Who is afraid of Scott Erik Stafne? Foreclosure frauds , The disbarment -The closed circle of reciprocal validation: when the WSBA protects the court and the court protects the WSBA in order to prevent the adjudication of the truth : THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON - In re: SCOTT ERIK STAFNE - Unanimous Order of Justices of Washington State Supreme Court barring Scott Erik Stafne from practicing law in Washington as of May 13, 2026. By Scott E Stafne

 Who is afraid of Scott Erik Stafne?

Those who cannot bear a lawyer who, in the face of corruption, fraud, and abuse of power, refused to bow down are afraid of him.

Who is afraid of Scott Erik Stafne?

The closed circle of reciprocal validation: when the WSBA protects the court and the court protects the WSBA in order to prevent the adjudication of the truth

Who is afraid of Scott Erik Stafne?

because the answer then comes to encompass more precisely:

the WSBA;

the Supreme Court of Washington;

the judges who refuse to confront the merits;

the habitual fraudulent banks;

and, in an especially emblematic way, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, and all

whose concrete conduct belies the institutional discourse of integrity that it itself proclaims.

The captured 

What is seen in the case of Scott Erik Stafne is not a succession of isolated errors, but a closed institutional circle of reciprocal validation, in which each body validates the conduct of the other precisely in order to prevent the merits of the denunciations from being examined.

For years, Scott denounced that the courts of the State of Washington had been admitting and validating, in foreclosure proceedings, inauthentic mortgage documents, legally unusable evidence, false testimony, and executions founded on defective documentary chains, for the benefit of financial institutions that had already publicly acknowledged fraudulent practices in governmental settlements. 

On August 12, 2024, before becoming the target of disciplinary persecution, he addressed a formal letter to the Washington State Bar Association requesting written ethical guidance on how he should proceed in light of his conviction that Washington judges were not being independent or impartial in cases brought by successors and assignees of mortgages to enforce promissory notes.

 The WSBA did not give him the requested guidance. On the contrary, it later instituted disciplinary proceeding No. 25#00042 against him.

In that proceeding, Scott timely presented a preliminary defense, including a motion to dismiss and requests for admission. 

Even so, the WSBA requested the entry of default, although the public documentation of the case itself acknowledges that he had presented a timely defense; Scott also filed an express opposition to the request for default, maintaining that he had properly served his motion on disciplinary counsel and on the hearing officer.

 The default, therefore, did not result from real inaction, but from a formalistic reclassification of the acts of defense, later used to prevent all the remaining submissions from being received and examined. (academia.edu) (academia.edu)

The mechanism closed when the WSBA itself, after successively rejecting or disqualifying Scott’s defensive filings under the argument of default, internally referred the case for an alleged sua sponte review. 

At first sight, that gesture could appear to be recognition of the nullity of the disciplinary proceeding. 

But what effectively occurred was the opposite: on March 18, 2026, the Disciplinary Board declined sua sponte review and adopted the hearing officer’s decision by a vote of 14 to 0, without reopening the adversarial process or substantially addressing the defense theses. (academia.edu)

From that point on, the obstruction circuit became patent. The WSBA maintained the validity of its own fabricated default in order to reject what Scott still attempted to file; and the Supreme Court of Washington, instead of conducting an independent review, limited itself to approving, in an order of only one page, the recommendation of disbarment adopted by the WSBA. 

The order of May 7, 2026 contains no report, does not identify the date of deliberation by the justices, does not address the nullities of the default, does not examine the refusal to receive the defensive filings, does not discuss Scott’s constitutional theses, and does not present autonomous reasoning by the Court.

 It simply records that the Supreme Court “reviewed” the Disciplinary Board’s order and “determined unanimously” that the recommendation should be approved.

In other words: the WSBA validated the conduct of the judges denounced by Scott without examining the theses and evidence he presented against the foreclosure system; then, the Supreme Court of Washington validated the WSBA’s decision on the basis of the WSBA’s own decision, without demonstrating real and independent review. 

One body shelters the allegations of the other; neither confronts the material truth. It is an open farce of institutional circularity, in which the conclusion of one body comes to serve as the legitimating premise of the other, and the merits disappear completely.

This closed circle is particularly revealing because it confirms, by its own operation, the central denunciation Scott had been making: the WSBA was captured by the court, and the court, in turn, operates in an environment structurally compromised by financial interests linked to the mortgage market. 

This assertion does not arise only from Scott’s perception, but from public data that make the appearance of bias objectively relevant.

 The Washington State Investment Board, responsible for administering large public funds of the State, expressly authorizes investments in investment grade mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, and other correlated assets; its institutional materials also record that the funds administered may include mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, and commercial mortgage-backed securities. (sib.wa.gov) (sib.wa.gov)

In addition, the very question of the relationship between Washington judges’ retirement funds and investments in mortgage-backed securities has already been raised in public judicial filings before the courts of the State.

