5 Justices Recuse in Ex-Georgia Perimeter President’s RICO Case Against Regents Stephen Humphreys has been fighting a string of adverse trial and appellate court rulings against his client, former Georgia Perimeter College President Anthony Tricoli, who was ousted amid claims he mishandled millions in college funds. By Greg Land

Stephen-F-Humphreys-Article-202005061514
( Stephen F. Humphreys, Atlanta. (Photo: John Disney/ ALM) )

https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2020/05/06/5-justices-recuse-in-ex-georgia-perimeter-presidents-rico-case-against-regents/

5 Justices Recuse in Ex-Georgia Perimeter President’s RICO Case Against Regents
Stephen Humphreys has been fighting a string of adverse trial and appellate court rulings against his client, former Georgia Perimeter College President Anthony Tricoli, who was ousted amid claims he mishandled millions in college funds.
By Greg Land | May 06, 2020 at 03:16 PM

Update appended below:
Five of the state’s Supreme Court justices recused from a case centered on a yearslong battle between a former college president whose claims he was ousted as part of a cover-up of millions of dollars siphoned off by the University System of Georgia that has grown to include allegations of fraud and racketeering involving the state attorney general’s office.

Former Georgia Perimeter College President Anthony Tricoli and and his lawyer, Athens solo Stephen Humphreys, have been consistently stymied by lower court rulings, and the appeal the justices will hear ostensibly only involves a $6,675 sanctions order levied by a DeKalb County judge.

Humphreys is hoping he will at last get his chance to lay out what he considers insurmountable evidence of wrongdoing by the university system, Board of Regents and attorney general’s office, aided by the acquiescence or bias of jurists at every level.

Humphreys sought the recusal of all nine justices last month for a variety of reasons: Some had already ruled against him as Court of Appeals judges, others in declining to hear prior appeals as justices.

Justice Sarah Warren is a former Law Department attorney, he noted, and Justice Nels Peterson was once legal counsel for the state Board of Regents.

A two sentence order issued Monday said Justices Peterson, Warren, Charles Bethel, John Ellington and Carla Wong McMillian have decided to recuse. Chief Justice Harold Melton and Justices David Nahmias and Michael Boggs declined to do so.

Humphreys said that, while he welcomes the recusals, he must wait and see whether the court will agree to hear his appeal.
“They denied review the first time, even though the Court of Appeals initiated summary judgment on their own, with no notice or opportunity for us to respond,” Humphreys said.

“I’m arguing they illegally denied cert the first time under the summary judgment statute, and that they have to review it.”
“Of course, they’ll have to round up some judges first,” said Humphreys, who brought aboard criminal defense specialist Bruce Harvey to assist with the case in 2018.

Humphreys also is representing the plaintiffs in a Fulton County case asserting that the university system and former state Attorney General Sam Olens conspired to force out former Kennesaw State University President Daniel Papp so that Olens could take that job, which he held from 2016 to 2018.

That case was also dismissed and the justices denied cert in March, but Humphreys has a motion pending asking that the case be consolidated with Tricoli’s at the high court.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Christopher Carr declined to comment.
The case began with Tricoli’s forced ouster in 2012 after auditors said more than $16 million had gone missing. The sum in question was later reduced to about $10 million.

Tricoli sued the Board of Regents and its members along with other system officials and Olens for claims including fraud, breach of contract and violations of Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, arguing he was set up as the fall guy for a scheme to loot Georgia Perimeter’s reserves.

The state responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing among other things that the RICO statute contained no express waiver of sovereign immunity for the state and that Tricli had produced no written contract.

DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Daniel Coursey dismissed the suit, ruling the tort claims were barred by the Georgia Tort Claims Act’s sovereign immunity provisions, as were the RICO claims.

Tricoli appealed, but the court’s seven judges upheld Coursey’s dismissal in 2016.

Writing for the majority, Judge Gary Andrews wrote that Tricoli’s RICO claim “is an imaginative theory of recovery to assert against the state itself, but that is about all it is—imagination. The Georgia RICO Act does not express any waiver of sovereign immunity.”

The judge also wrote that, while Coursey had ruled on the state’s motion to dismiss, Tricoli had introduced evidence that he did have a written contract, thus changing the motion to one for summary judgment.

“Tricoli’s submission of documentary evidence in response to the motion to dismiss constituted, in effect, a request to convert the motion into one for summary judgment and waived the notice requirement for such a conversion,” Andrews wrote.

Presiding Judge Yvette Miller dissented, taking issue both with the court’s conversion of Coursey’s order changing the motion to one summary judgment and with its assertion that the RICO statute shielded state actors under sovereign immunity.

“The trial court did not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment,” she wrote, and “could not do so without providing Tricoli with notice.”

She also said the RICO act did not have to include specific “magic words” waiving sovereign immunity.

“The RICO statute includes government entities in its definition of enterprise, and it specifically provides a private individual with a civil remedy for RICO Act violations,” Miller wrote.

The Georgia Supreme Court denied cert on Tricoli’s appeal, as did the U.S. Supreme Court.

Humphreys then filed a motion asking Coursey to set aside his ruling dismissing the case.

Coursey denied the motion, and a lawyer with Carr’s office followed up with a motion for sanctions against Tricoli and Humphreys for filing it.

Coursey wrote the motion was “riddled with expansive and baseless assertions that display stubborn ignorance and purposeful disregard for the facts and the law.” The judge levied a $6,657 sanction based on the time Senior Assistant Attorney General C. McLaurin Sitton spent responding to the motion.

Humphreys appealed that order and, while it was pending, filed a supplemental brief alleging massive fraud by the university system involving federal grant money, to which the state never responded.

After hearing oral arguments—which included then-Judge McMillian chiding Humphreys for using his time on a “rant” unrelated to the issues at hand—the Court of Appeals affirmed Coursey’s order in October.

In his December application for cert to the state Supreme Court, Humphreys came out swinging: “This case is Georgia’s Watergate, only worse—by at least a billion dollars in fraud by state government officials,” he wrote.

“This case has got the documented crime,” he continued. “It’s got the cover up. It’s got the attempt to evade the most fundamental law of the land, not just by a cabal within the executive branch of state government, but taking in the Georgia judiciary, which has gone so far as to give a free pass to witness intimidation and whistleblower retaliation.”

Update:
Humphreys disputes that the only issue he has asked the Supreme Court is whether he should have been sanctioned for asking Judge Coursey to set aside his order dismissing the case.

“That is the only issue on which the AG responded,” said Humphreys, noting that he raised other matters and filed three supplemental motions that the Court of Appeals also dismissed.

“[T]he AG’s failure to respond on those issues does not mean they are not before the court on my petition,” said Humphreys in an email.

According to the brief the state filed with Supreme Court, the issue before the justices is: “Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s exercise of discretion in sanctioning Petitioner and his counsel, Stephen Humphreys, for filing a motion to set aside a judgment that had been affirmed on appeal and which motion the trial court found devoid of support in fact and law

Fact!

legal15

Too, whenever you file a case, you need to do everything, as if you plan to appeal. Every case goes to appeal, unless it is so shitty a case that it don’t warrant an appeal. Everything you do in your case should prepare for an easy appeal, you have to be diligent, as if you are the one being sued, and you have to do plenty of discovery if you want anything from the opposing party, and the most important thing, is you have to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Court’s Rules and all Orders.
If any of the above things have not been followed to a “t” then you have made it hard for yourself, and will most likely loose the case. If you have planned to appeal, which should always be done, then it will be easier and less costly to appeal.

Damn, that’s good, I am going to post.

29f1d974578c240cfb0796b6b0f3da48449903f1

CIA ‘Informant’ Tried To Set Up Trump Organization In 2015 This is huge! The Mueller report mentions this man over 100 times,

felix-sater-e1503952150534-780x392
(Felix Sater worked for the Trump organization and viciously tried to arrange meetings with Russia, but he is also an informant for the CIA and FBI. (Source: YouTube Screenshot))

Bombshell! CIA ‘Informant’ Tried To Set Up Trump Organization In 2015
This is huge! The Mueller report mentions this man over 100 times, but fails to disclose the fact that he had been working for the FBI and CIA since 1998!
Georgette by Georgette

Bombshell! CIA ‘Informant’ Tried To Set Up Trump Organization In 2015

Thanks to independent government watchdog Judicial Watch, the Russia-gate scandal is about to break wide open. A bombshell discovery has shown that the Russian collusion set up could have started as early as 2015, using an informant inside the Trump Organization who worked for the Federal Bureau of Information and the Central Intelligence Agency since 1998!

And, guess who he was recruited by… none other than Andrew Weissmann. The same Weissmann who was the real head of the Mueller probe and partisan supporter of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

In fact, he was at her “victory celebration” as the polls closed in 2016!

Weissmann is a ruthless prosecutor with a checkered ethics track record, and evidence appears that he already had an asset in place inside the Trump Organization by the time the “investigation” by Mueller had begun.

And, the informant was none other than Felix Sater.

Sater was on board to make sure that Trump was implicated in the concocted “collusion” narrative and was allowed to keep $40 million in stolen funds by the Obama administration.

Judicial Watch is seeking:
…all records of communications, including FBI 302 interview reports and offer agreements between former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office and Felix Sater, a former Trump organization official who was recently confirmed to be an informant for the FBI and CIA. Sater reportedly pushed a Russian real estate deal in 2016 while working at the Trump organization.

The American Thinker wrote:
Sater reportedly “began working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1998, after he was caught in a stock-fraud scheme.” It was Andrew Weissmann who, as supervising assistant U.S. attorney, signed the agreement that brought Sater on as a government informant.

Federal prosecutors wrote a letter to Sater’s sentencing judge on August 27, 2009, in an effort to get him a lighter sentence: “Sater’s cooperation was of a depth and breadth rarely seen.”

Sater also was reportedly a CIA informant in the mid-2000s for the CIA during his undercover work with Russian military and intelligence officers.

The Mueller report mentions Sater more than 100 times but fails to mention that he was an active undercover informant for the FBI/CIA for more than two decades. In 2017, Sater was the subject of two interviews conducted under a proffer agreement with Mueller’s office according to page 69, footnote 304 of Mueller’s report on his Russian collusion investigation.

And, according to JW’s investigator Micah Morrison:
Beginning in late 2015, Sater repeatedly tried to arrange for [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen and candidate Trump, as representatives of the Trump Organization, to travel to Russia to meet with Russian government officials and possible financing partners.

Though his proposal appears to have been rejected by the Trump campaign, Sater persisted. “Into the spring of 2016,” the Mueller Report notes, “Sater and Cohen continued to discuss a trip to Moscow.” Sater emails Cohen that he is trying to arrange a meeting between “the 2 big guys,” Putin and Trump.

Sater’s re-emergence “suggests the possibility of a more sinister counter-narrative: that someone may have been trying to lure Trump into a trap—a politically damaging entanglement with Moscow money,” Morrison wrote.

Those discussions between the Trump Organization and Russian interests are the basis of much of the impeachment-mongering of the Democrats. If it turns out that those discussions were pushed by an agent of Andrew Weissmann well into 2016, then it certainly looks like a case of entrapment, pushed by a federal prosecutor devoted to the Democrats’ leading candidate for president.

Judicial Corruption In GA Has Not Changed At All, The Judges Now Are As Corrupt and Probably More Corrupt Than in 2015 When This Article Was Written!

An article from 2015:

Justice for judges: You have the right to remain silent, your honor

   

https://www.myajc.com/news/local/justice-for-judges-you-have-the-right-remain-silent-your-honor/x4ICZOux5H5B5MVG6LCeaJ/

Posted: 1:06 p.m. Wednesday, July 29, 2015


More than five dozen Georgia judges have stepped down from the bench in disgrace since the state’s judicial watchdog agency began aggressively policing ethical conduct eight years ago.

More lately, however, the jurists aren’t just leaving the court in disgrace. Some are leaving in handcuffs.

Earlier this month, former North Georgia magistrate Bryant Cochran was sentenced to five years in prison by a federal judge who said Cochran had destroyed the public’s faith in the judiciary. In June, a one-time influential chief judge from Brunswick was indicted by a Fulton County grand jury. And a specially appointed district attorney is now considering similar charges against a former DeKalb judge.

These criminal prosecutions were brought after the state Judicial Qualifications Commission launched investigations of the judges. Instead of being allowed to step down from the bench and return to a law practice, these judges are hiring criminal defense lawyers.

“I don’t remember seeing anything like this — so many judges facing criminal prosecution,” said Norman Fletcher, former chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. “I do think it puts a black cloud over the judiciary.”

 

Cobb County State Court Judge Glover Retired, crooked as they come.

DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Becker forced off the bench, one of the most corrupt.

Georgia Supreme Court Barnes, allows and participates in the corruption.

