In this particular Opinion, it’s not going to fabricate, yet it seems to rely on a lot of fabrication when it comes to foreclosure law suits heard on appeal.
In this opinion it’s spits out “Then began a troika of lawsuits, culminating in the one at hand”.
Then the opinion is rendered as per usual for the Bank, but without sanctions or warnings despite this apparent litany of suits:
“Johnson-Williams has therefore forfeited any argument that her claims are not barred. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Although we liberally construe a pro se litigant’s brief, we will not fabricate arguments where none exist. See id. Even were we inclined to do so, we agree with the district court that “[t]here is no question that res judicata bars Johnson-Williams’s claim.” This litigation is simply an echo of Johnson-Williams’s previous salvoes against CitiMortgage. It involves the same property, the same documents, and the same foreclosure. Cf. Weaver, 660 F.3d at 907-08 (applying Texas law and holding that res judicata barred an action based “on the same exact guaranties” and “the same factual foundation” as a previous lawsuit). For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.“
Panel consisted of: KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT