Another true story: I argued against a motion to dismiss a foreclosure case where there was evidence of some very serious documentary problems. The name of the claimed securitization trust had been changed from the securitization trust that had been been represented as the “note holder” to the bankruptcy court in numerous filings. There were new assignments recorded while the motions to dismiss were pending. Two “corrective assignments” purported to replace the same assignment yet one was from A to E, and one was from B to E, with E being the freshly minted claimed securitization trust of the week. The bank was arguing that the wrongful foreclosure claim was not yet ripe because there had only been a notice of acceleration but no trustee’s sale. Yet, again, right after the second “corrective assignment” minted during the 6 weeks these motions were pending, there had been a recording of a Notice of Sale and Substitution of Trustee. I thought the judge was going to be furious about the fraud and the trumped up documents, recording of false documents and slander of title. Nope. He was mad at me for single spacing the first page of my motion, my summary of the argument, in violation of the Local Rules regarding formatting. Hmm, sketchy evidence with signs of misrepresentations and the taint of fraud vs. formatting violations, which way would you expect the scales of justice to tip? Oh, Arizona, I do love you so.