DeKalb County Probate Court Judge Jeryl Debra Rosh, was corrupt when she was a clerk, ruling in place of Judge Marion Guess, with his knowledge, and even more corrupt as Probate Judge, retired early.

 

Miami Judge Sanctions Law Firm, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s Former Bank for ‘Frivolous’ Foreclosure

You won’t see this in any GA Court! The Banks can do no wrong in GA!
Anyone who has followed foreclosure hell very closely knows who the Albertelli Firm is!


Miami Judge Sanctions Law Firm, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s Former Bank for ‘Frivolous’ Foreclosure
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s former bank and its attorney face a separate hearing to set punishment.
https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/sites/dailybusinessreview/2018/01/25/miami-judge-sanctions-law-firm-treasury-secretary-mnuchins-former-bank-for-frivolous-foreclosure/

By Samantha Joseph | January 25, 2018 at 08:45 AM

Judge Pedro Echarte. Photo by Candace West

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Pedro P. Echarte Jr. sanctioned Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s former bank, California-based OneWest Bank, and its law firm for filing a frivolous foreclosure against a widow.

The judge granted sanctions against the bank and its attorneys at Tampa-based Albertelli Law, which serves the financial services and mortgage banking industries from offices in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He found the law firm and its client bank prosecuted a frivolous foreclosure and will set a subsequent hearing to determine the penalty.

“I believe the court should impose sanctions sufficient to deter a company like OneWest Bank with $65 billion in assets and vindicate the integrity of the judiciary,” said homeowner attorney Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Keeley in Miami. “They came after my client a month after her husband died and relentlessly pursued this foreclosure.”

Echarte’s ruling is the latest blow for the bank, which the California state attorney general’s consumer law section has accused of rampant foreclosure violations.

OneWest Bank is a division of CIT Bank N.A. Its co-founder is Mnuchin, who served as CEO from 2009 to 2015 when it was sold to CIT Group Inc. as the first bank merger for more $50 billion following the financial crisis. Before the merger, the bank allegedly engaged in “widespread misconduct,” violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdating document, and rushing to foreclose on delinquent homeowners, according to reports by the investigative news site The Intercept.

In 2011, the Treasury Department, which Mnuchin now leads, entered a consent order against his bank for “unsafe or unsound” mortgage lending and foreclosure practices.

REVERSE MORTGAGE

Echarte found the bank wrongly sought to foreclose on a reverse mortgage to Miami homeowner Gloria Leek-Tannenbaum.

Reverse mortgages are federally insured loans that allow qualified homeowners 62 and older to borrow against the equity in their property. Instead of making payments to lenders, homeowners receive loan proceeds. The loans deplete the equity and accumulate interest but don’t become due until borrowers move out, die, sell the property, or fail to pay property taxes and insurance.

OneWest Bank filed suit against Leek-Tannenbaum in March 2014, alleging she owed the full debt of nearly $490,000. Leek-Tannenbaum’s husband, Eugene Tannenbaum, died about six months earlier, and the bank argued the loan met the criteria for full repayment.

Arguing for the plaintiff at a bench trial in November, Albertelli Law attorney Margarita Trapaga said Leek-Tannenbaum signed the mortgage but not the note, and the sole borrower was dead. She claimed the widow also executed a nonborrower spouse ownership certification, acknowledging the bank had a right to foreclose if Tannenbaum died.

In contrast, Leek-Tannenbaum’s attorney painted a picture of a lender that once promised to halt the foreclosure but later reneged on that commitment.

“They beat a motion for summary judgment by telling the prior judge they would dismiss the case in 2016, asking only for proof she (Leek-Tannenbaum) lived in the property,” Jacobs wrote in a statement. “When they pressed forward anyway, I filed the §57.105 motion for sanctions.”

Florida law allows sanctions for attorneys who raise unsupported claims or defenses. Court documents show Jacobs wrote former Albertelli attorney Robert Bowen, informing him of the motion for sanctions and a 21-day statutory window to withdraw “unsupported” claims.

Bowen, Trapaga, Albertelli Law principals and OneWest Bank officials did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

Court records point to hard-fought litigation with 152 docket entries, a bench trial and more than a dozen hearings and five-minute motion calendar sessions.

And Jacobs said the case is not yet over.

“Last we were told, they intended to pursue an appeal,” he said.

Homeowners losing money in legal snarls surrounding non-judicial foreclosures

Although this article is about Hawaii, Georgia too, is a non-judicial foreclosure state.  The state of Georgia has bent over backwards to see that the bank and their attorneys, who lie at every instance, never loses.  We have been aiding in the battle against “the Bank with the most homes in the end wins”.

Very interesting outlook in this article.

Homeowners losing money in legal snarls surrounding non-judicial foreclosures

A previous version of this story listed that an interview subject, Lynn Noffsinger had purchased his title insurance policy from Fidelity National Title Insurance Company. He actually bought his policy from First American Title Company Inc. It is the policy of West Hawaii Today to correct promptly any incorrect information.

KAILUA-KONA — Foreclosed properties bought at auction often afford buyers a chance at a lucrative deal.

But if you’ve purchased a property anywhere in Hawaii that’s been through a non-judicial foreclosure, you may have acquired considerably less than you bargained for — or potentially nothing at all.

That’s because of several class action and individual action lawsuits that have been filed across every county in the state. The lawsuits allege the banks that administered mass foreclosures during and after the 2008 housing crisis using the non-judicial foreclosure process — meaning without the supervision of the court — did so without following proper procedure.

If a judge rules that a lender didn’t follow the highly specific power of sale outlined in the mortgage contract and supplemented by Hawaii’s non-judicial foreclosure statute part 1, then the sale is void and the property is returned to its original owner.

Such a determination by a judge doesn’t necessarily leave the current title holder on the street absent compensation, particularly if he or she holds title insurance. But it does place on the title company the burden of reimbursing the current holder the monetary value of the property outlined in the title insurance policy.

Because the number of lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of non-judicial foreclosures conducted in Hawaii over the last several years has recently skyrocketed and yet continues to climb, title insurers are wary of insuring future sales of any property that’s gone through the process, whether it was bought firsthand from the bank or secondhand from a private citizen.

When they are willing to insure, it’s not necessarily at fair market value.

“If the sale is void, that means when the bank sold the property to the new owner, the new owner got nothing,” said James Bickerton, an Oahu attorney who to date has filed nearly 60 lawsuits against financial institutions contesting the legitimacy of their foreclosure procedures. “So there are dozens and dozens of people sitting on property they thought was good because they bought it from a bank. That’s where the title insurance comes in. Title insurance companies have to step up and take care of it.”

Losing value on non-judicial foreclosures

Gretchen Osgood, principal broker and owner of Hawaiian Isle Real Estate, found out about the amended policies of title companies the hard way earlier this year. Her husband, Randy, purchased a unit at Kona Mansions from Bank of New York in 2013, as well as title insurance from Fidelity National Title and Escrow. The property had been through a non-judicial foreclosure in 2008.

More than three years after Randy purchased the unit for $72,000 and spent more than $10,000 to upgrade it, Osgood said the property’s face value has risen to around $160,000. The long-term plan has been to sell the unit for profit after utilizing it for several years as a rental — a typical tactic of real estate investors.

But when examining the process of sale, Osgood discovered no title company would offer to insure the property for any future buyer for more than $69,000 — the same amount Randy received on the policy he purchased in 2013 and nearly $100,000 short of the unit’s current market value.

“The reason you buy title insurance is to validate the title as valid so you can resell it. That’s why you pay for title insurance, and that’s why lenders require you to buy them title insurance as well,” Osgood explained. “Now, we don’t have the ability to get title insurance re-issued for this property for the face value of what we would sell it at. No buyer in their right mind would buy a property unless you can get title insurance for it, otherwise you could end up with a property you can’t resell, as we have now.”

Osgood added they could sell the property for $69,000 and lose part of their investment along with their equity. So the unit is technically re-sellable, but not at a price anywhere near what it would command on the open market.

Suzanne Patterson, who works at Kona Resort Properties, said word has been circulating within the real estate community about the concern since this summer, when issues arose for several brokers across the industry almost simultaneously.

One couple in Kona was served a lawsuit as they left their home one afternoon with their daughter on the way to her wedding.

“We were aghast by the fact this even happened,” Patterson said. “It’s a bad situation. These are local people, not cash buyers, but people getting loans. They are real people.”

One real estate agent who requested anonymity said the circumstances surrounding non-judicial foreclosures and the inability to insure them have created a major public relations crisis for the industry, as both title insurers and real estate agents are concerned about how these developments will affect buyer perception of the market.

For people with substantial portions of their finances tied up in one or several of these properties, the situation could become dire, especially if any issues arise demanding a sale of property to create cash flow.

“Lots of people won’t care,” Osgood said. “But for some, it will be catastrophic.”

Comparing judicial, non-judicial foreclosures in Hawaii

The differences between judicial and non-judicial foreclosures are stark, starting with the presence of a court authority in the process.

“In a judicial foreclosure, you have judicial supervision of how the transaction or foreclosure is being conducted,” said Robert Triantos, administrative partner in the Kona Office of the law firm Carlsmith Ball. “In a non-judicial foreclosure, it’s just the attorney going out there, publishing in the newspaper, holding the auction, sometimes extending the dates, maybe following the letter of the law, maybe not.”

Non-judicial foreclosures are not permitted in every state but have always been a staple of the real estate industry in Hawaii, said Bruce Graham, an attorney at Ashford & Wriston in Honolulu who also teaches a transactional property/real estate class at University of Hawaii at Manoa’s William S. Richardson School of Law.

The process of non-judicial foreclosure, which Graham characterized as essentially a reversion to the foreclosure process of 17th century England, became popular in the immediate aftermath of the housing crisis as financial institutions were foreclosing on a massive scale.

“Non-judicial foreclosures were more expeditious and less expensive than judicial foreclosures,” said Stephen Whittaker, Big Island real estate attorney and broker.

Triantos explained, however, that is no longer the case. The law in Hawaii was changed approximately two years ago, he said, making the judicial method considerably less expensive. The development has spurred a migration back to the judicial process, especially considering the position of title companies.

Triantos added it’s been roughly a year since most title insurance companies decided it wasn’t worth the hassle or the financial risk to insure properties that have been through non-judicial foreclosures in Hawaii.

“The title insurance companies are essentially saying they are not going to go back and investigate whether everything was done correctly,” Triantos said. “They are making a business decision. Whether that renders (the properties) unsellable — it probably does. But I’m not going to say it’s the title insurance companies that have put the properties in those positions.”

The only recourse for those who’d like to sell is to scour the industry for a title company that might be willing to insure a sale, sell at a substantial markdown or simply sit on the property until the statute of limitations to challenge the title expires.

Bickerton said the applicable statute is the same as the one dealing with the recovery of a property someone is occupying. While that issue is currently under legal review, he said one judge has already agreed with him on his interpretation.

If Bickerton is correct, the applicable statue of limitations to contest title is 20 years.

The catalyst for change

The Honolulu law firm Bickerton Dang has been the most prominent filer of lawsuits contributing to the change in title company policy.

As of Monday, the firm had filed 51 individual actions against banks challenging the legitimacy of foreclosures, at least 15 of which originated on Hawaii Island. Bickerton’s firm is also behind seven class action suits naming Bank of America, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank as defendants.

The class action suits don’t directly involve title insurers, Bickerton said, as his clients in those cases are simply seeking damages against the banks.

The individual actions do involve title companies because the current owners of the properties are also named in the lawsuits, as the plaintiffs are asking for the return of their former properties.

Bickerton said that Fidelity National Title Insurance Company and First American Title Company Inc. are the most commonly named title institutions in his clients’ lawsuits.

He explained that title insurers haven’t done anything expressly wrong, but asserted the banks had no legal right to sell the foreclosed properties and title companies were an integral part of those sale processes.

Steve Gottheim, senior counsel for the American Land Title Association, explained Bickerton’s approach from a title company’s point of view.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys try to basically name everybody they can possibly think of that has ever been connected to the mortgage in some way,” Gottheim said of lawsuits like those being headed by Bickerton’s firm. “The tactic from those attorneys is to name everyone and every company they can think of, make it as painful as possible, and see if any or all of them are willing to come to the table and pay the client(s) something to go away.”

How homeowners can be hurt at foreclosure auctions

The grounds for Bickerton’s filings are that lenders performed non-judicial foreclosures improperly, a claim that can be made for several reasons.

The most prominent reason, present in almost all 58 of Bickerton’s cases, is that lawyers enlisted by banks to handle foreclosures didn’t provide proper notice of the date and time of auctions.

