Posted on 09/17/2018 4:55:18 AM PDT by Oklahoma
Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case. The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.
(Excerpt) Read more at pacificpundit.com ...
What does all this mean?
Bookmark
Changes the look and feel of this accusation completely which is all it takes to confidently marginalize it, as the arm waving we knew it was.
Its may be the real reason for this whole Dem scam .
She knew the judges son was a big judge and set up
the whole trap.
Docket Date: 02/04/1997 Docket Number: 10
Docket Description:
Docket Type: Ruling Status: Granted
Ruling Judge: KAVANAUGH, MARTHA G
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 9
Docket Text: ORDER OF COURT (KAVANAUGH, J./RICE, M.) THAT THE VOLUNTARY MOTION TO DISMISS IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE AND THAT THE BOND FILED BY HARRY J. KELLY AS TRUSTEE SHALL BE RELEASED AND RETURNED FILED. (COPIES MAILED (
Article may say it but court records show otherwise.
No
The plaintiff withdrew the complaint and the case was dismissed “ with prejuduce”
The Blaseys kept the house
Must have paid something of what they owed but maybe not all
Yes
It means she is a sociopath who is able to fool a lie detector test?
Or dismissal with prejudice means there could be no further lawsuit by this plaintiff - so they reached a settlement with the blaseys
Either paid off the mortgage or handed the debt holder the keys to the house
This seems like a benign case and ruling unless the blaseys developed some animus toward the judge for some reason
Where are you getting that information from? Certainly not the article as it clearly states his mother ruled against them.
Probably payed for... Like all the other protesters...
Ruling Judge: MASON, MICHAEL D
Taht’s not Kavanaugh’s mother.
Another thread on this same article was pulled, when it was pointed out that a different judge ruled against her parents, and when her parents paid the loan, it was Judge Kavanaugh’s mother who closed the case (in their favor).
There was no actual foreclosure, it just had to go to court to get paid.
They lost the case. The lender then reached an agreement with them and asked for a dismissal. But they did lose the case.
In 1983, the tuition at Holton-Arms School was about ten times that of the tuition at Immaculata Prep (now closed), Holy Cross Academy (across from G’town Prep) and Holy Child (now, Connelly School of the Holy Child) all in or near Bethesda, Maryland. The tuition at Georgetown Visitation girls school was lower than that at Holton, as well. Only the Madiera School in McLean, Virginia rivaled Holton in terms of cost. So Christine Blasey attended the most expensive school in the Bethesda area. Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, by her own admission, were members of Columbia Country Club in the very toney Chevy Chase neighborhood bordering Bethesda. Columbia CC was VERY expensive to join in the 1980s. It appears the Blaseys lived above their means. The fact they experienced a foreclosure on their home while sending their little princess to Holton is all you need to know about these nutcases. This woman is a Democrat activist with an axe to grind against Kavanaugh. She should face legal consequences for filing a false accusation with the FBI.
Posted by ‘Virginia Mom’ there.
Any comments/verification?
The penny drops. How about that?
With women in charge, there would be no testosterone fueled rivalries, and the debate would be more evolved . . .
This home that was foreclosed was in a very expensive neighborhood in Potomac,far from where most Prep boys partied and lived. She probably drove to parties in Bethesda with an older sibling. That was what we did back then before cell phones. My brother had to watch me like a hawk because he was responsible for me every time I went to a party. She lived in a neighborhood called River Falls , very rich, no supervision,the teens would jump in cars and go anywhere at the drop of a hat. Extremely entitled. Bret,being from DC, would not have been on her radar.
“The Blaseys kept the house”
I don’t see that in the snippet of the record posted here. What I see is that after a legal fight, the two sides came to an agreement. It might have been:
1. The plaintiffs knew they weren’t going to prevail, so they came to terms, and the Blaseys kept the house on terms mostly favorable to them;
2. The defendants knew they weren’t going to successfully defend, so they came to terms, on terms less than favorable to them.
Having seen a few of these up close with folks I know, I’d be inclined toward 2.
Traditionally in Maryland, lenders had a big club. Maryland has an anti-deficiency law. If the bank gets your house in foreclosure, or if you give them a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and the bank resells it for less than the outstanding amount of the mortgage, outstanding interest, fines, and penalties, the bank can sue you for the deficiency, as long as the deficiency isn’t caused by an action of the lender that “shocks the conscience of the court.” So, if you owe $80K on a house with a potential market value of $90K or $100K, but the bank manages to foreclose, if the bank sells it for $60K, you’re going to owe the bank $20K. If they sell it for $1, the court’s conscience will be shocked. But the lender has wide latitude.
In the recent crisis (2008 -), banks played hardball with folks, especially those trying to walk away from an upside down property. In periods before that, when a bank tried to foreclose, if you fought it, the bank might threaten to come after you for the deficiency after they won the foreclosure... unless you surrendered, and agreed to the terms the bank wanted. Then they would agree to forego chasing you for the outstanding debt, which would be represented by an agreed-upon dismissal with prejudice.
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.