Bob Hurt on Neil Garfield: amateurs should not try to make broad pronouncements reading cases they do not even try to understand…..sorry Bob!


Dear Bob Hurt:
Honest people can and often do disagree honestly about issues.  You do yourself A GREAT discredit and indignity when you call Neil Garfield (and me, by the way) “a scammer” for disagreeing with you when, so far as I can tell, you and Storm Bradford are the ONLY people who take your view of things.  You have now misrepresented TWO cases, the Salazar case and the DeCastro case (from three weeks ago) and I have to take a stand and take exception to what you’re writing.  You are my friend and I am yours, but HONEST PEOPLE MUST DISAGREE and point out each other’s mistakes, and your mistakes here are HUGE.  You are really misleading people and wrongfully defaming Neil Garfield (and me, by the way).
You are simply WRONG that “NOTHING in a foreclosure defense foils the foreclosure EXCEPT dispute of [what you consider to be] the essential facts.”  In Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, just to name a few states, the “Holder in Due Course” defense DOES work.
My problem with what you wrote earlier about the Salazar opinion is that you BLATANTLY and TOTALLY misrepresented what the Judge in that case said about Neil Garfield.  Even when I challenged you AND quoted the entirety of Footnote 4 from Salazar in my response to your first post, you persisted in misrepresenting the words, the import, and the meaning of what the Judge said.  It was simply NOT an attack on Neil Garfield at all but an attack on incompetently offered evidence.  And I still want to know where you got a copy of a Judicial Opinion written in “word.doc” with so many typos and no evidence that it came from any of the major sources of judicial opinions.  I know the Salazars did NOT in fact retain Neil Garfield.  They did NOT have a case specific affidavit from him.  THAT is the subject of the Judge’s critique.  YOU are guilty of misrepresenting facts rather than accurately informing the people you serve.
I want you to acknowledge this misrepresentation to the readership of both Lawmen and Lawsters.  Only your best friend, Bob, will tell you to your face when you’re making a fool of yourself and right now (as, regretably, with your occasional articles on Eugenics and the need to sterilize low IQ people) you really are….  Making a fool of yourself is understating the issue, you’re really kind of making an ass of yourself.  I love you but I am too closely associated with you in too many ways not to disagree with you and correct you openly when you write things that are just plain wrong.
And so far as misrepresenting court cases go, I DID let one pass a couple of weeks ago when you totally misrepresented the holding of a New Jersey case on April 5, 2013, when you wrote that it supported your notion that holder-in-due course doctrine was dead (this was the case of Indymac v. DeCastro.  What the opinion in that case said was the DeCastro’s motion was UNTIMELY under Rule 4:50 of the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure, and that he raised the issue too late, and that the Judge was justified in denying his motion for that reason.  Indymac HAD THE NOTE at the time of filing the complaint in this case (and I quote from the opinion at length):
We now turn to the primary contention that the final judgment is void for lack of standing. In support of this claim, DeCastro relies on Deutsche Bank Nat’l. Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011), to assert that IndyMac lacked standing and should be precluded from filing a foreclosure claim because it had not been assigned the mortgage prior to filing the foreclosure complaint. This claim lacks merit.
           In Mitchell, Deutsche Bank had not been assigned the mortgage prior to filing the foreclosure complaint.  Relying on Article III of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), N.J.S.A. 12A:3-101 to -605, which addresses who may enforce negotiable instrument, we held that either possession of the note or an assignment of tthe mortgage that predated the original complaint conferred standing.  Id. at 216, 225.  We remanded for the trial court to determine whether before filing the original complaint, Deutsche Bank  was in possession of the note or had another basis to achieve    standing to foreclose, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12A:3- 301.  Id. at 225.
     DeCastro's reliance on Mitchell is inapposite, as that case
is plainly distinguishable from the instant case.  The record is
clear that, unlike Deutsche Bank in Mitchell,  IndyMac was the
holder of the note on DeCastro's property at the time it filed
the foreclosure complaint.  DeCastro has not disputed that fact
in the complaint nor presented any proof that IndyMac did not
possess the note at the time of the filing of the complaint.
See Angeles, supra, 428 N.J. Super. at 319.  In accordance with
the UCC provision, N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301, the plaintiff bank, as
the holder of the negotiable instrument, has a legal right to enforce the note at the time it obtained the judgment.  As such,IndyMac had standing to bring the foreclosure action.
The DEUTSCHE BANK NAT. TRUST v. RUSSO 57 A.3d 18 (2012), opinion cited here, is ANOTHER New Jersey Civil Rule 4:50 case and it all has to do with the TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION:
Based on our reading of Guillaume and Deutsche Bank, we conclude that, even if plaintiff did not have the note or a valid assignment when it filed the complaint, but obtained either or both before entry of judgment, dismissal of the complaint would not have been an appropriate remedy here because of defendants’ unexcused, years-long delay in asserting that defense. Therefore, in this post-judgment context, lack of standing would not constitute a meritorious defense to the foreclosure complaint.
In reaching that conclusion, we note that, contrary to defendants’ contention, standing is not a jurisdictional issue in our State court system and, therefore, a foreclosure judgment obtained by a party that lacked standing is not “void” within

[ 57 A.3d 25 ]


the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(d). In the federal courts, standing is a jurisdictional concept, because Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies. See Raftogianis, supra, 418 N.J.Super. at 353, 13 A.3d 435 (citing In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp.2d 650, 653-54 (S.D.Ohio 2007)).

By contrast, the Superior Court of New Jersey is a court of general jurisdiction, Swede v. Clifton, 22 N.J. 303, 314, 125 A.2d 865 (1956), and in our courts, the requirement that a party have standing is a matter of judicial policy not constitutional command. See DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428,634 A.2d 493 (1993) (“Unlike the Federal Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution does not confine the exercise of the judicial power to actual cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. VI, § 1, para. 1.”) (Pollock, J., concurring); Salorio v. Glaser, 82 N.J. 482, 490-91, 414 A.2d 943cert. denied, 449 U.S. 804, 101 S.Ct. 49, 66 L.Ed.2d 7 (1980). “Because standing affects whether a matter is appropriate for judicial review rather than whether the court has the power to review the matter, and standing is a judicially constructed and self-imposed limitation, it is an element of justiciability rather than an element of jurisdiction.” N.J. Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J.Super. 402, 411, 686 A.2d 1265 (App.Div.1997),appeal dismissed, 152 N.J. 361704 A.2d 1297 (1998); see also Gilbert v. Gladden, 87 N.J. 275, 280-81, 432 A.2d 1351 (1981) (distinguishing the concept of justiciability from that of subject matter jurisdiction).

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Cc : JOHN WOLFGRAM <johnwolfgram@hotmail.com>; Bradley S. Austin <brad@healthyhighway.com>; Senator Jerry O’Neil <oneil@centurytel.net>; Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson <kgarcialawson@yahoo.com>; Dan Mack <mackassoci@aol.com>; Renada March <renada.march@gmail.com>; Brad Henschel <crusaderjd@yahoo.com>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 avril 2013 19h52
Objet : Re: LAWMEN & LAWSTERS: The Correct Reading of Court Orders (re: Neil Garfield)

Charles, you ignore the fundamental point.  NOTHING in a foreclosure defense foils the foreclosure EXCEPT dispute of the essential facts.  And ultimately the plaintiff will cure all defects and get the foreclosure UNLESS the borrower proves to the court that the lender injured the borrower at the inception of the mortgage.  Otherwise, the borrower agreed to the note and mortgage and defaulted, and now the court will enforce the note as the constitution requires.

THAT’s why all foreclosure defenders commit malpractice in failing to examine the mortgage for causes of action.

And that’s why Garfield essentially SCAMS people into thinking they can drum up some kind of valid defense.  Did you READ the case law citations?

