That is the ‘dangerous precedent’ a Brooklyn born and raised judge has been setting down in the midst of our troubled economic times, according to this New York Times article. How dare he, a supreme court judge, expect that such important financial institutions as Deutsche Bank or Wells Fargo have evidence of their ownership of a property they are foreclosing on?

He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model.

I’m not sure what I am more impressed and amazed by in all of this. It could be that the financial institutions have their paper work so fouled up. It might be that a judge is actually stepping up to the plate and saying no to them. Both those are good, but I’ve got to say it’s also rather astounding that the financial institutions seem to think of this as some sort of travesty of justice. Are you kidding me?

His opinions, too, have been greeted by a cry of affront from a bank official or two, who say this judge stands in the way of what is rightfully theirs. HSBC bank appealed a recent ruling, saying he had set a “dangerous precedent” by acting as “both judge and jury,” throwing out cases even when homeowners had not responded to foreclosure motions.

ZOMGWTF?! How dare he?

“If you are going to take away someone’s house, everything should be legal and correct,” he said. “I’m a strange guy — I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate.”

Right on, man. Right on.