Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Re: Guaranty Bank Cease & Desist Order
Subject: Absence of Judicial Oversight
Guaranty Bank attempted to foreclose on my home while the payments were current. With my corporate finance background, I was quick to point out to their representatives that I was well aware that they were after my equity and the response from the Supervisor was “There’s nothing you can do about it”. “I can sue”, I replied, yet the Supervisor mechanically responded, “Don’t do that, it’ll just cost you more money”. I learned the hard way that what he said was true. Mortgage lenders have NO fear of litigation by consumers.
I sued Guaranty Bank, and even in the face of letters from my attorney stating that he held copies of my mortgage payments and threats of litigation, the bank refused to modify it’s behavior and continued to pursue foreclosure. The result of that litigation was a judgment against ME, the victim for the bank’s legal costs, which ultimately rendered my bankrupt and homeless. Now, 10 years later and a great deal of research have confirmed that mortgage lenders always win in court, if sued by a consumer.
The weakest link in predatory lending is in the legal system. I went to court with a preponderance of evidence proving false credit reporting, wrongful foreclosure, malicious defamation and the judge boxed my ears, blew the case through without understanding it and stated in writing that I had not presented evidence proving my claim, which of course, is false and treason on the part of the judge.
Over time, having contacted numerous state agencies, including the Commission on Judicial Performance for the State of California, I learned that there is virtually NO oversight of Superior Court judges, no incentive for them to perform according to oath, and no policing of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. I went so far as to request a Grand Jury investigation of the actions of Judge John Meyer and the response I received was “Do not have jurisdiction”.
Truly, judges are protected by steel doors on all sides and there are virtually no repercussions for misconduct, failure to administer the oath, or any other breaches of public faith.
Finally , after years of homelessness, I have taken to the streets, picketing the courthouse in San Diego (pictures on MSFraud.org website) where Judge Meyer continues to enjoy a job for life, free of scrutiny and fear of consequences for not doing his job.
The FTC was the only agency that acted on my complaint against Guaranty Bank, issuing a Cease & Desist Order in 2004. Although I mailed a copy of that document directly to the judge, requesting an Ex Parte, he refused to acknowledge it.
In order to curb predatory lending practices, consumers MUST be able to utilize the legal system for protection, and at the present time, that is virtually impossible. No judge is going to buck a bank for a lowly commoner like myself, even if the consumer has the time and money to initiate a lawsuit against a bank in the first place. My conversations with numerous attorneys yields the same result universally: That attorneys have no knowledge of predatory lending practices, and judges always assume the lender is a saint, having no knowledge of wrongful foreclosures or their purpose. Mortgage lenders invoke the “Insecurity Clause” defense and that trumps all in court.
Until such time as the orb of secrecy and protection afforded the judicial community is pierced and a truly independent and impartial 3rd party intervenes, judges will continue to brush off wrongful foreclosure litigation like lint off their shoulder, and consumers will be wronged once by the lender and a second time by the judge, should they pursue litigation. Individuals on the public payroll must have accountability and this is not the case with the judicial community. This weakness must be addressed and corrected or wrongful foreclosures will continue unabated.
William J. Rose
Rose vs. Knutson Mortgage
Case # GIC 735034 – September, 2000
Superior Court of San Diego, Department 61, John R. Meyer, presiding