Neil Garfield of Living Lies gets it right again about the case of Barbara Bratton, correctly labeling what happened to her “judicial hypocrisy.” As Garfield writes:
“There is something happening here and it is beginning to bother me more and more. A number of people have attempted to file papers in the county recorder’s office in order to preserve their ownership rights to property that is either in foreclosure or has been the subject of a foreclosure sale. As I’ve stated on these pages most foreclosure sales are an illusion. Credit bid is submitted by a non-creditor on behalf of other parties who are also non-creditors.
I might add that many pundits, writers, bloggers and lawyers have actually recommended to clients that they file any legally defensible document in opposition to a change in title or possession that would result from enforcement of fraudulent bank documents that are recorded in the public records. Our view is that the very existence of MERS is proof enough of fraudulent intent by the banks, their attorneys, the trustees on deeds of trust, and the other parties involved in the foreclosure and securitization scheme. Our view, like the oath that every attorney takes before becoming licensed, is that every effort should be made to advocate for the position of someone who is in an adversarial position. This does not include making false statements or recording false documents. But the issue becomes very cloudy when one side is allowed to file false documents and the other side is not.”
It would be one thing if the San Bernardino authorities had simply ordered Bratton’s documents expunged from the county recorder’s files. That would be the simple, cheap (for the taxpayers), and easy thing to do. Instead, these “authorities” want to make a federal case–masquerading as a state case–out of it. I say that because apparently there were FBI agents present at Bratton’s bail hearing. What federal law did Bratton violate? She is being charged under California law. Since when does the FBI have anything to do with California law?
But instead of doing the simple, cheap, easy thing, they had to go and try to make Bratton out to be a terrorist, which any sane person knows is completely ludicrous. That is really where the line got crossed. Interestingly, however, Bratton has not been charged with any terror-related offenses. Not yet, anyway. I have a feeling that the more publicity is given to her case and the more awareness of it increases, there may be a gag order issued in her case like there was in the case of Jeff Olson, the San Diego chalk “vandal” (sanity thankfully prevailed in his case and he was completely acquitted yesterday). Or, maybe the complete opposite will happen and the authorities will back off due to public pressure.
Hopefully the second option will prevail–and to that end, here is the ridiculous declaration of Officer Brian Hurst, stating that Bratton is a domestic or paper terrorist (no, the banks are!). To be accurate, the declaration labels Bratton a domestic/paper terrorist because of her alleged association with the sovereign citizen movement, but nonetheless, the damage is done. This is public record and it has been written about, but the actual document has not yet been made available online that I am aware of. So here it is below in all its glory–when you read it, ask yourself whether or not this crosses the line: