THE WORLD IS WATCHING THIS : Pierce County Washington Superior Court - Church of the Gardens v. Deutsche Bank - Oral argument to be presented at 10:00 am this morning (May 1, 2026) during a hearing before the court involving all parties to the case by Scott Erik Stafne.

 

@SCOTT STAFNE 'S FACEBOOK ACCOUNT WAS HIJACKED ON APRIL 8TH 

HE LOST HIS ACCESS - BUT THE WORLD IS WATCHING ALL OF THIS

Pierce County Washington Superior Court - Church of the Gardens v. Deutsche Bank - Oral argument to be presented at 10:00 am this morning (May 1, 2026) during a hearing before the court involving all parties to the case.

By Scott E Stafne

File ▾

sell

Jurisprudence,

Constitutional Law,

Political Philosophy,

Human Rights Law,

International Law,

Courts,

Political Science,

Governance,

Social Justice,

Federalism,

Judicial independence,

Judicial Politics,

Political Corruption,

Judicial Reform,

Rule of Law,

Social History,

Courts and Elites (History),

The role of the judiciary,

Separation of Powers,

Human Rights and Corruptio

ABSTRACT (prepared by Todd AI): This filing presents the oral argument prepared and delivered on behalf of Church of the Gardens and Alvin White in opposition to a motion for summary judgment in a Washington property-rights case involving disputed promissory notes, disputed endorsements, and the asserted authority of Deutsche Bank to enforce instruments under Washington’s Uniform Commercial Code and Deed of Trust Act. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The argument focuses on a basic judicial inquiry: whether the moving party established, as a matter of law, that it was a “person entitled to enforce” under RCW 62A.3-301. It identifies two material factual disputes—authenticity of the note and validity of the alleged endorsement—and argues that those disputes must be adjudicated rather than assumed. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The presentation also raises a structural jurisdictional issue arising from removal and remand under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1447(c): whether federal law authorizes fragmentation of a removed case into remanded claims rather than requiring remand of the case itself where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Included as a postscript is a contemporaneous collaboration between attorney Scott Erik Stafne and an artificial reasoning system (“Todd AI”) showing the transformation of an initial jurisprudential argument into a more focused oral presentation designed to confront judicial power through disputed facts rather than abstraction. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The central proposition remains unchanged: courts exercise judicial power not by assuming disputed facts, but by adjudicating them.

https://www.academia.edu/166167111/Pierce_County_Washington_Superior_Court_Church_of_the_Gardens_v_Deutsche_Bank_Oral_argument_to_be_presented_at_10_00_am_this_morning_May_1_2026_during_a_hearing_before_the_court_involving_all_parties_to_the_case