money belongs to them, notwithstanding they have no ownership rights in the mortgage loan.

This should be abundantly apparent to a court system which has been dealing with this systemic fraud since at least 2008. But the courts continue to turn a blind eye to what is real going on. This makes them, in my judgment, the primary cause of our homelessness and the bulwark supporting this injustice.

So please understand that while I do not believe Trumps attack on this particular judge is appropriate, I do think the federal judiciary needs to be scrutinized to determine if it has been rigged to benefit one class of litigants. This is a task Congress should undertake again and this time follow up its findings with legislation prohibiting the perpetuation of this crony capitalism which uses government to further enrich the 1%. 


Total Views: 2454 ,

About Scott . Stafne

Mr. Stafne is very experienced in property rights, including banking wrongs and foreclosure prevention; Constitutional Law (under the United States and Washington State Constitution); Appellate law; land use law; personal injury law. Scott has recently become a media focal point as his win record of foreclosure defense cases against the largest financial institutions, servicers, trustees as well as MERS have blazed the trail toward ending the foreclosure crisis and representing the rights of the homeowner above the profits and secret dealings of corporations.   Scott sees law as a foundation for establishing a system of twenty first century liberties for the people; and for removing that corruption of power within our government which makes the achievement of real purpose beholden to only money.   Scott Stafne has been an attorney since graduating from the University of Iowa in 1974. He worked for a large law firm in Indianapolis (Baker & Daniels) for two years. Thereafter, he moved to Seattle Washington in order to obtain a Masters of Law degree from the University of Washington, which he obtained in 1977. Scott practiced law while going to graduate school and has practiced ever since.   This is a personal blog, and does not constitute legal advice in any form, and is not necessarily reflective of the policies or opinions of Stafne Law Firm. Visit the Law Firm: Visit the Google+ Page: Visit the Facebook Page:   *Web Developer: David J. Posel
Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed