Ever wonder during trial if a judge is biased towards one side or the other? Also, a video that every single citizen of the United States should see.

Ever been sitting in court and wonder if a judge is biased towards one side or the other?  It's happened to me, from the moment I sat down I realized that the judge wasn't hearing anything the defense was saying and was anxious to get the trial over with and rule for the plaintiffs.  Disgusting when you see it first hand and rather disturbing when you realize that these holier than thou robed wonders are nothing more than human beings like you and I that are imperfect and capable of making mistakes, yet when they done that robe and sit upon their perch, somehow all that goes out the window.


Regardless, while watching and reading the court proceedings of various criminal trials over the last few years, I've seen judges from both ends of the spectrum, we had Judge Mary Barzee-Flores from the Bernardo Barrera case who looked and acted like she didn't want to be bothered with the case that was before her then on the other hand we have federal Judge James Cohn who's presiding over the Plantation Cops mortgage fraud trial who at least in my opinion seems to be more and more biased towards the prosecution and seems to be working to help them save their case against the defendants.  

Don't get me wrong, he has his moments where he seems to throw the defense a bone now and again, but more often then not he seems to be on the governments side, case in point, the governments allegation that the loans used to purchase the homes that are part of the indictment where the homes were identified as primary residences by the borrowers in order to obtain 100% financing since according to the prosecutors 100% financing was not available for "investment homes".  The defenses contention is that the mortgage brokers through their fake and forged loan applications indicated that the homes were going to be primary residence without the borrowers knowledge so the brokers could make more points on the loans since the banks paid more for primary residence loans because there was a higher probability that borrowers would pay these loans back.  So what if the defense had an expert witness that contradicted the governments theory?  If the defense had an mortgage and real estate fraud expert who was going to testify that there was 100% financing for "investment homes", wouldn't that negate the governments theory that the borrowers lied on the loan applications and identified the homes as primary residences in order to get the 100% financing?  The governments witness stated earlier that there was no 100% financing available for investment homes, yet the defense witness stated that there was 100% financing available, no problem right?  Yet the prosecution practically objects to every other word that the defense expert puts up, what's the problem?  Based on what we've seen the prosecution and the judge through his rulings is doing anything and everything he can to removing the banks from the picture, we all know now that the banks were complicit by the very nature of their loose lending practices, so why can't the jury hear about it?  We're all aware that towards the end of the real estate bubble the banks were practically giving money away to anyone with a pulse, in fact if you filed for bankruptcy, you could actually apply and get approved for a loan the day after your bankruptcy was closed, yet we still have the prosecutors in one way shape or form trying to defend the banks, take a look at this excerpt of federal prosecutor Rucoba cross examining defense expert witness Kurt Novy...

Rucoba: And are you aware the mortgage brokers testified that they forged the documents when they initially met and submitted those documents to the lender?


Novy: If that is their testimony, again, it would have no credibility.  Once the document is forged, it is tainted.  The well water is tainted.


Rucoba: The document is tainted, but how does the lender know they are tainted?


Novy: They didn't know


Rucoba: Exactly.

EXACTLY?  Is it just me or does it sound like the prosecutor is trying to steer the blame away from the lenders?  The lenders didn't know the paper work was bogus?  We're talking about no doc, stated income loans here and your trying to tell me the lenders didn't know the loan applications and associated paper work could have been full of shit?  Weren't these the same lenders who were telling the mortgage brokers what their guidelines were and what they needed to put down in order to get their borrowers to qualify?  So why is the government trying to make the lenders out to be the victims rather than the villains?  Simple, if you label the lenders as the bad guys, the governments case goes out the window, if you introduce the concept of "lender negligence" to the case then there is no case against the defendants, yet early on the prosecutors got the court to rule that the concept of "lender negligence" being wasn't admissible to the jury as a defense.  Interesting, huh?  So much for my unindicted co conspirator theory!

We'll leave you today with a video that explains the morass that our country's economy is in today, a visual aid that makes the depths and severity of our predicament painfully clear...