When Bickerton’s clients granted power of sale to lenders in the initial contracts, the mortgages specified that if lenders reclaimed the properties by way of foreclosure, they were required to publish the date and time of auctions in general circulation news outlets in the counties where the auctions were to be held.

Bickerton said lawyers would regularly put up the initial notice, then postpone the auction and never republish the specific details.

He added a typical example involved an auction being slated for December. Then, at the auction, the bank’s lawyer announced the proceedings would be postponed until a later date but never published a circulated notice containing the new, pertinent information.

Bickerton said he is working on multiple cases where auctions were continued in that fashion as many as 12 or 13 times. He and his clients want to know why.

“The banks may have had other reasons, but it looks like it’s a possibility they were doing it to reduce the amount of buyer interest to (acquire the properties) for themselves,” Bickerton said. “You can see the temptation for the mortgagee to under-publicize a sale. They don’t have to let someone else get it if it’s a deal. Instead of selling it at a fire sale auction price, they can retail it and extract more value.”

Osgood explained that banks are allowed a credit up to the face value of what is still owed on the mortgage, plus penalties and interest for non-payment. That typically allows banks a credit large enough to claim the property at auction, particularly if they’re only bidding against themselves with what Osgood characterized as “monopoly money.”

This can create a problem for borrowers who defaulted because it tends to drive auction prices down. In judicial foreclosures, those which are overseen by a court of law, lenders can often seek a deficiency judgment if the amount the property sells for is less than the amount the bank is owed.

At first glance, that wouldn’t appear an issue for a non-judicial foreclosure, because generally the security, or the reclaimed property itself, satisfies the debt. Plus, there’s no legal entity to render a deficiency judgment because there was no court presiding over the process.

Even in such cases where there were no monetary consequences for a borrower due to an unfairly low auction price, the foreclosure may still be voided simply because proper protocol wasn’t observed, creating grounds for a lawsuit.

But Bickerton explained there tend to be actual monetary damages for many of his clients despite going through non-judicial foreclosures because they took out second mortgages on properties the initial lenders later reclaimed.

“I’ve got a lot of clients where the second mortgagee went after them for the deficiency because that lender is not getting paid,” Bickerton said. “The first bank is the only one that bid on the property because the auction date was not publicized. The bank bid what it was owed, acquired the property, and then the second bank says, ‘What about me?’ The junior bank then turns around and goes after borrower. They are allowed to do that because the debt hasn’t been paid.”

Bickerton said the notion that auctioneers must publish postponements as well as initial auction details is being challenged currently in the Hawaii Supreme Court based on a case argued last year. The seven class action lawsuits his firm has filed are on hold until that ruling is handed down.

More potential pitfalls

But there remain other methods lenders used that Bickerton claims didn’t fit the specifications outlined in both Hawaii law and the specific mortgages, so all individual actions his firm is handling are moving forward.

One such issue is providing sufficient notice of a foreclosure and the subsequent proceedings. The law states a physical notice must be posted on the property at least three weeks before its sale, and the language of the mortgage may require more notice and in a different form.

Bickerton mentioned one case on Hawaii Island he recently took up in which the final public notice was published on Nov. 2 for a Nov. 3 auction. Final publication notice is supposed to be published at least two weeks prior to the date of auction.

The physical notification of the borrower, which was supposed to be posted on the property three weeks prior to any auction, wasn’t posted there until Nov. 10, a week after the auction had concluded.

“That’s quite common, that sort of sloppiness,” Bickerton said. “Banks just treated people very, very poorly, not really recognizing that these are contractual powers that people have granted them that they have to honor. Banks need to step up and solve this problem they created.”

Another potential issue can be holding an auction for a property in a separate county from the one in which the property is located, because this can also produce the effect of driving down the price at auction.

Business strategy for the title companies

The alleged missteps of lenders during non-judicial foreclosures and the resulting lawsuits have combined to create hesitance on the part of title insurance companies to insure the resale of properties that have been through the process.

First and foremost, it’s a financial risk. Title insurers not only pay out claims if a title is successfully challenged by a former title holder, but also pay to represent the current title holder in legal proceedings.

“In title insurance, about 80 percent of your dollar is spent upfront so the title company can review the title, understand what some of the risks are and try to fix those risks before you even buy the property,” Gottheim, senior counsel for the American Land Title Association, said. “So only a smaller portion of the dollar is really available to cover claims.

“When you have the increased potential risk of somebody coming back and challenging the ownership of the home because of a foreclosure that there wasn’t a good view into, it can create some challenges on the pricing dynamic and the economics of that policy.”

Gottheim explained the better the title insurer’s understanding of the foreclosure process, the more effectively it will be able to represent a policy holder in any potential legal challenges.

Acquiring a good view into a foreclosure proceeding can be riskier and more difficult to accomplish if the process wasn’t overseen by the courts.

People who challenge title based on improper foreclosure proceedings rarely win their properties back, Gottheim said. But even if the title company never has to pay out a claim, just the process of defending title in court can be pricey.

“The easier it is for a title company to know what happened in that foreclosure, the easier it is to get lawsuit kicked out early at a lower cost,” Gottheim said. “The less we know about that process, the more expensive it becomes.”

The result of these risks, as Triantos explained, has been title companies making the business decision over the last year not to insure such properties — or not to do so at more than the value of the policies currently held, which may be substantially less than the properties would command on the open market.

But such practices may have existed even before the last year. While going through a purchase process for a condo at Kona Bali Kai six years ago, Lynn Noffsinger noticed something curious in the fine print on his First American title insurance policy. His agent at the time, Osgood, negotiated its removal from the contract.

“He was reviewing title policy offered to him during escrow. In the exclusions section, the company listed a foreclosure as an exclusion,” Osgood said. “It was in about eight-point type in the generic template part of the title policy. His diligence is how we discovered it.”

Marcus Ginnaty, media relations manager for First American, said his company “evaluates non-judicial foreclosures on a case-by-case basis in order to consider the unique circumstances of each foreclosure when considering whether or not to offer a title insurance policy.”

Fidelity representatives did not return a request for comment on their current title policies in regards to properties that have been subject to non-judicial foreclosures.

As for those who hold title to properties that have been through non-judicial foreclosures, and who wish to alleviate themselves of potential litigation as well as the anxiety surrounding whether their title may one day be contested, Gottheim explained they are simply in a tough spot with limited recourse.

“It can become a challenge. There’s not a lot of good options for them at that point,” he said. “If they’re not able to get title insurance up to the amount that would cover (the property’s) worth, a lot of times what becomes difficult is thinking about their next steps.”

