UNDER GOD’S PROTECTION
WHEN (IN)JUSTICE OBSTRUCTS THE DEFENSE, THE PROCESS COLLAPSES
Today, on the Day of Saint Joseph the Worker and Labor Day, -
Starting now - at 10 AM in Washington State — 2 PM in Brazil — Scott Erik Stafne will make an oral argument at the summary judgment hearing in Alvin White v. Deutsche Bank, in the court where the defense has to fight hard, even for the basic right to be heard.
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.
description
13 Pages
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 Corruption
Show less
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.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário