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...

Expert witness testimony in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud trial that the government doesn't want the jury to hear.

.

Tough business defending yourself in a criminal trial, let alone a criminal trial in federal court.  The defendants indicted in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud case have turned to the testimony of expert witnesses in the field of mortgage, real estate and financial fraud to help in their defense, there's on small problem though, the prosecutors don't want the jury to hear what the experts have to say.  Let's take a look at the testimony that the prosecutors find objectionable, first from noted mortgage and real estate fraud expert, Curt Novy...

Curt Novy Expert Oppinion in Plantation Cops Mortgage Fraud Case

In a nutshell, Mr. Novy shares many of our same sentiments regarding the banks complicity in these alleged frauds and considering that the defense strategy of at least one of the defendants involves implicating the banks, you'd think this is critical for their defense.


Now, let's look at the expert opinion of Jeanne Delormier from Diligence Solutions, Inc, another expert in the field of real estate and mortgage fraud...

Jeanne DeLormier Expert Opinion in Plantation Cops Mortgage Fraud Case

Nothing ground breaking there, Ms. Delomier's conclusions are ones that anyone with a modicum of common sense could reach and her conclusions are obviously beneficial to the defendants. 


So what's the problem with these experts?  The prosecutors filed a motion to have the most damaging parts of their testimony (at least in our opinion) excluded from the trial.  Here are some examples of the testimony the government wants kept from the jury...

... lenders intentionally developed lax underwriting guidelines.


...lenders did not utilize prudent underwriting and risk management practices.


...lenders did not utilize prudent underwriting and risk management practices.

Isn't this what we've been saying all along?

...formed opinions that there were multiple identified areas where the lender/underwriter/reviewer had opportunities to notice discrepancies in documentation or items provided by the broker and/or title company

Very few factors were considered material in granting credit. Lenders ignored red flags because they knew borrowers did not truly qualify to purchase homes. Factors such as income verification, asset verification were not material to the lenders granting credit.

Of course they ignored obvious red flags, they needed to get the loans no matter what so they could go ahead bundle them and resell them as CDO's.

...borrowers would not have been aware that the Broker was not honest with the Lender.

Does anyone really believe that if the cops who were at the center of these alleged frauds knew that the could risk going to jail by lying on the loan applications that they'd actually go along with it?

In my opinion, the Brokers and in some cases the Title Company participated together to encourage the borrowers to just sign the documents to close the loan, as neither Broker nor Title gets paid if until the loan closes

Duh, I can't speak for the title company but you can bet that the brokers would do anything in their power to get a deal closed.

So what's the problem with the testimony from these experts?  What's the government's objection to what they have to say?  Take a look...

...the proposed testimony serves only to paint the lenders as irresponsible and encourage the jury to blame the lender for failing to prevent the fraud.

No kidding?  OF COURSE THE LENDERS WERE IRRESPONSIBLE IN THEIR LENDING PRACTICES!  WTF?!  How could anyone not reach that conclusion!?  Considering that the lenders complicity is an essential part of the defense, how could the court not allow this testimony?  The court hasn't ruled yet, but considering how this court has ruled in the past, the chances of this testimony getting before the jury seem slim.