Judge Michael Genden | Presenting One of the Most Disgusting Transcripts in Fraudclosure History

The Honorable Michael A. Genden
Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
73 West Flagler St., Suite 817
Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: 305-349-7157

Was going to pull excerpts but the entire thing is fascination. I suggest you take the time to read this one in full…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Comments
11 Responses to “Judge Michael Genden | Presenting One of the Most Disgusting Transcripts in Fraudclosure History”
  1. Ali says:

    Breaking news……… White House on partial lockdown…….Qccupyers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Maybe the Obama’s are being evicted!

  2. indio007 says:

    I think some people are missing the point with the PSA leaves certificate hollowing the PSA. Failure to comply with the PSA leaves certificate holders liable for a 100% income TAX ,meaning they get nothing except lose more money. The judge here helping the trustee breach his fiduciary duty to the trust by accepting this late assignment. That is if it is not just a complete fraud in the first instance with the bank pretending to represent the trust and simply pocketing the sales proceeds.

  3. Beth A. says:

    Can’t comment on the legalities of the argument as I only read thru the first 1/3.

    First off — I am not at all surprised to see it was a FL judge.

    Second – The treatment of the attorney at the onset was awful and conduct unbecoming of a judge – he made that attorney feel like he didn’t even belong there and was causing him a huge inconvenience.

    Lastly – Further, it would seem the judge had already made up his mind on the case – he even says so – before hearing anything at all! The attorney could barely even begin before the judge made that fact known. That is just wrong. That does that tell ya?

    This judge needs to rethink his career choice (and not by choice).

  4. Phred says:

    Sorry, I gotta side with the judge on this one. He was abrupt, but homeowner gave no reason to doubt the contract could not be enforced, eventually. Whether the Plaintiff was the correct payee at the time doesn’t change the fact that a default occurred and the contract is intact (original promissory note in court file). Had the defense focused more on invalidating the original promissory note in terms of legitimacy, like having a forensics document expert available, that might have been title-affecting. The defense also messed up by not objecting to judge’s testimony that bank wrote a check for the loan, and therefore consideration was paid by the lender. Had homeowner’s attorney requested the judge provide the ledger of the original lender showing cash was paid to someone, I would have been more impressed. There are no free homes. There is basic contract law that will invalidate some percentage of home loans. And you might be able to show foreclosing lender has no standing. But unless you get the original promissory note back into your hands, the obligation still exists. The best case is if you can demonstrate note was destroyed and lender lied about possession.

    • lvent says:

      Phred….if they recorded a bogus assignment or no assignment at all then there already is a cloud on title…..

    • Bobbi Swann says:

      Phred – you are a dumbass!!! Plain and simple. You don’t even know the first thing about “standing” in a foreclosure. If the Plaintiff cannot produce the original note or show that they have ownership of the “negotiable instrument” then they have no standing as a Plaintiff to foreclose. Where in the transcript did the Plaintiff ever produce the “original wet inl” note? They gave a certified copy…..not an original and the judge accepted that, which is contrary to Florida judicial law. This judge cared nothing about due process or how ownership of notes and mortgages flow. He even said the mortgage always follows the note….and that is dead wrong!!!! It’s a da^^ shame that we have judges like this sitting on benches who are so filled with themselves instead of fullfilling the requirements of law. It’s people like you with your stupidity of the law of this state who keep adding fuel to the fire!

      • Phred says:

        Before you start calling people names you should start reading the document beginning at pg. 79, when they are referring to the original promissory note. It then goes on to speak about the notation of bailee letters depicting the transfer of the original promissory note. They don’t issue bailee letters for certified copies.

        As for your fantasy that mortgages don’t follow the note, there less than a handful of states where that may be true, and it is not true in Federal District or Bankruptcy courts.

        If you have a citation, show it, or else STFU, because you’re giving victims false hope when they should be consolidating finances and preparing to move on.

      • lvent says:

        Give me a break Phred…it is the banks that should be eating their losses!…WALL STREET IS WHO NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR $700 TRILLION IN COLLATERAL MORTGAGE FRAUD…! the mortgage follows the note and all of the legal arguments should not even be neccesary…there should be NO FORECLOSURES……!THEIR FRAUD IS MASSIVE…….AND EATING US ALIVE!!!!!!!…!The People did nothing wrong…the banks caused this mess because they cant pay their own debts that they derived from $1.2 quadrillion in fraud….! Their debts can never be repaid no matter how many homes and businesses they steal…….! STOP THE FRAUDCLOSURES!!!!

    • lvent says:

      Phred,if there is no indorsement on the promisory note, negotiation requires transfer of possession….. there must be proof of transfer…or the mortgage is a nullity…..for example in my state, Illinois, case law supports the pro position that, where a note is not indorsed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff must demonstrate both possession and the underlyinig transaction through which it obtained possession. (Collins v. Ogden)

      • lvent says:

        “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” Not sure who said this but it describes fraudclosure perfectly..!

      • Bobbi Swann says:

        @ Phred – Federal District/Bankruptcy Court? Well, Michael A. Genden is a judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Civil Division, in Florida. Let me repeat that: Michael A. Genden is a judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Civil Division, in Florida.

        I’m sorry did I miss something here? This hearing was in a CIVIL court and I don’t recall any testimony about the defendant being in BANKRUPTCY. As to your reference of a bailee letter it is a letter is used in bailment contracts whereby the bailor transfers personal property to another person for a particular purpose. It details that after this purpose is completed, the bailor will get his property back.

        The problem arises from the fact that the witness could not give personal knowledge of that transfer as she did not witness the actual transfer nor the documents with which to do so. The attorney for the defendant objected as hearsay, which is correct, and the judge just simply ignored using the standing objection he granted earlier. Her testimony came from reviewing a screen and procedures that prompt what that screen depicted; she did not have actual personal knowledge, and that sir, is Florida law!

        So you can STFU.

Leave a Reply