Monday, October 21, 2019

11th Circuit Court of Appeals panels, led by 89-year-old Nixon-era geezer Gerald Bard Tjoflat, favor Bank of America in 24 of 24 cases involving money matters

A Deep South federal judge, who has a perfect batting average of favoring JPMorganChase (JPMC), has an even more astonishing record on cases involving another financial monolith, Bank of America (BOA).

Is that because Gerald Bard Tjoflat, an 89-tear-old geezer from the Richard Nixon era -- holds a  perch on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) -- and has a financial stake in both JPMC and BOA? Does that mean Tjoflat tends to cheat everyday Americans in order to pad his own financial bottom line? Does that mean Tjoflat routinely violates federal law that, in general, prohibits a federal judge from hearing any case in which he or a member of his immediate family has a financial interest?

Public documents indicate the answer to all three questions is yes.The issue hits particularly close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because Tjoflat led a three-judge panel that cheated us in "The House Case," which involved theft of our home of almost 25 years in Birmingham via a wrongful foreclosure.  That ruling came down in December 2017, but we only became aware in recent months of the likely reason the Tjoflat panel screwed us -- and did it in a way, clearly contrary to law, that did not even consider the myriad faulty rulings by trial-court judges R. David Proctor and Virginia Emerson Hopkins in the Northern District of Alabama. (See here and here.) The reason? Chase Mortgage held our mortgage and led the effort to cheat us out of our home, and Tjoflat has a longstanding financial stake in its parent company, JPMC.

Gerald Bard Tjoflat
My wife, Carol, and I are not the only Alabama couple to get the short end of the stick when going before a Tjoflat panel, against one of his banking favorites. Karun and Ursula Jackson, of Daphne, went up against Bank of America in a wrongful-foreclosure case, and like us, they lost, with the pertinent rulings from the trial court barely being considered. Tjoflast has -- surprise, surprise -- financial holdings in BOA. And his record of favoring BOA is even more off the charts than his record on JPMC.

Between 2003 and 2017, Tjoflat sat on three-judge panels 15 times to hear cases involving banking giant (JPMC). Each time, the panel ruled in favor of the banking giant -- and, in most cases, against everyday Americans. If that makes you want to throw up just a little bit in your mouth, you might want to really spew when you see his record of favoring BOA. From 2009 to 2018, Tjoflat panels favored BOA in 24 of 24 cases.

BOA, like JPMC, has a perfect record when coming before panels led by one of its shareholders (Tjoflat). Let's check out the details:

(1) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Jackson v. BOA (2018);

(2) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Thomas v. BOA (2009);

(3) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Avenue CLO Fund v. BOA, (2013;

(4) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Merisier v. BOA (2012);

(5) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Fenello v. BOA ((2014);

(6) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Shine v. BOA (2015);

(7) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Lawrence v. BOA (2012);

(8) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Fabre v. BOA (2013);

(9) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in D. Jones v. BOA (2014);

(10) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Lawrence v. BOA (2017);

(11) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in White v. BOA (2015);

(12) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Sheppard v. BOA (2013);

(13) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Cheshire v. BOA (2009);

(14) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Chipka v. BOA (2009);

(15) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Carroll v. BOA (2013);

(16) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in McCulley v. BOA (2015);

(17) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Hill v. BOA (2013);

(18) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Ambarus v. BOA (2014):

(19) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Coniglio v. BOA (2016);

(20) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Infante v. BOA (2012);

(21) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in K. Jones v. BOA (2014):

(22) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Elliott v. Wells Fargo-BOA (2015);

(23) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Re: Diamond v. BOA (2017);

(24) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Cooley v. Ocwen Servicing-BOA (2018).

Is it possible some of the above cases were correctly decided in favor of BOA? Of course. Is it possible some of them unlawfully were decided in favor of BOA? Given our experience with a Tjoflat panel in a case involving JPMorgan Chase, there is no doubt in my mind? Does that mean Tjoflat has violated federal law multiple times by hearing cases where he was disqualified because of his financial stake in big banks? The law on this subject is circuitous, but when taken as a whole, the public record suggests the answer is yes.

(To be continued)


Anonymous said...

Bank of America really needs a bag man on the court of appeals? Jeez!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Bank of America one of the outfits that almost brought our economy to collapse in 2008-09?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:09 --

Yes, as did JPMorgan Chase. JPMC got at least #25 billion in govt. bailout funds. BOA got about $20 billion in bailout funds. And yet, they need a crook rigging cases for them on the U.S. 11th Circuit.

Anonymous said...

This is why we need a federal watchdog commission overseeing the courts. No one holds them accountable, and crooks like Tjoflat know it.

legalschnauzer said...

This is long, but it gives a good overview of the role JPMC, BOA, and Wells Fargo played in the 2008 mortgage crisis.

Anonymous said...

If a court favored me in 24 of 24 cases, I probably would have been in prison a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

How many Americans lost their homes due to the reckless actions of these big banks. And now we learn they have their bag man on the 11th circuit.

RiccoPitts said...

No surprise here. I have felt for a long time that the "fix" was in when it came to protecting wall street bankers. The biggest financial fraud in history and it's still on going today. Wall st banks earned a fee for taking investors money to make bad mortgage loans. Then the bank shows up in foreclosure court claiming they are the real party that has suffered a financial loss due to the homeowners default, while in fact they have never loss a dime because they didn't make a loan with the banks money, it's the investors that are left holding worthless mortgage bonds. The bank then tell the court how the homeowner is trying to "game" the system for a "free house" so the judge will be on the lookout for this "show me the note" bulls**t the homeowner keeps wanting to ask about. Yes, this judge has been on board since day one of this fraud. A fraud that has hurt homeowners and their pension/retirement funds, some of whom were major investors in the mortgaged back bonds that has now loss value. The bailouts, you talked about?, Well that was just wall streets way of saying, Fuck You USA, we own the gov't and the courts. Nothing can be done to us, the fix is in.

legalschnauzer said...


Thanks for an insightful comment. Very well stated. I love that part how banks tell the court that homeowners are trying to "game the system for a free house."