You can pause music down below
April 3rd, 2012
Written by John Wright
Judge Patrick J. Shiltz is a federal judge from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge Shiltz recently sanctioned Minneapolis Attorney William Butler for filing what the judge called “frivolous show-me-the-note” actions. He quoted Jackson vs. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. as case history, which was a case in Minnesota that established that the entity that holds the mortgage can foreclose without the note. The potentially disgruntled Judge Schiltz then alleges that Butler solicited homeowners facing foreclosure for frivolous cases while “shopping for sympathetic judges.” Judge Schiltz went on to say that Butler would collect fees from his clients who were continuing to live in their homes rent-free.
Judge Shiltz then sent a message by ordering Attorney William Butler to:
- Pay a 50,000.00 penalty.
- Cover attorney’s fees for some of the nation’s largest firms representing the banks.
Attorney William Butler appears in Youtube below:
Many theorize that these kinds of penalties could rise well into six figures — while it has been said that Attorney William Butler might also be at risk of losing his license to practice law now. That is exactly why homeowners might have such a hard time finding an attorney who will represent them. This is simply because most attorneys might be afraid of the judge potentially punishing them for representing the homeowner with this issue.
Now many of these kinds of “show-me-the-note” lawsuits were filed around the country after it was determined that the banks are most often unable to produce the original note in court. There have been some courts that have ruled in favor of the homeowners in some states — but unfortunately for Butler — not in the State of Minnesota. I don’t know why, since the promissory note is the proof of who owns the loan. It should only stand to reason why the bank should be forced to produce the actual note. For example, I am sure that those of you who live in California understand that you must have the ORINGAL PINK SLIP (title) to sell your car. Otherwise, there can be others with a COPY OF THE PINK SLIP claiming ownership to the car. More importantly — there can end up being ONE PERSON with the ORGINAL PINK SLIP for the car. This means that you would be screwed if the person with the ORGINAL PINK SLIP showed up in court. In retrospect, the banks are actually producing the judge or court with A COPY OF THE PINK SLIP to your house. Think about it for a minute — would the judge accept a MERS COPY of your driver’s license in the courtroom? That is why the judge should not accept a MERS COPY OF THE NOTE.
The fact that some irresponsible bank owned state and judge ruled that the entity that holds the mortgage can foreclose on your home without the actual note — might suggest that these judges have become more like accomplices to a crime in progress. This is why there should always be an investigation done to see if they have ever previously worked for a firm that has been known for representing the banks.
Therefore, we might want to now give Judge Schiltz and the Republican party a message right back in the presidential election — but by not voting for a Republican. This is because we might fear that it could cause a “Moral Hazard.” Now that does not mean that I am saying that we should vote for President Obama either. This is because I also do not think he is doing enough to hold the banks accountable. Either way – we here at Piggybankblog (Republican and Democrat) should maybe be willing to break party lines this year with our vote for the presidency — if we should see that a particular party seems to be in favor of the banks in the courtroom. What do you think?
Now I was going to slap a piggy nose and piggy ears on Judge Patrick J. Shiltz when I first started working on this blog. However, after careful consideration, I have decided to leave all judges exempt of my piggy nose policy here at Piggybankblog.com. This is because my attorney (Deron Colby of Brookstone Law) has been a positive influence on me with matters such as this. I mean, I might not respect the man or women that is under the robe, but I should and will always show respect to the robe itself. That is why I will never put a piggy nose or ears on a judge.
Now it was said that Attorney William Butler was “shopping for sympathetic judges.” Well why not? After all – the bank attorneys shop and buy judges all the time. I even heard that there is a “Buy One Get One Free” and “Blue Light Special” going on in California.
By the way — since the judge said that Butler was “shopping for sympathetic judges” — does that mean that Judge Schiltz is going to give Attorney William Butler a refund?
The simple fact is that Americans are sick and tired of these judges doing anything and everything they can do to make sure that homeowners do not have their day in court. For example, the potentially disgruntled Judge Schiltz should not have been worried about how much Attorney William Butler made from each client. This is because, correct me if I am wrong, but the lawsuit was not about how much money Attorney William Butler made. It was about how the bank might be using a potentially irregular, fraudulent, illegal and simply abusive fraudclosure process. Judge Schiltz should only be concerned if there are multiple trusts and multiple beneficiaries existing at the time of the fraudclosure. Instead — the potentially disgruntled judge seemed more concerned about if the homeowners were living “rent free.” However, let the record show that the only ones who have been living for free — ARE THE BANKS! (Trillions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money) (BofA did not have to pay taxes for a year.)
That is why Judge Schiltz now sits before you in The Courtroom of Public Opinion.
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Piggybankblog posted on 04/27/12
Picture posted by Piggybankblog
Cross linked story with minnlawyer.com
Attorney William Butler has been hit with another round of Rule 11 sanctions.
This time, U.S. District Court Judge David Doty ordered Butler to pay for the attorney fees for Wells Fargo Bank, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Merscorp Inc and Federal National Mortgage Association.
Last month, month Doty’s colleague U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schlitz ordered Butler to pay $50,000 in sanctions for filing repeated frivolous lawsuits and delaying cases for the purpose of collecting fees from clients.
Butler has brought the same argument in a series of mortgage cases. He sues on behalf of homeowners for the common industry practice of securitizing mortgages by having them held by and recorded in the name of a nominal mortgagee such as MERS rather than the holder of the promissory note. This allows the mortgages to be repeatedly sold without each sale being recorded on the title.
The plaintiffs argued that if the entity that holds their mortgage, usually MERS, is not the entity that holds the promissory note, the mortgage and the foreclosure of the mortgage is invalid.
Butler’s arguments have been dismissed by the Minnesota Supreme Court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his order, Doty outlines his frustration with Butler’s tactics.
“Butler presents no argument for reversing or modifying that law, and instead argues that it does not apply. Despite the repeated dismissal of Butler’s actions in this district and the Eighth Circuit, he continues to file actions, congesting the docket of the court, taking resources away from cases that have merit and charging clients to pursue meritless claims. These frivolous actions have, at best, the result of allowing Butler’s clients to remain in their homes (or continue to own their rental properties) without payment. In fact, the real outcome for plaintiffs is to needlessly prolong the period of financial and housing uncertainty brought on by their failure to meet their loan-payment obligations.”
Doty said he was not imposing additional monetary sanctions on Butler due to Schiltz’s recent order. Instead he asked the defendants to file affidavits that outlined how much they have spent as a result of Butler’s “frivolous claims.”
A copy of Doty’s order is available here.
PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning – any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other “picture” art posted on my profile.
You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee , agent , student or any personnel under your direction or control.
The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE