Sunday, January 26, 2014
KingCast, Mortgage Movies and Attorney Scott Stafne Discuss Banks' Removal to Federal Court, Judicial Bias and the Unconstitutional Nature of the Washington Deed of Trust Act.
Down below is my flow chart with Washington Attorney Scott Stafne as we discussed a wide-ranging series of issues involving the apparently unconstitutional nature of the Washington Deed of Trust Act as well as the Bank's flight response to Federal Court, where the Federal Court in Washington typically does not do Justice to the State Law. State Law was originally drafted to protect the individual against government and corporate excess and corruption. This is why Attorney Stafne correctly attempted to recuse Judge Marsha Pechman (the denial) who has never ruled in favor of a homeowner; always ruling in favor of the bank even going through heavy contortions to do so. Perhaps later I will upload Frias v. Asset Foreclosures Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106755 (2013) as cited by Attorney Stafne in his Motion. Suffice it to say it is painful to read.
This is why today we see Wells Fargo running to Federal Court on a Removal of a lawsuit Attorney Jeff Jared filed for Financial Revival Group Members Family E, as noted in this recent Mortgage Movies Journal entry and on my video page at the U.S. Independent. What happened was that in Mediation we presented a full REST report showing that the homeowner was NPV positive and should have provided a HAMP modification but did not, in similar fashion to Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (673 F.3d 547) and the 9th circuit case of Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 728 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. August 8, 2013), citing Wigod. We notified the Mediators about this case law and WF refused to provide all of their data and the full test so my request for the Bad Faith Certificate was granted; the second such Certificate issued to Wells Fargo in the past few months. Sad but true. Stay tuned for updates on those cases.
Here then is my loose outline for the interview, part one of three appearing above:
How can there ever be the sort of neutrality required by a Trustee/Beneficiary relationship when all of the major Trustees are owned by law firms who work for the banks?
We are here with Attorney Scott Stafne whose client John Knecht has pending questions for the Federal Court to Certify to the State Superior Court involving the apparently Unconstitutional Washington Deed of Trust Act. He is having a difficult time being heard.
Now Scott, first of all the Constitution at Article IV §6 specifically notes that Superior Courts will have jurisdiction over all issues involving title and possession of land, so how can the Washington DTA be constitutional? Further, other similar challenges involving the Labor Disputes Act were resolved in favor of the Constitutionality argument, such that the Superior Court retained Jurisdiction.
Furthermore as regards the Statute itself, your next argument is that Statutory Construction of the DTA was supposed to require that the foreclosing entity may ONLY be the “beneficiary and OWNER of the Note secured by the DoT”, in contrast we now have certain judges allowing the holder of the Note to foreclose and that is not consistent with the Statutory limitation put in place.