 In a 2025 petition for review, it was argued that, since the legislative changes of 2006–2007, judges’ retirement funds came to be administered by the WSIB within the same general system as that of other public servants, creating economic incentives related to the enforcement of mortgage-backed securities; in another public decision, the Washington Court of Appeals recorded the allegation that state judges had retirement accounts invested in mortgage-backed securities, although it rejected the thesis in that specific case. (courts.wa.gov) (courts.wa.gov)

In the investigations and simulations we carried out, this datum proved central: the public investments used to financially sustain the State of Washington and its retirement systems are heavily exposed to assets linked to mortgages. 

If the courts were to recognize, broadly and systematically, the documentary frauds, defective chains of assignment, unlawful evidence, and structural nullities in mortgage foreclosures denounced by Scott over approximately twenty years, this could produce a relevant economic and reputational impact on those assets and on the financial ecosystem associated with them. 

The question, therefore, is not merely one of an eventual subjective interest of an individual adjudicator; it is one of structural conflict and objective appearance of bias within a system whose economic stability may be affected by judicial recognition of the truth that it itself had been refusing to adjudicate.

It is precisely for this reason that the constitutional jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States is so important.

 In In re Murchison, the Court stated that no man may be a judge in his own case and that justice must satisfy not only reality, but also the appearance of justice. 

In Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., it was recognized that due process requires decisional neutrality when there are institutional incentives incompatible with impartial adjudication.

 And in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Supreme Court made clear that due process may be violated when circumstances create an intolerable objective probability of bias, even if individual subjective corruption of the adjudicator is not demonstrated.

In light of these principles, the one-page order of May 7, 2026 does not weaken Scott Erik Stafne’s denunciation.

 It confirms it in action. 

When a lawyer denounces, on the basis of public facts and documents, that courts favor banks in fraudulent foreclosures;

 when he requests ethical guidance from the bar association; 

when that entity fails to confront his evidence, fabricates a default, and prevents him from appealing; 

and when the Supreme Court of the State itself merely ratifies that result without visible reasoning and without independent examination, the system ceases to appear as a mechanism of justice and begins to reveal itself as a structure of corporate and financial self-protection.

What was intended to be excluded was not only a lawyer.

What was intended to be excluded from the institutional space was the truth that he refused to abandon.

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON - In re: SCOTT ERIK STAFNE - Unanimous Order of Justices of Washington State Supreme Court barring Scott Erik Stafne from practicing law in Washington as of May 13, 2026.
By Scott E Stafne

trophy

Top 5%

visibility

74 Views

description

1 Page

link

1 File ▾

sell

Constitutional Law,

International Law,

Courts,

Courts and Elites (History)

This matter came before the Supreme Court to consider the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Disciplinary Board’s order in the matter of Scott Erik Stafne, wherein the Disciplinary Board adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Hearing Officer’s Recommendation of disbarment. The Court reviewed the Disciplinary Board’s order and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Hearing Officer’s recommendation and determined unanimously that the recommendation should be approved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS ORDERED: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Scott Erik Stafne is disbarred from the practice of law. Pursuant to ELC 13.2, the effective date of disbarment is seven days from the date of this order. Scott Erik Stafne shall pay costs and expenses to the Washington State Bar Association as provided in ELC 13.9. DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 7th day of May, 2026.

https://www.academia.edu/166935204/THE_SUPREME_COURT_OF_WASHINGTON_In_re_SCOTT_ERIK_STAFNE_Unanimous_Order_of_Justices_of_Washington_State_Supreme_Court_barring_Scott_Erik_Stafne_from_practicing_law_in_Washington_as_of_May_13_2026?source=swp_share

WHO IS AFFRAID OF SCOTT ERIK STAFNE?.

Those who need the truth never to be adjudicated are afraid of Scott Erik Stafne.

Those who depend on the appearance of legality to keep in operation a foreclosure system that, for decades, has been denounced for accepting inauthentic mortgage documents, defective chains of assignment, unlawful evidence, and false testimony in favor of banks that have already publicly admitted fraudulent practices before state authorities are afraid of him.

Those who know that, if his theses are examined on the merits, it will not be only an individual case that is on trial, but the integrity of an entire judicial system that, instead of confronting the frauds, began punishing the person who revealed them, are afraid of him.

The Washington State Bar Association is afraid of him, because Scott did not ask for permission to lie, nor did he seek corporate protection in order to accommodate himself.

On August 12, 2024, he requested written ethical guidance from the WSBA on how he should act in light of his conviction that Washington judges were not being independent or impartial in foreclosure cases brought by successors and assignees of mortgages.