Bob

On 4/26/2013 5:03 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Don’t be serious as a heart attack when you are wrong: you are in fragile health and might give yourself a heart attack.
In My E-mail I quoted Footnote 4 correctly, you did not!  They did NOT have an original affidavit from Garfield regarding their case—read it again!  I do not feel that you understand at all the fundamental correctness of Garfield’s stance.  Does he cover everything? No, it’s difficult to cover every aspect of the kind of financial fraud that is going on these days, but you have COMPLETELY misrepresented the Holding of the Court in Salazar.  There was NO original or case-specific affiidavit from Garfield—I’m sorry Bob, but you’re way off the mark here.  You know I love you but I cannot let you go around messing things up, misrepresenting improperly copied court orders and things like that…

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 avril 2013 16h47
Objet : Re: LAWMEN & LAWSTERS: The Correct Reading of Court Orders (re: Neil Garfield)

If you read the cases, you know one of them presented an affidavit from Garfield, presumably with permission of Garfield.  And that’s my point.  He performs services, sells items to people and he knows they are bullshit.

I am serious as a heart attack in my partisanship against foreclosure defense thugs who use ruses to mug desperate foreclosure victims and virtually never actually save the house from foreclosure.

In the article I wrote and formatted (attached) I confess the inartful presentation of the arguments, but the courts have made it crystal clear that they will fail anyway, even if presented by JC himself.  Didn’t you see all those citations in Salazar footnote 4?  Those are just SOME of the losing cases based on Garfield’s templates (I couldn’t find the one cited at Mario Kenny’s blog, so I guess he hosed it to get out of the limelight).

Right, I am not perfect, but I’m not the one making a fortune in referral and seminar fees from predatory foreclosure defenders who “get it,” and even more fortunes from feckless, desperate foreclosure victims who waste precious money on useless securitization audits.  He has been misleading and preying on feckless foreclosure victims FOR AT LEAST 5 years.

Fastcase supplies all kinds of court docs.

Garfield is a scammer, a very successful scammer.  How can you have the cheek, the audacity to pipe in on his behalf?

You have insulted me and I demand satisfaction in a game of Barefoot Chocolate Bayou Icepick Mumbly Peg.

You do know the location of Chocolate Bayou, right?
http://goo.gl/maps/N2FKf
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hnc54

I grew up mostly in Foster Place at 6821 England Street, Houston.  Chocolate Bayou Road bordered the neighborhood on the east.  The city later renamed it to Cullen Blvd (probably because of the presence of SunnySide just south of Foster Place, on the other side of the railroad tracks, now about where I610 runs, a gigantic Negro community.  Cullen Boulevard seemed less offensive, I imagine, than did Chocolate Bayou road.  Old Chocolate Bayou Road still exists, just north of the beltway.

I had no clue where the actual bayou lay, but just assumed it had something to do with Negroes swimming in or drinking from it.  When it rained heavily we kids always swam in the ditch in front of the house.

Anyway, Foster Place started turning black when I joined the Navy in 1962, and had become completely black by the time I got out of the Navy in 1971. Almost.  My mother Ruby still lived there.  Negroes stole her TV 3 times and tried to rape her twice, but she talked them out of the rape ( what black teen boy wants an old wrinkled white woman?).  She eventually moved together with my brother Norman and his beautiful daughter Ashley.

I guess my own Chocolate Bayou was the ditch of muddy water with crawdads in front of my house as a kid.  And out there beside that ditch we played mumbly peg with an icepick, barefooted.  Every once in a while one of us would get an icepick in the foot, and it hurt.  But it didn’t bleed much, and alcohol scrubbing would keep infection away.  It was dangerous and fun.

You game?

On 4/26/2013 3:33 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Dear Bob:
You have become a partisan among mortgage experts, and I think the result is most unbecoming, especially this recent attack on Neil Garfield, who has in fact educated a large portion of the public regarding the mortgage fraud ongoing.  Neil Garfield was NOT retained as an expert in the cases you are circulating and your commentary regarding the judge’s treatment of Garfield is misleading in the extreme.  If anyone is a “bozo” under these orders it is the parties who do not understand how to present expert witness evidence.  The Federal Courts have very clear rules that you don’t just walk in randomly or non-randomly selected expert testimony without an expert to “qualify” or “sponsor” the opinion and these people utterly failed to do that.  You’re acting a bit like a “bozo” yourself right now, I’m afraid… Please retract your unwarranted attack on Garfield!!!! It just isn’t good manners or at all well-taken.
Without understanding the nature of the argument, you are interposing yourself on one side against another.  The Court order does not criticize Garfield or his opinion IN THE LEAST.  What the Court is saying here is that randomly chosen commentary taken off the internet IS NOT EVIDENCE of anything.  Even if it were written by Milton Friedman or F.A. von Hayek or Jesus Christ himself, NO HEARSAY IS ALLOWED IN COURT and this particular evidentiary hearsay does not even refer directly to the case at hand.  Your assertion that this is a criticism of Neil Garfield is TOTALLY UNWARRANTED and I want you to apologize to everyone in Lawmen or Lawsters for blatantly misrepresenting the Court’s opinion.  I am also curious to know how you got a non-Westlaw non-Lexis Word.doc version of a Court order—is this even possible?  I notice lots of typos in the order also….what’s going on here?  GRRRR…. this sort of thing makes me mad…. You are being an unfair partisan and you clearly do not understand the basic meaning of what you’re distributing here…
What the Court actually says, according to your copy of the Memorandum order, is:
        As noted, the Plaintiffs have copied verbatim many of the allegations in the Arizona complaint cited above and from an Ohio form complaint found at livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/federalcomplaint-ohio.pdf.. “Living lies” is a website and blog created and published by attorney Neil Garfield4 .
4. For other examples of cases in which these general complaints contain information supplied by Mr. Garfield, see Maixner v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Civ. No. 10-3037-CL, 2011 WL 7153929, 3 (D.Or. Oct. 26, 2011) (“Maixner also offers as fact extended excerpts from a Securitization Research Commentary’ (‘SRC’) obtained through LuminaQ and authored by Neil Garfield, an attorney licensed to practice in Florida who Maixner asserts is a ‘nationally recognized expert in mortgage securitization.’ (Id., ¶¶ 14-22 & Ex. I). A review of the SRC reveals that this document consists primarily of a general commentary regarding the practice of mortgage securitization accompanied by Garfield’s opinion ‘as an expert in securitization’ regarding the significance of these practices with respect to the Maixners’ mortgage loan, not of which are properly offered as fact” and dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs claims seeking an “order holding the mortgage on their property to be void and unenforceable, the pending non-judicial foreclosure proceeding unlawful, and seeking damages for violations of, among others, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.)”); Sainte v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1637-TWT-WEJ, 2010 WL 4639242, ……(noting that “[a] significant portion of the body of Plaintiff’s Complaint can be found in Nature of the Action by Neil Garfield. Accordingly, there are only a handful of statements included in Plaintiff’s Complaint that are personal to her claim and not pulled directly from the above-posted source” and dismissing claims “alleging violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605; the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639; the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601; and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681. (Comp., Dkt.1.) . . . and claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, civil RICO, quiet title, and usury” as improperly pleaded against all Defendants).
In all fairness, Bob, the opinion does not criticize Garfield himself but these particular parties’ USE of Garfield’s published material without connecting them to any particular case.

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : lawmen@googlegroups.comhurtfamily@yahoogroups.comtorresfamily@yahoogroups.com; Melissa Gillespie <costcogypsy@gmail.com>; Jonathan Gould <jrg606@att.net>; James Emerson <jim.emer@gmail.com>; Cheryl Kissell <marketwiz@earthlink.net>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 avril 2013 13h17
Objet : Do US Courts See Neil Garfield As Expert or BOZO?

Neil Garfield – Expert or Bozo?


I know many people love Neil Garfield because on his LivingLies blog, he acts like the champion of foreclosure victims.  But check out just two of the cases where the court denounces Garfield’s pleadings and “expertise,” and those relying on Garfiels LOSE BIG.  The courts RIP Garfield’s tactics to SHREDS. See attached opinions:

  • Connelly v USBNA, US Bankruptcy Ct, AZ;
  • Salazar v Indybank, USDC New Mexico, attached.
Neil Garfield might have the intention of helping foreclosure victims, but he actually hurts them.  He sells them useless securitization audits and “expert” affidavits and provides an utterly bogus foreclosure defense template here:

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/template-complaint1.pdf

He totally ignores the indisputable, undeniable facts of virtually every foreclosure:

  1. The borrower signed the note and mortgage
  2. The borrower defaulted on the loan by not making timely payments, thereby injuring the note holder.
  3. The mortgagee/holder files a foreclosure action in order to force a sale of the mortgaged property to recover the loss
  4. The public trustee or the courts MUST give redress to the injured party and MUST NOT impair the obligations of the contracts.


Excerpt of note:

“Plaintiff solely relies on his expert’s assertion that he possesses “knowledge of the actual intents, purposes, meanings and effect of the 1999 amendments [to the] Uniform Commercial Code…. Article 9 applies to the sale of promissory notes.” Garfield Aff. 9:9-12.

        Even if this opinion testimony by a witness who has not been qualified as an expert could be considered by the Court, it would be rejected because it directly contradicts Veal. This Court follows the decisions of the Ninth Circuit BAP, and accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that only Article 9 applies to the transfer of the Note fails.

Look at this footnote from the Salazar case, showing an array of victims of Garfield’s nonsensical “expertise”:
All of this brings me to ask:

Is Neil Garfield an expert or a bozo?

Let me make this point by asking another question:

If you were a lawyer and a client came to you for help dealing with a notice of foreclosure or a foreclosure complaint for breach of contract, which of these would you do:

