Posted on 02/20/2012 10:53:14 AM PST by Chunga85
The tireless justice seekers over at Harmon Law filed their Motion For Summary Judgment in re: Smith vs. MERS, et al. Hold on! Not so fast!
Not only do the defendants gratuitously cite the decision in Bucci v. Lehman Bros. Bank, et al., (which would seem entirely inappropriate considering it has been sitting on appeal for years like a legal "Improvised Explosive Device"), but they take it a step further.
Read the description of celebrated Robo-Signer Cheryl Marchant. It simply is not possible to swear under oath to two opposing sets of facts. At least one of them has to be a lie. It would not strain credulity to ponder the notion they are both lies in the issue at bar, and serves to further tarnish the credibility of Robo-Signer Marchant and diminish the same for those who would rely on said.
For those unfamilar with the Bucci case, it is parsed in gory detail in this Amicus Brief
I'll take the liberty of snipping out my favorite part:
The Plaintiffs have claimed that the Defendants do not have the right to foreclose because the assignments and foreclosure deeds are either invalid or void as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs further contend that mortgage assignments are, pursuant to Rhode Island Law, transfers of an interest in real estate, and as such, the homeowner/mortgagor is a party to those transactions thus giving them standing to challenge the validity of the assignments. The Defendants have argued that, as a matter of law, that the homeowner/mortgagors are not parties to the "contracts" and do not, therefore, have standing to challenge their validity. It is the position of the amicus that the Plaintiffs do have standing to challenge the assignments...
(Excerpt) Read more at foreclosurehamlet.org ...
Lets just accept that the bankers and their minions don't have anything to hide; and they haven't, beyond count, altered, forged, destroyed the documents to allegedly prove it. In addition, they have people in place who could remove any shadows of doubt.
Why file a Motion for Protective Order? This one was filed by the scoundrels at Harmon Law and entitled an "Emergency".
Now that the verisimilitude of Cheryl Marchant has been established...lol, what happens to all the decisions that have been based on Bucci? It is well established that Ms. Marchant's affidavits are of dubious nature for foreclosure sleuths, yet is often oddly overlooked by courts.
I'll tell you what necessitates the universal need for "Emergency" Protective Orders:
The bankers want a free house.
As we have learned; a house is not to be considered an investment. A house has a roof and walls, its a place to live.
Sadly, it isn't a place for Mr. and Mrs. Smith and family to live in.
It is a comfortable, cozy home for Mr. and Mrs. Credit Default Swap. Trespass is forbidden.
While courts are left to ponder this conundrum, and legislators scramble to make what was once illegal - legal, WE are left to ponder who would do something so wholly destructive and why.
I'm still thinking it was Col. Mustard in the Library with the candlestick holder.
Property rights - rule of law ping.
Bump For Later
We Baby Boomers comprise a significant part of the population and will be dying off in large numbers over the next couple of decades. There’s also the larger default process. Real estate will be going down for a long time, and property taxes go down with it in the long run.
thx for posting - will keep an eye on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.