 The WSBA did not answer the ethical problem he brought to it. 

Later, it instituted a disciplinary proceeding against him in which his timely defenses were disqualified in order to fabricate a default that then came to serve as a pretext for rejecting everything he still tried to submit. (academia.edu) (academia.edu) (academia.edu)

The Supreme Court of Washington State is afraid of him, because, after the WSBA refused to confront the merits of the denunciations, the Court demonstrated no independent review whatsoever: on May 7, 2026, it limited itself to signing a one-page order, without a report, without votes, without its own reasoning, without an indicated date of deliberation, and without confronting the nullity of a disciplinary proceeding founded on a default constructed despite the existence of concrete acts of defense. 

The WSBA validated the judges whom Scott denounced; the court validated the WSBA based on the WSBA’s own version. 

One body gave shelter to the allegations of the other. Neither of them confronted the material truth.

Those who know that the frauds denounced by him are not fantasies, but public, documented facts repeatedly confessed within the universe of mortgage practices are afraid of him: false representations, material omissions, defective documentation, systemic compliance failures, and abuses in executions that affected thousands of families. 

Scott has been saying this for about twenty years, in vain, because the courts that should judge these frauds began to operate as a barrier against the very adjudication of them.

Those who know that the issue is not only legal, but also financial, are afraid of him. 

The public investments of the State of Washington include exposure to mortgage-backed securities and other assets linked to the mortgage market; the relationship between public funds, including retirement funds, and mortgage securities has already been brought before Washington’s own courts as a basis for the appearance of partiality. 

Broad judicial recognition of frauds in foreclosures would have the potential to affect not only banks, but the stability of assets to which the State itself is economically exposed. 

In this context, the systematic refusal to examine the merits of the denunciations cannot be seen as a mere procedural accident: it raises, at the very least, a serious question of structural conflict of interest and objective probability of bias, in light of In re Murchison, Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (sib.wa.gov) (sib.wa.gov) (courts.wa.gov) (courts.wa.gov)

Those who cannot bear a lawyer who, in the face of corruption, fraud, and abuse of power, refused to bow down are afraid of him.

Because Scott Erik Stafne did not choose convenience.

He chose conscience.

He did not choose corporate silence.

He chose to request written ethical guidance.

He did not choose to abandon his clients when the facts became dangerous for the system.

He chose to continue denouncing.

He did not choose to adapt the truth to what the courts were willing to hear.

He chose to remain faithful to God, to Jesus Christ, to the Constitution of the United States, to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, to the moral tradition of his family, and to the people whom the Law should protect.

That is why the order of May 7, 2026 does not answer the question.

It makes it inevitable.

Who is afraid of Scott Erik Stafne?

All those who can preserve power only while the truth remains unadjudicated.

 I would include Deutsche Bank prominently, because in Scott’s case it is not merely one bank among others: it is a direct symbol of the contradiction between the public appearance of integrity and the concrete practice of violating the rules that sustain the international financial system.

Those who know that the frauds denounced by him are not fantasies, but public, documented facts repeatedly confessed within the universe of mortgage practices are afraid of him: false representations, material omissions, defective documentation, systemic compliance failures, and abuses in executions that affected thousands of families. 

Especially afraid of him is Deutsche Bank, which violated its own Code of Conduct and the laws and rules intended to ensure the integrity of the international financial system, by participating in practices that produced false representations, material omissions, and the circulation of defective mortgage-backed securities, while continuing to present itself publicly as an institution committed to legality, transparency, integrity, and responsibility.

 Scott Erik Stafne has been denouncing these frauds for about twenty years, in vain, because the courts that should judge them began to operate as a barrier against the very adjudication of them.

References for the notes in the passage about Scott, the WSBA, and the false default

1. Scott’s letter to the WSBA requesting written ethical guidance — August 12, 2024

STAFNE, Scott E. Stafne's Letter to the Washington State Bar Association seeking written ethical guidance as to how handle his judgment that the judicial officers of Washington are biased and not independent with regards to cases brought by successors and assigns of mortgages to foreclose promissory notes. Academia.edu, Aug. 12, 2024. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/122820275/Stafnes_Letter_to_the_Washington_State_Bar_Association_seeking_written_ethical_guidance_as_to_how_handle_his_judgment_that_the_judicial_officers_of_Washington_are_biased_and_not_independent_with_regards_to_cases_brought_by_successors_and_assigns_of_mortgages_to_foreclose_promissory_notes. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

2. WSBA’s request for entry of default, despite the timely motion to dismiss

STAFNE, Scott E. Washington State Bar Association — In re Scott Erik Stafne, Proceeding No. 25#00042 — WSBA's Motion for Entry of an Order authorizing discipline against Stafne. Academia.edu, 2025. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/145041821/Washington_State_Bar_Association_In_re_Scott_Erik_Stafne_Proceeding_No_25_00042_WSBAs_Motion_for_Entry_of_an_Order_authorizing_discipline_against_Stafne. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

