How can lower courts overrule higher courts and violate statutes written by the legislature? Is that following the rule of law or a tyrannical abuse of power?

Why do some judges ignore the law to do favors the rich and powerful? Who is supposed to be able to make sure that judges follow the law?

Isn’t it a crime for judges to do favors for a party who doesn’t have a legal right to obtain judgment in its favor?

Isn’t it a crime for judges to violate controlling precedent and statutes?

Well, let’s see what some higher courts have said:

“This court is enjoined to follow controlling decisions of the Florida Supreme Court; indeed, the court is powerless to do otherwise.” Regan v. ITT Industrial Credit Co., 469 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) approved, 487 So.2d 1047 (Fla.1986) citing Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).

Violation of a right made specific by statutes, rules or controlling precedent is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 which provides criminal penalties for a deprivation of rights under color of law. U.S. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267 (1997). Lanier is about a judge being prosecuted.

If you want to know why judges and regulators can ignore the law to do favors for self-proclaimed connected attorneys, see Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/why-does-the-government-ignore-our-wishes/ and don’t miss my short speech.

If you take a look, you’ll learn why banksters, their attorneys, regulators, and judges can get away with violating our rights, abusing their power, stealing homes and committing horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.

The legal problem that should be argued arises when MERS assigns the note to Deutsche Bank. First, can MERS assign its role as a third party enforcer named in the mortgage to another party as successor in interest? The Mortgage is silent on this point. I know of no decisional law on this point. What I do know is that if an agreement between two parties delegates enforcement rights to MERS, it does not delegate those enforcement rights to every Tom, Dick and Harry indiscriminately who may or may not be qualified to discharge the delegated responsibilities.

Second, Deutsche Bank claims to be the note holder by assignment from MERS. MERS does not have a beneficial interest in the note. How can MERS assign what it does not have? How can Deutsche Bank have what it did not receive?

Finally, in what capacity is Deutsche Bank acting when it sues as Plaintiff. Is it acting as a third party successor in interest to MERS or as a successor in interest to Franklin, the original noter holder. Failure of the trial court to find in which capacity MERS is acting requires the appellate decision to be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the answer.