Emails reveal judge coached district attorney on prosecuting Fannin Focus publisher

August 4th, 2016 by Tyler Jett in Local Regional News Read Time: 5 mins.

Fannin Focus Publisher Mark Thomason, who was arrested…

Photo by Contributed Photo /Times Free Press.

Appalachian Judicial Circuit District Attorney Alison Sosebee dropped…

Photo by Contributed Photo /Times Free Press.

Document: Weaver emails

Emails from Appalachian Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Brenda Weaver to District Attorney Alison Sosebee.

BLUE RIDGE, Ga. — A judge coached a prosecutor to arrest a local reporter, emails show.

Communications obtained through an open records request reveal Appalachian Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Brenda Weaver gave District Attorney Alison Sosebee advice about prosecuting the publisher of the Fannin Focus newspaper, as well as his lawyer.

Weaver sent Sosebee a state code section that could be used against the publisher, Mark Thomason, and his attorney, Russell Stookey. Weaver also told Sosebee how to cross examine some potential witnesses in the case.

The advice came after Thomason tried to see the cash flow for Weaver’s publicly funded bank account. Sosebee presented a case to a grand jury, which on June 24 indicted Thomason and Stookey on charges of identity fraud and attempt to commit identity fraud for their efforts to access documents pretaining to Weaver’s operating account. The grand jury also indicted Thomason on a count of making false statements, in reference to a records request he filed.

The emails obtained this week provide a behind-the-scenes account of how the judge and prosecutor worked together in the case against Thomason and Stookey. They also reveal the nature of the relationship between Weaver and Sosebee, who once worked for the judge and her husband.

“For the DA to take this without much of an investigation and turn it into a criminal indictment is really disturbing,” said Bob Rubin, president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “It certainly gives the appearance that the DA was doing the judge’s bidding.”

Thomason’s indictment in late June drew national media attention. First amendment organizations condemned the charges, saying Sosebee overstepped her authority in punishing a reporter for a records request. On July 18, at Weaver’s request, a judge granted a motion to not prosecute the case.

Since then, Thomason has filed a complaint against Weaver with the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the organization that oversees misconduct by Georgia judges. Weaver is the chairwoman of that organization. Also, multiple sources say, the FBI is investigating the circumstances surrounding Thomason’s and Stookey’s arrests.

Stookey and Thomason said they plan to file civil lawsuits against Weaver, as well as Fannin County.

“They’ve gotten away with doing this kind of crap for years there,” Stookey said. “There is nobody in that crowd that is smart. It is absolutely the dumbest crowd that I have seen. Maybe they’ll learn from this.”

Roots of the case

The cases against Stookey and Thomason began last summer, when they sued a court reporter. In April 2015, Superior Court Judge Roger Bradley used a racial slur for African Americans from the bench. Thomason wrote that others in the room that day claimed sheriff’s deputies had also used the racial slur, though that did not appear in the court reporter’s transcript.

Thomason and Stookey sued for an audio recording of the hearing. A judge ruled against them, saying that the transcript seemed consistent with an audio recording of the hearing that she heard. The court reporter, Rhonda Stubblefield, then sued Thomason’s newspaper, the Fannin Focus, for $1.6 million. She later dropped the complaint.

Then, the two sides fought about attorneys’ fees. Stookey and Thomason said Stubblefield’s lawyer admitted that Weaver paid for Stubblefield’s legal defense with taxpayer money. Stubblefield is not a county employee, making the lawsuit a private case.

On June 1, Thomason issued subpoenas for access to Weaver’s operating account, which is funded by taxpayers in Fannin, Gilmer and Pickens counties. On June 13, Thomason filed a records request for checks from Pickens County to Weaver’s account. He wrote in the request that he had reason to believe the checks had been cashed illegally.

That same day, emails show, Pickens County Commission Chairman Rob Jones forwarded Thomason’s request to Weaver. Weaver then forwarded it to Sosebee, as well as a district attorney’s office investigator.

On June 17, Weaver emailed Jones and carbon copied Sosebee, multiple sheriffs, a GBI agent and commission chairmen for other counties. She said she had already requested a criminal investigation against Thomason for the records request he sent.

“The allegations that I or anyone in my office have ‘illegally cashed checks’ are absolutely false,” Weaver wrote.

The next day, she sent emails to Sosebee’s personal account. Around 10 a.m., she told Sosebee that the key to the criminal case is Thomason’s statement in the records request that the checks had been cashed illegally. She also told Sosebee to question Fannin County Attorney Lynn Doss about giving copies of checks to Thomason — which Thomason then used to subpoena her operating account.

Weaver added: “Stookey needs to be questioned about how he got (a copy of) the check and his continued efforts to get more checks.”

Later that day, Weaver’s law clerk sent her an email with a state code section about the proper process for getting bank account information through a subpoena. The clerk told Weaver that the person issuing the subpoena needs to alert the owner of the bank account.

Weaver forwarded the message to Sosebee, with a note: “Stookey was required to give me notice and did not.”

Stookey denied this, telling the Times Free Press that he called Weaver’s assistant when the subpoenas had been issued. He said he left a message and didn’t hear back from Weaver.

“I find it amazing that Judge Weaver has the audacity to use her judicial authority to direct her constituents how she wants things done,” Thomason said upon learning about the emails.

Sosebee and Weaver did not return calls or emails seeking comment for this story. The two have been close for years. In 2001, after she graduated from law school, Sosebee worked as Weaver’s law clerk. A year later, she began to practice law with Weaver’s husband, George Weaver. She ran for district attorney in 2012, and George Weaver donated $1,000 to her campaign.

“She’s clearly influencing the district attorney,” Stookey said of Brenda Weaver.

In one email, Brenda Weaver wrote that she had been in contact with a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent about Thomason and Stookey’s requests for bank account information. But on Wednesday, GBI Director of Public Affairs Scott Dutton said his office declined to look into the case because FBI agents are already investigating “the entire situation.”

Contact Staff Writer Tyler Jett at 423-757-6476 or tjett@timesfreepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @LetsJett.http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/aug/04/emails-reveal-close-relationship-between-judg/379467/

Atlanta Attorneys Are On a Roll For Disciplinary Action, Bout Time Some Get Caught Up in Their Crimes!

Two Lawyers Hit With Default Judgment in Suits by Clients

Greg Land, Daily Report

Robert Thompson JR Vert 201412121516
Atlanta Attorney Robert Thompson Jr.
John Disney/Staff

Two Georgia attorneys—both under suspension by the State Bar of Georgia—have defaulted on a 2013 suit filed by a Douglas County couple who say they paid the lawyers thousands of dollars to forestall foreclosure proceedings only to lose their home when neither lawyer performed any services.

One of the defendants is attorney Robert Thompson Jr., who was suspended earlier this year after failing to respond to an ongoing investigation by the bar’s disciplinary committee. Thompson also was arrested in February and charged with misappropriating $37,440 of a client’s funds; his then-attorney told the Daily Report he had paid back more than $30,000 of the money.

A criminal charge of theft by conversion is pending against Thompson in Fulton County Superior Court. The phone number for his firm, the Thompson Law Group, has been disconnected.

The other attorney, Rodd Walton, has no disciplinary record with the bar but is under suspension for nonpayment of dues. Walton was arrested in 2009 when he attempted to enter the Cobb County Courthouse with a loaded handgun on the day he was to attend a hearing concerning a motion for reconsideration after being ordered to pay a former client $43,000 in restitution and attorney fees.

When his 2009 arrest was reported in this newspaper, a website for Walton’s Legacy Law Group said he was a former deputy counsel for Glock Inc., the maker of the gun he was carrying when he was arrested. On Thursday there was no immediate response to a message left on Legacy’s phone system, and no email is listed for Walton with the bar.

In the Fulton County suit, Michael and Cindy Bentley’s pro se complaint said they fell behind on their mortgage and in October 2011 paid Walton $3,000 to fight foreclosure proceedings. Walton “did absolutely nothing” on their behalf, it said, and when they requested information on their case he demanded another $3,500.

The Bentleys refused and demanded their $3,000 back. Walton first agreed, then told them he would refund nothing, it said.

In March 2012, they retained Thompson for $5,750. He “did nothing for a full year,” then demanded $500 to file a complaint. Thompson filed the complaint but failed to respond to the mortgage bank’s motion to dismiss or to inform the Bentleys that it had been filed, according to their complaint.

The bank’s motion went unanswered, and the court granted it by default. The Bentleys’ house was foreclosed.

Neither lawyer responded to the Bentleys’ suit, and they too moved for a default judgment. According to an order entered Thursday by State Court Judge Patsy Porter, Thompson appeared at an Oct. 15 hearing on the default motion and said that he had filed an answer with the clerk but that it had not been uploaded to the court’s e-filing system.

Porter instructed Thompson to upload a copy of his answer, but he failed to do so, she wrote.

ENENews: “Fukushima fallout…Nearly triple the highest level reported anywhere on West Coast”

With TEPCO having finally given up fighting the onslaught of radiation pouring into the Pacific Ocean, and considering the breeder reactors were creating weapons grade plutonium, it ain’t over, and may never be over.  Our govt. don’t care enough to be honest with us.  Down the road, several years from now, when all of us, lying there dying from cancer, think back on it, we will put two and two together.  Some of us will anyway, and will know that the horrible death we are being put through, was the Japanese’s way of payback for nuking them!

Fukushima fallout on vegetation in South Florida exceeded gov’t notification limit by over 1,000% — Nearly triple the highest level reported anywhere on West Coast

Published: November 27th, 2014 at 8:39 am ET
By ENENews
http://enenews.com/radioactive-vegetation-south-florida-1000-above-nrc-reporting-level-due-fukushima-fallout

Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 (St. Lucie, FL) — 2011 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, submitted to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

BROADLEAF VEGETATION: Brazilian Pepper from location H59 — 10-20 miles S/SSE of reactors on south end of Hutchinson Island, [30 miles north of Palm Beach]

Iodine-131 on 22-Mar: 1,220 pCi/kg (wet weight)
Iodine-131 on 29-Mar: 605 pCi/kg
Iodine-131 on 06-Apr: 242 pCi/kg
Iodine-131 on 13-Apr: 136 pCi/kg
Iodine-131 on 20-Apr: 79 pCi/kg
Iodine-131 on 26-Apr: 45 pCi/kg
Iodine-131 on 03-May: 21 pCi/kg
Iodine-131 is “attributed to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants event. Elevated levels of radioiodine were measured through-out the U.S.”
NRC Reporting Level for Vegetation = 100 pCi/kg (wet weight)
H 59 J

NRC Reporting Level: “The concentration value in an environmental sample, if exceeded, which must be reported to the NRC.”
Veg CA

The highest I-131 level reported in vegetation from the West Coast is 462 pCi/kg in Central California. The March 22 South Florida sample is nearly triple that amount.

See also: Emergency radiation testing used at Democrat and Republican conventions after Fukushima; Also for Obama Inauguration — Seafood, meat, vegetables, milk, water checked for nuclear waste, while top officials agree to publicly downplay crisis — 80% of milk samples by Orlando, FL had ‘significant’ Cs-137

Published: November 27th, 2014 at 8:39 am ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
89 comments
Like ENENews on Facebook
Follow ENENews on Twitter
Subscribe to the ENENews RSS Feed
Sign up for daily email updates
Related Posts
Newly released data shows Florida hit with highest level of radioactive material from Fukushima measured anywhere in world outside Japan — #1 out of more than 1,500 test results — Total radioactive iodine was up to 500% of amount reported September 26, 2014
Fukushima nuclear material reported in West Coast groundwater; It’s discharging into Pacific Ocean — Fallout also found in meat and fish from same area — “Routinely detected’ in plant life long after March 2011 September 4, 2014
Twice as much Fukushima radiation near California coast than originally reported; Highest levels found anywhere in Eastern Pacific — Scientist: Very little we can do… It’s unprecedented… God forbid anything else happens — Gundersen: Multiple plumes now along west coast… Will be coming “for century or more” (AUDIO) November 20, 2014
Officials by West Coast Speak Out on Fukushima: Concerns about cancer, illness from contaminated food — ‘Low-level’ radiation being reported in fish — “We cannot sit by and watch and wait” — National gov’t appears to not be taking it seriously January 20, 2014
Levels of Iodine-131 spike to highest levels yet in Philadelphia water supply — Almost double permissible limit December 7, 2012

OCCUPY.COM Expose Courts Blocking the Public From Sitting In On Trials In Georgia Courts, What Better Way to Show How Corrupt The Courts Are?

OCCUPY.COM EXPOSES GEORGIA’S COURTS DENYING THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT PROCEEDINGS!