3. Scott’s opposition to the WSBA’s request for default

STAFNE, Scott E. Washington State Bar Association — In re Scott Erik Stafne, Proceeding No. 25#00042 — Stafne's opposition to WSBA's Motion for a default judgment authorizing discipline against him. Academia.edu, 2025. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/145042085/Washington_State_Bar_Association_In_re_Scott_Erik_Stafne_Proceeding_No_25_00042_Stafnes_opposition_to_WSBAs_Motion_for_a_default_judgment_authorizing_discipline_against_him. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

---

References for the passage on public investments of the State of Washington in mortgage securities

4. Official policy of the fixed-income funds of the retirement funds administered by the Washington State Investment Board

WASHINGTON STATE INVESTMENT BOARD. Fixed Income Retirement Funds. Policy number 2.10.200. Effective date: Sept. 21, 2023. Available at: https://www.sib.wa.gov/docs/policies/2_10_200.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

5. Official document of the Washington State Investment Board on the funds managed, mentioning mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, and commercial mortgage-backed securities

WASHINGTON STATE INVESTMENT BOARD. Funds Managed. Dec. 31, 2025. Available at: https://www.sib.wa.gov/docs/info/funds_assets.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

6. Petition for review before the Supreme Court of Washington arguing that the judges’ retirement funds came to be administered by the WSIB and that this created incentives related to the enforcement of mortgage-backed securities

WASHINGTON COURTS. Petition for Review, No. 104624-3. Sept. 26, 2025. Available at:

 https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/petitions/1046243%20Petition%20for%20Review.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

7. Opinion of the Washington Court of Appeals recording the allegation of judicial bias in favor of Deutsche Bank because of retirement investments in mortgage-backed securities

WASHINGTON COURTS. In the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, No. 85454-2-I. 2025. Available at: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/854542.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

---

References for the specific passage on Deutsche Bank

8. Deutsche Bank’s own Code of Conduct

DEUTSCHE BANK. Code of Conduct. 2025. Available at: https://investor-relations.db.com/files/documents/documents/code-of-business-conduct-and-ethics-for-deutsche-bank-group.pdf?kid=code-of-conduct.redirect-en.shortcut&language_id=1. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

9. Official 2017 settlement of the United States Department of Justice with Deutsche Bank for conduct related to the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities

UNITED STATES. Department of Justice. Deutsche Bank Agrees to Pay $7.2 Billion for Misleading Investors in its Sale of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities. Washington, D.C., Jan. 17, 2017. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/deutsche-bank-agrees-pay-72-billion-misleading-investors-its-sale-residential-mortgage-backed. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

10. Official release of the U.S. Attorney’s Office recording that, in the 2017 settlement, Deutsche Bank admitted false representations and material omissions in disclosures to investors concerning loans included in RMBS securitizations

UNITED STATES. Department of Justice. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York. Eastern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office Joins Collections of Over $3.4 Billion in Civil Penalties During 2017. Brooklyn, Jan. 25, 2018. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/eastern-district-new-york-us-attorney-s-office-joins-collections-over-34-billion. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

---

References for the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States cited in the text

11. In re Murchison

UNITED STATES. Supreme Court. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 1955. Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States, 1955. Available at: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep349/usrep349133/usrep349133.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

12. Marshall v. Jerrico,  Inc.

UNITED STATES. Supreme Court. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 1980. Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States, 1980. Available at: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep446/usrep446238/usrep446238.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

13. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.

UNITED STATES. Supreme Court. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 2009. Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States, 2009. Available at: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep556/usrep556868/usrep556868.pdf. Accessed on: May 10, 2026.

---

To replace the markers in the English text

In the passage where the markers remained:

(academia.edu) (academia.edu) (academia.edu)

use the notes corresponding to references 1, 2, and 3.

(sib.wa.gov) (sib.wa.gov) (courts.wa.gov) (courts.wa.gov)

use the notes corresponding to references 4, 5, 6, and 7.

In the new passage about Deutsche Bank, use references 8, 9, and 10.

In the passage containing the precedents In re Murchison, Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., use references 11, 12, and 13.

The official sources confirm: the WSIB maintains policies and documents that explicitly mention mortgage-backed securities among fixed-income assets; public filings and decisions of the Washington courts have already recorded the theory of appearance of bias linked to those investments; Deutsche Bank has its own Code of Conduct and, in the 2017 settlement, the Department of Justice recorded that the bank admitted false representations and material omissions in disclosures to investors concerning RMBS.