What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

Do idioms only ring true in literature, or can we use that as evidence in court?

I was in Court today with:

1. The Modification Agreement that the lender had sent to the client
2. The Money Transfer Number (MTN) for verification that the agreement was consummated by the down payment
and
3. The recording that the lender had agreed to the modification.

We were in court, because the Lender had decided to change their mind, and foreclose even after allowing us to believe everything was to be ok. Now, we are seeking a “WRIT” which causes the legal eviction of the borrower.

The Judge stated and the Attorney echoed, “This document is not legal, because all parties did not sign, though the borrower signed, the lender did not, thus the document cannot be honored!” I said to myself, “WTF?”

If this is true, then no NOTE (or loan closed) is legal, because no consumer can produce a NOTE with the lenders signature and their signature. The Lender could sign now, but in my twenty-two (22) years of closed loans, no parties were ever privy to a fully executed contract.

WHERE IS THE LEGAL SYSTEM THAT WILL EVALUATE THIS?
Who is going to straighten this mess?

As time goes on, the light is being shed on all kinds of relevant facts that could save the consumers - how do we rectify this wrongful act?

Every closing in America happened without the lenders’ signature on the NOTE - the borrowers have contracts that are not contracts because the lender did not sign? (If that’s the way it is for a modification, why not the actual loan itself?)

When you go to Court, Consumers/Borrowers, take your original NOTE to the Judge and question if the first contract is not valid.

If a Modification Agreement is no good because it is not signed by the lender, then is the unsigned NOTE a legal and good document to foreclose upon?
That is for the Judges to come together and answer! I can only continue to scream, “HELP THE CONSUMER!”

If one agreement unsigned is no good, then the other documents unsigned are no good, unless the lender can show service to the consumer/borrower that would have both signatures?

What’s good for the goose: No good Modification Agreement because the document is not signed by both lender and consumer…
Is good for the gander: No one in the original transaction of the first loan closing - not lender, nor consumer/borrower - can produce the original NOTE (signed at that closing) by the lender and the consumer borrower.

If this is true - Then consumers [because of the lenders errors and omissions] just received the largest bailouts in the history of banking, justifiably so by the Courts and Laws of records, per the Judges. I have produced countless copies of Modification Agreements - NOTES - so, because of this Judge, let’s show evidence to keep the home legally - were you not under a legal contract to begin with?

I do not believe in propaganda in this fight for the home………but, with the Judges statement, is this really true, did I finally hear a part of the law that could help all, does all lender documents have to have both signatures to be legal, really?

Well I say, “Show me the Signatures!” …or allow the unsigned Notes to be re-evaluated.