I am quite pleased that someone took notice. The Judges in Georgia are akin to little despots. No doubt, a Judge is God in their Courtroom, but they don’t have the right to Deny the public access, so that they can violate one’s Civil and Constitutional Rights while they sneakily do it.

accused flanked by attorneys at sentencing court

EXPOSED: GEORGIA’S COURTS ARE BREAKING THE LAW BY DENYING PUBLIC ACCESS
TUE, 9/24/2013 – BY TANYA GLOVER

Courtrooms aren’t just a place where justice is served and legal decisions are made. They are also a place for the public to go and see how the justice system works: people enjoy viewing trials and hearings, even if they have no personal stake in them. Viewing public trials is the public’s legal right.

However, revelations by a judicial oversight commission in Georgia show that numerous judges in the state, including some in Atlanta, are violating the law by denying public access to courtrooms in cases ranging from bail hearings to standard trials.

There are some cases in which closing courtrooms to the public is legal, and the circumstances for this are carefully outlined in official Georgia State documents that make the points for legality clear. But according to a recent report in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, investigations by the state’s judicial oversight commission found the practice of sealing off courtroom access widespread across Georgia — and in most cases, illegally.

Instead of typical open courts, there are now signs posted on courtroom doors stating access is denied to either the general public or specific groups of people, including kids. Bailiffs sometimes stand in place of the signs, blocking entry to the court despite people’s legal right to go in, said Robert Ingram, an attorney from Marietta, Ga., and chairman of the state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission.

“We’ve had our own investigators and commissioners go out and visit a courtroom and they have been greeted by a bailiff or a deputy sheriff and been told to state their business or otherwise they don’t need to be there,” Ingram said.

But why the closed rooms and bans on view judicial proceedings in the first place? Under Georgia’s law, closing off or banning someone from the courtroom can be done at a judge’s discretion. For instance, an unruly or disruptive person, whether child or adult, can be removed. Or there may be a case not considered proper for people under the age of 18 to attend.

More often, however, judges these days claim they are keeping out the public because of lack of space in the courtroom. One instance that put this closed court behavior in the spotlight was the jury selection for Andrea Sneiderman, in which DeKalb Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams lifted the public ban stating that people who wished to be present for the selection had the right to do so.

Seemingly arbitrary court closures by judges in the Peach State are nothing new. Back in 2011, Barbra Mobley, a DeKalb County State Court Judge, resigned after investigations were launched by the Judicial Qualifications Commission alleging that her court featured bailiffs questioning people illegally about why they wanted to observe the cases on the docket.

The phenomenon is occurring statewide. In both Crisp and Ben Hill counties, the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) filed suit against the practice of closing courts to the public. In those counties, it’s been common that courts remain closed off even to the family members of both victims and the accused, other than their attendance at guilt pleas during the trials’ conclusions.

Further investigations have showed that closed courts are more common than first thought. According Gerry Weber of SCHR, this is causing a major problem with transparency. “A closed courtroom is one that is less accountable to the public. What is done behind closed doors can be different to what is done in the cold light of day,” he said.

Many judges are following the closed court lead, including Judge T. Jackson Bedford of the Fulton County Superior Court, Judge Clarence Seeliger of the DeKalb County Superior Court, and Judge Patsy Porter of Fulton State Court. Attempts by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution to contact these servants of the people were unsuccessful, as were the attempts made by Occupy.com.

There are some positive signs as well, however. Judge Christopher Brasher of Fulton Superior Court says he was unaware that the practice of closing courts was occurring in his courtroom, and quickly put a stop to it. Brasher attributed the action to “overzealous deputies, who provide security and order.” He has since ordered that no one be keep out of the court, and that no signs excluding any specific group be put up without his written consent.

Judges Todd Markle and Robert McBurney, both of Fulton Superior Court, say they were not aware the public was being deterred with signs from entering their courts, and that this step was taken without their permission. However, there is debate about the judges’ knowledge of the situation. Each county sheriff’s department is responsible for court security, and Fulton County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson Tracy Flanagan says they do not make or affix signs nor are signs permitted without the consent of the presiding judge.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission issued an opinion on the matter, from the commission’s director Jeff Davis who said massive amounts of complaints have come from the public about access to courtrooms. “Our efforts to educate judges about these issues have resulted in the type of response we would have anticipated,” said Davis.

“Judges are complying with the opinion and modifying practices accordingly. Since the issuance of our Opinion, we have been encouraged by the response of judges and the willingness to bring their courts into full compliance with the law.”

Zurcher Farms

Just a Farmer & Farmher, inspiring others to live the homesteading dream!

DogsRealty.com

For Dog Lovers Only

1800PetsAndVets®

LOVE YOUR PET™

Best Dog Training Tips & Tricks

Dog Training Guidance

Click Solutions Membership Site

Digital Products That Work

Tactical Panda’s Bullet Points

Where we keep you up to date with the latest information in the 2A community!

FightForeclosure.net

Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

What can be

Rehabilitation is an attitude.

depolreablesunite

Where Deplorables Hang Out

SCOTUS Predictions

A United States Supreme Court Blog

Great Bear Blog

Pacific Wild is a conservation voice dedicated to ensuring that the Great Bear Rainforest remains one of the planet’s greatest cradles of biodiversity.

Red Wolves

an animal's eyes can speak a great language

save the wolves!

by not killing them.

Save the Wolves

you reap what sow

Wolf4life

Save The Wolves

Protect The Wolves

Help Protect YOUR Wolves

BlueFeatherSpirit

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten."

Zurcher Farms

Just a Farmer & Farmher, inspiring others to live the homesteading dream!

DogsRealty.com

For Dog Lovers Only

1800PetsAndVets®

LOVE YOUR PET™

Best Dog Training Tips & Tricks

Dog Training Guidance

Click Solutions Membership Site

Digital Products That Work

Tactical Panda’s Bullet Points

Where we keep you up to date with the latest information in the 2A community!

FightForeclosure.net

Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

What can be

Rehabilitation is an attitude.

depolreablesunite

Where Deplorables Hang Out

SCOTUS Predictions

A United States Supreme Court Blog

Great Bear Blog

Pacific Wild is a conservation voice dedicated to ensuring that the Great Bear Rainforest remains one of the planet’s greatest cradles of biodiversity.

Red Wolves

an animal's eyes can speak a great language

save the wolves!

by not killing them.

Save the Wolves

you reap what sow

Wolf4life

Save The Wolves

Protect The Wolves

Help Protect YOUR Wolves

BlueFeatherSpirit

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten."

%d bloggers like this: