THE FIRST LIE: “WE REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFF BANK”

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Neil Garfield

“My head almost exploded clear off my body last week when I heard a foreclosure mill exclaim to a judge when questioned about how she was going to get a complaint verified: “But we don’t represent the Plaintiff, we represent the servicer!” (Editor’s Note: That is an admission that they filed a lawsuit on behalf of someone they do not represent. They are not the attorney for the Plaintiff but they filed the suit anyway!)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Weidner has it right here and this is a very ripe area of vulnerability for Banks and the lawyers who represent them. The article below gives you a couple if ideas about that.

As I have repeatedly said on these pages, the first words out of the mouth of the lawyer seeking to foreclose is probably a lie: “Good Morning, your honor my name is John Smith and I represent the holder of this loan, Aurora Loan Servicing.” After stating his name, the rest was at best a misstatement from lack of knowledge and probably just a lie.

The foreclosure mills send out lawyers who have no idea whether they represent the bank or any other party who is seeking to foreclose. And when he states that he  represents the holder,, he only knows that he was told to say that, not that it is true or even if the party whom he alleges to represent would agree. This entire game is made up of plausible deniability and “excusable neglect” so that when caught in the lies, each one can say we didn’t realize our information was bad. But they do know their information is bad and that is their vulnerability.

I would counsel attorneys to file a motion for proof of authority to represent as soon as the first pleading is filed — the compliant in judicial states and the motion to dismiss in the non-judicial states. And I would suggest you press the point by testing their proof through discovery. Most of the time they will cave and revamp their strategy. I actually know of a few cases where the filing of that motion alone was enough for the foreclosing parties to simply vanish.

Second, I again repeat that you should raise an immediate objection, based in part on your challenge to their authority to represent. When the statement is made that “we represent the Plaintiff” or “we represent the holder” or “we represent the creditor” that is a statement of fact, which the lawyers want to be tacitly admitted into the narrative of the case. Your objection should be along the lines of no foundation, that counsel is testifying, that if he is testifying you want to conduct a voir dire examination to determine if he has any personal knowledge for making that assertion, and if so, where he got his information.

Even if he say “I represent U.S. Bank” the same objections would apply after he makes his first argument of “fact” rather than law. It is the same as the “default.” How does he know that a default has occurred.  What contact has he had with the creditor? Who is the creditor. How do we know the creditor has not been satisfied and that the note and mortgage are therefore satisfied? We know that the servicers and others are trying to sneak in under the umbrella of the note and mortgage when their claim, for themselves, has nothing to do with the note or mortgage.

BE ALERT! And don’t assume anything. Challenge everything.

Fraudclosure Mill- Just Who Is Your Client Anyway?
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2011/12/fraudclosure-mill-just-who-is-your-client-anyway/

A question that must be asked in every foreclosure case is just who hired the Plaintiff mill that is prosecuting the case…and who is paying that mill?

There has been a battle raging for years now between consumer attorney warriors who have been working to crack the secret relationship between their attorneys and the fake plaintiff that is named in the foreclosure lawsuit.

We’re especially cracking this relationship when judges start asking real questions or start putting the plaintiff actually comply with the Supreme Court’s rules.

My head almost exploded clear off my body last week when I heard a foreclosure mill exclaim to a judge when questioned about how she was going to get a complaint verified:

“But we don’t represent the Plaintiff, we represent the servicer!”

This is exactly the case and this is precisely the problem. Well, here’s where things get even more interesting. The referrals don’t come from the servicer, they come from a computer….and that’s a problem….or at least it should be if state bars and judges really started digging into this. It’s one of the backstories that’s running behind the Nevada Attorney General v. LPS Lawsuit, first addressed by my friend, Nick Wooten and a dude named Bubba Grimsley, see this article in HousingWire:

The alleged splitting of attorney fees between foreclosure law firms and third-party mortgage servicing providers is the subject of another lawsuit, bringing the number of cases filed on this issue to five within the past seven months, said Nick Wooten, an Alabama-based plaintiff’s attorney involved in all of the cases.

By mid-May, Wooten said he expects to file 10 to 12 additional cases, making similar allegations about what he claims are illegal, split-attorney fee arrangements between mortgage servicing outsourcers and law firms. The cases are concentrated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Florida-Pensacola division.

NICK WOOTEN
http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/22/lawyer-intensifies-fee-splitting-battle-against-mortgage-servicing-providers

And what did the banksters do when confronted by these allegations? Why they attacked the attorney that dared to challenge them? From another article in HousingWire:

An Alabama circuit court judge denied a motion Wednesday from Lender Processing Services (LPS: 14.30 -17.53%) for sanctions against attorney Nick Wooten and also declined to seal a transcript and default services agreement at the heart of Wooten’s cases.

LPS alleged in April http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/26/lps-fires-back-with-motion-seeking-sanctions-against-alabama-attorney that Wooten, who is suing LPS in several cases on behalf of homeowners, used confidential information from a bankruptcy case he was handling between Larry David Wood and Karen Wilborn Wood against Option One Mortgage, and filed multiple lawsuits against LPS in other states using that information.

http://www.housingwire.com/2011/05/12/judge-declines-to-sanction-lawyer-involved-in-lps-fee-splitting-cases
KEEP AT THEM NICK!


 

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Advertisements

About Grace Adams

Founder, Editor and Publisher of the highly acclaimed "Black Authors and Published Writers Directoy" first published in 2005, Annual. WGA Signatory Agent. View all posts by Grace Adams

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: