Federal Appeals Court To Review Ruling Lifting Statewide Injunction On All BofA Foreclosures In Utah

In St. George, Utah, KCSG-TV Channels 14, 16 reports:

• A Notice of Appeal to Federal Judge Clark Waddoups court order vacating an Injunction against Bank of America and its subsidiary ReconTrust Company halting all foreclosures in Utah was filed Friday, June 25, 2010 by St. George attorney John Christian Barlow. Barlow told KCSG News he was “troubled by Court ruling but unrelenting in pursuit of redress for his client (Cox) and other homeowners who have become victims of mortgage lending gone mad.”

***

• The David and Goliath legal battle over federal versus states-citizens rights is headed to the 10th Circuit Court. Judge Waddoups' Memorandum of Explanation in support of vacating a statewide Preliminary Injunction halting all foreclosures by the Bank of America only served to raise more questions.

For more, see Notice of Appeal Filed and Stay of Court Order Vacating Injunction Stopping Bank of America Foreclosures in Utah Requested.

(1) According to the story, some of the questions raised by vacating the statewide injunction temporarily jamming all BofA foreclosure actions are:

1. Why is the judge's ruling at variance with his previous rulings this year as noted in a Letter to Judge Waddoups submitted to the court June 10th, 2010 by the Plaintiff's counsel John Christian Barlow, Esq. and E. Craig Smay, Esq. and posted June 21, 2010 in the court docket, after the Ruling and Memorandum of Explanation.
2. Why did Judge Waddoups essentially brush aside the Plaintiff’s pleading that included the Supreme Court decision Cuomo vs. Clearing House Association in which the Court said...“If a State chooses to pursue enforcement of its laws in court, its targets are protected by discovery and procedural rules” meaning a state has a right to enforce its own laws against national banks.
3. Why hasn’t Judge Waddoups recused himself from all Bank of America or ReconTrust Company related cases since he was a senior partner in the law firm Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless now Parr, Brown, Gee & Loveless that represented the Bank of America in Utah Fourth District Court, Case No. 070402786 before he took the bench. And, the law firm continues to represent the Bank of America and its subsidiaries. According to the Code of Conduct for US Judges, a judge should recuse himself when there may be a conflict of interest.
4. Why shouldn’t Judge Waddoups recuse himself from any case in which his old law firm represents either the plaintiff or the defendant until he takes full distribution of his retirement fund with the law firm as disclosed in Judge Waddoups most recent Financial Disclosure Statement that shows he only took a partial distribution of his retirement from the firm's 401K.