  1. Allege that the bank didn’t lend real money or that the securitization trust receipts paid off the loan or the holder of the note has no standing?
  2. Examine the mortgage for evidence of prior torts, breaches, or error by the lender or lender’s agents?
Now, ponder these additional questions:
  1. Doesn’t it go without saying that the foreclosure becomes INEVITABLE if the foreclosure victim cannot deny the essential facts outlined in 1-4 above?
  2. Doesn’t a foreclosure defender attorney commit legal malpractice by doing #1 immediately above and ignoring #2?
  3. Doesn’t it seem obvious that one can defeat foreclosure ONLY by proving a prior breach, tort, or error underlying the mortgage so as to give the court justification for declaring the mortgage void, invalid, or defective?
My central point…  If you took out a mortgage in the past 10 or 12 years, you have a 90% chance that the lender or lender’s agents cheated you.  If you don’t believe this, read the summary at the front of theFinancial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report.  It essentially ignores Wall Street fraud, but it shows that government and the finance industry colluded in the predatory lending that caused massive job loss and collapsed homeowner equities nationwide.
What does “predatory lending” mean?  It means lender knew the borrower could not afford payments or the appraiser overvalued the house, or the mortgage broker or lender charged excessive fees, or the lender or lender’s agents made false representations to the borrower, or  somehow cheated the borrower, and DID SO KNOWINGLY.  They did this to obtain unjust enrichment and set up the borrower for foreclosure.
In order to prove an injury, the borrower must hire a professional to perform a comprehensive mortgage examination to find all the causes of action (reasons to sue) underlying the mortgage.  If the examination report reveals causes of action, the borrower can obtain legal counsel to demand and negotiate a settlement offer or sue the  original lender in a new action or as a cross claim for those causes of action.
Neil Garfield STUDIOUSLY refuses to tell his readers this reality, but the comprehensive mortgage examination provides the ONLY WAY a mortgage victim or foreclosure victim can get the house free and clear or obtain financial compensation for suffering the injuries from the lender or lender’s agents.
There is NO other way, as the attached court cases point out here in Connelly:How could the judge have stated it with greater clarity and simplicity?  What does Neil Garfield FAIL TO UNDERSTAND about this?  Everything, apparently.
You see the two possible scenarios?
Scenario 1.  By attacking the lender for mortgage torts, breaches, or errors, the borrower can win the house free and clear or financial compensation AND legal fees because the lender or agents injured the borrower.
Scenario 2.  But by attacking the foreclosure, the borrower can at best win temporary dismissal without prejudice on some standing issue, and the lender will refile and the borrower will lose the house and all the fees paid to the attorney, because the borrower injured the lender by defaulting on the mortgage.
Neil Garfield thrives on  and promotes Scenario 1.  Instead of performing comprehensive professional mortgage examinations, Garfield contents himself with hawking securitization and loan audits that do absolutely no good because they aim mostly at arguing over the foreclosure rather than attacking the original lender for causes of action underlying the mortgage.  And the statute of limitations has expired on most of the TILA/HOEPA/RESPA violations he might find, so they provide no basis for a lawsuit.
Let me clarify:  ONLY a comprehensive professional mortgage examination, combing through ALL of the documents related to the mortgage and foreclosure in the context of the borrower’s observations and experiences can provide a basis for settling with or suing the lender.  And such a settlement/suit will stop a foreclosure dead in its tracks.  It can result in the borrower getting the house free and clear, all legal fees and costs paid, and punitive damages.  Want Proof?  Read these stories and see what a SENSIBLE, COMPETENT attorney can do with a proper professional mortgage examination:
[Note that these stellar examples exist only because the lender or lender’s counsel was an idiot for not settling early – all settlements include non disclosure agreements to hush up the mortgage victim]

  1. House free and clear, legal fees/costs paid, $2.1 million in punitive damages –
    http://wvrecord.com/news/233771-quicken-loans-on-losing-end-of-3-million-predatory-lending-verdict 
  2. Wells Fargo lied on the loan application – $250K compensation, $1 million punitive –
    http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/08/11/story8.html?b=1218427200^1681713
  3. Ocwen lied to borrower who missed loan payment – $10 million actual damages, $1.5 million mental anguish and economic damage –
    http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2005/11/28/daily20.html?page=all
  4. 8th USCCA W. Mo. reinstated $6 million punitive damage arbitration award against servicer (Stark v. Sandperg, Phoenix & von Gontard, et al.)
    http://mortgage-home-loan-bank-fraud.com/legal/Stark%20vs%20EMC.pdf
If you have a mortgage, particularly if you have an under-water loan (you owe more than the value of the house), you NEED a professional mortgage examination to prove any causes of action underlying that mortgage.  If  you want such a mortgage examination, call me right now for help.  I’ll explain the solution strategy and connect you to a professional mortgage examiner who can provide you with a full examination report within 7 business days.
Bob Hurt
727 669 5511  – Call Now.  I charge no fee
(Yes, you may distribute this article far and wide, if you really want to help people)

Based on our reading of Guillaume and Deutsche Bank, we conclude that, even if plaintiff did not have the note or a valid assignment when it filed the complaint, but obtained either or both before entry of judgment, dismissal of the complaint would not have been an appropriate remedy here because of defendants’ unexcused, years-long delay in asserting that defense. Therefore, in this post-judgment context, lack of standing would not constitute a meritorious defense to the foreclosure complaint.

In reaching that conclusion, we note that, contrary to defendants’ contention, standing is not a jurisdictional issue in our State court system and, therefore, a foreclosure judgment obtained by a party that lacked standing is not “void” within

[ 57 A.3d 25 ]


the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(d). In the federal courts, standing is a jurisdictional concept, because Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies. See Raftogianis, supra, 418 N.J.Super. at 353, 13 A.3d 435 (citing In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp.2d 650, 653-54 (S.D.Ohio 2007)).

By contrast, the Superior Court of New Jersey is a court of general jurisdiction, Swede v. Clifton, 22 N.J. 303, 314, 125 A.2d 865 (1956), and in our courts, the requirement that a party have standing is a matter of judicial policy not constitutional command. See DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428,634 A.2d 493 (1993) (“Unlike the Federal Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution does not confine the exercise of the judicial power to actual cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. VI, § 1, para. 1.”) (Pollock, J., concurring); Salorio v. Glaser, 82 N.J. 482, 490-91, 414 A.2d 943cert. denied, 449 U.S. 804, 101 S.Ct. 49, 66 L.Ed.2d 7 (1980). “Because standing affects whether a matter is appropriate for judicial review rather than whether the court has the power to review the matter, and standing is a judicially constructed and self-imposed limitation, it is an element of justiciability rather than an element of jurisdiction.” N.J. Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J.Super. 402, 411, 686 A.2d 1265 (App.Div.1997),appeal dismissed, 152 N.J. 361704 A.2d 1297 (1998); see also Gilbert v. Gladden, 87 N.J. 275, 280-81, 432 A.2d 1351 (1981) (distinguishing the concept of justiciability from that of subject matter jurisdiction).

4 responses to “Bob Hurt on Neil Garfield: amateurs should not try to make broad pronouncements reading cases they do not even try to understand…..sorry Bob!

  1. Charles, for all your protestations, you have failed to address my key point. If you became a mortgage lender it would drive you insane to have to slog through the mud of litigation in order to enforce the note through foreclosure sale. This is such a serious matter that many states have devised a non-judicial foreclosure process where the mortgagor essentially confesses judgment in advance of breaching the note to make forcing a sale of the collateral easier, faster, and cheaper for the injured lender.

    All judges know that in the typical foreclosure dispute a dismissal of a complaint to foreclose a valid mortgage for lack of standing will result in a foreclosure anyway because the plaintiff will correct the paperwork flaws and refile the complaint. Or, the plaintiff will appeal and win. Either way, the bank will eventually force a foreclosure sale and the mortgagor will lose the house. So what’s the point in dragging it out for months or years.

    Think of the Golden Rule. If you would hate a 5-year-plus delay in foreclosing a loan you had made, why impose it on banks?

  2. Is it not true that Bob Hurts ‘partner’ is Storm Bradford, who works out of the same address as MERS?

    If so, that explains alot. I read this on RipOff Report and other forums where they were removed.

    • Charles Edward Lincoln III

      I have confronted Bob directly and he denies these allegations. Bob MAY be sincere. I am a conservative who believes in the importance of traditional values when it comes to race, for example, but I totally deplore, in fact I despise, Bob’s hypocritical insistence that racial problems could best be solved by governmental involvement in Eugenics, including sterilization and planned manipulation of the population gene pool. Governments cannot be trusted to keep city streets free of potholes for more than a few months at a time—or manage a government website for healthcare supported by the entire U.S. Executive Branch. But Bob would entrust our children’s’ lives and our children’s children’s lives (whether they live or not, not how they live) to the government? Well, I wouldn’t…. And I say Bob is hypocritical because Bob himself is a very slight weak person who carries around an oxygen tank way younger than you’d think that normal or necessary, and so Bob himself might be considered genetically suboptimal, on the one hand. Moreover, bar none, Bob Hurt’s best redeeming feature is his obviously great and sincere love for his entire family, which is totally racially diverse and includes some downright degenerate people who engage in whatever the extreme opposite of culturally and genetically responsible mating might be considered. But he loves all these dark-skinned close relations he has and he takes care of them. So Bob is one heck of a confused guy….. I don’t know whether he works on behalf of MERS or not, but I guess, from his posts, he might as well….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s