Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Discussion of various forms of Advance Fee Fraud, including application fees for loans that never materialize, self-liquidating loan scams, as well as mortgage elimination scams and related debt elimination scams [Nigerian-type scams should go in the Nigerian 4-1-9 forum]
bobhurt
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:59 pm

Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby bobhurt » Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:38 am

Three years ago I started digging into mortgages, foreclosure, and defenses. I discovered no mainstream mortgage foreclosure defense industry existed, outside of a bunch of rescue scammers. By this I mean that the mainstream legal community seemed clueless about foreclosure defense. Mostly nobody defended against foreclosure because people generally knew (but have begun to waver from their certainty) that if you don't pay, you lose the house, a principle they learned before entering kindergarten.

Now the mainstream legal community has evolved a foreclosure defense industry of sorts, but it has become laden with scammer-attorneys.

I explain this in the below interchange with Neil Garfield on his Livinglies blog.

I could provide you the links to my response, but he sometimes deletes them, particularly if they seem to disagree with his expressions or business purposes.

One more thing: Neil has turned his blog into a sales organ for his audit service with this ad:

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Go ahead and click the link. I changed it from his service to a better one. I don’t want you to go to his service because I believe the analysis boils down to a scam. I explain why in my comments.


-----Original Message-----
From: Livinglies's Weblog <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 12:25 pm
Subject: [New post] MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID

MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID
Neil Garfield | August 17, 2011 at 9:24 am |


I held back on writing this post until I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that I was right. I've said it one form or another, but not like this. It is my opinion (to be checked with licensed attorney) that most mortgage liens over the last 10 years+ were never perfected and improperly filed. If you check with cases involving mechanics liens, mortgage liens, bankruptcy etc., the issue is always about priority of liens and perfection of liens. The essential tests I have distilled from many sources are as follows:

1. The most important test of the perfection of a lien is whether the lienholder could issue a satisfaction of that lien.
2. The other statutory steps in establishing the lien and giving it the right place in the priority of the lien must be fulfilled to the letter. Each state differs slightly on such procedures.

Be careful here because this is not one size fits all. There are two classes of such mortgages, and this conclusion regarding the perfection, priority, enforcement and viability of the lien only applies to one class. The first class is the minority by far, but it is a significant minority. There were some actual lenders, apparently like World Savings, that did in fact make loans out of their own cash or credit. That they were later sold into the secondary market does nothing for you if you are challenging the original loan, which presumably was otherwise executed and properly filed. Hence, at the time of origination neither misrepresentation of the creditor nor the PSA were involved.

The other class, including subclasses, accounts for at least 85% of all loans during this period. In most cases the loan originator was either a thinly capitalized mortgage broker who was called "the lender" even though they never gave the borrower one penny and never intended to do so. If there were any borrower claims arising out of the loan transaction itself it would, the strategy goes, be filed against the loan originator (except now we know they were not the lender and were acting as an agent for an undisclosed principal).

The fact that the loan originator was not the lender/creditor means that the real creditor was outside the transaction. Thus a satisfaction of the obligation could only be given by or on behalf of the undisclosed creditor. By definition there is no way of knowing, but for off-record communication, who to go to for a satisfaction. Factually the Promissory Note is a lie. And therefore the "Security instrument" which misstates the terms itself, is based upon a document that does not properly recite the terms of repayment (i.e., including the terms of the PSA).

It does not properly recite the terms of repayment because (1) it provides a nominee instead of the real name of the creditor/lender and (2) it does include all the terms and parties to the deal (see the PSA). If MERS was used, you have a nominee for title, a nominee for creditor, and therefore no real party on the side of the lender, in terms of on-record activity. This results in the lien being imperfect or never perfected. Check the cases and statutes. This conclusion is unavoidable based upon the factual assumptions I have made here.

The focus on forgery, fabrication and misrepresentation (robo-signing) is important. After all this shows fraudulent intent. But it begs the question as to whether the original lien was perfected. And by the way (see previous post) invalidating the lien does not eliminate the obligation or even the possibility of a judgment lien if it is available to the creditor (depends upon the state).

So the narrow issue addressed here ONLY relates to the perfection of the mortgage or deed of trust, which is only one method of enforcement of a debt. These issues are important as to discharge-ability of the obligation in bankruptcy and enforceability of the putative lien in state or Federal Court. There are obvious ramifications as to lawsuits to Quiet Title as well.
Add a comment to this post


Bob Hurt Comments:

bobhurt, on August 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I don’t quite agree, Neil. The borrower makes a valid deal with the lender. The borrower gets funds, buys the house with the funds. It does not matter how the lender got the money or what he does with the note afterward. Until the borrower pays that note off, the mortgage controls any default, and the court must give the lender redress. Period. End of subject.

Eventually, the holder of the note will sue or demand foreclosure from the trustee and the court or trustee will order it. Rightly so.

Aside from tricks, loopholes, and sloppy litigation, only one thing will permanently block the foreclosure and sale of the realty to pay the debt off: some malfeasance that invalidated the deal – contract breaches or tortious conduct underlying the mortgage. Most famous torts: lender agent lies about the value of the realty, and lender agent falsehoods on the loan application.

This explains why nearly all defaults result in foreclosure and forced sale of the realty to pay the debt. Yes, the tricky stuff like robosigning, bad notarizations, assignments in blank, splitting the note from the mortgage, wrong entity suing, and securitization snafus often delay the foreclosure sale, but the sale happens eventually in, I guess, at least 99% of the foreclosures(or some other mind-bogglingly huge percentage).

This means the foreclosure defense industry operates generally like feckless boobs furtively lurching around for some gotcha like robosigning. This delays the sale, but it also increases the interest damage and legal fees and other costs, all to the detriment of the borrower who generally ends up with such a whopping judgment lien as to justify bankruptcy.

The legislature should order general reparations against the lending industry for their policies that collapsed the housing values and destroyed everybody’s home equity, even for those who never face foreclosure. It constitutes an industry-wide tort that injured and damaged every home owner. Just as Congress liberated the slaves and ordered reparations, Congress ought to enact similar relief for homeowners to liberate them from and compensate them for economic enslavement to the financial industry.

Where’s our model legislation and model lawsuit for that, Neil?.


I believe the vast majority of foreclosure victims would deserve their foreclosure but for the fact that the real estate and finance industry operatives blatantly cheated them through falsely inflating the apparent value of real estate. I have estimated that at least 90% of single family residential loans have appraisal fraud at their root.

But instead of attacking that or the tradition of mortgage broker falsification of family income to make the borrower seem qualified for a loan for which the borrower did not qualify, foreclosure defense lawyers charge the victim $1500 to $2500 retainer and $500 to $1000 a month to forestall the foreclosure by badgering the court over robosigning, note split from mortgage, lack of standing, etc. Generally, the plaintiff either refiles with corrected paperwork or appeals and wins. The victim stays in the house longer with the lawyer pocketing money the victim should have saved for buying the next house.

Delaying the foreclosure might constitute malpractice, for two reasons: 1) the lawyer thereby increases the client's cost of litigation and exposing the client to additional interest charges, late fees, and opposing counsel fees; the lawyer could have gone after a legitimate cause of action like contract breaches and torts by the lender's agents. Furthermore, dilatory actions violate Bar rules and cheat the client out of a good advocacy.

Even worse, the victim didn't need the lawyer to delay the foreclosure. The victim could have haggled over loan modification, short sale, and cash-for-keys and delayed the foreclosure another 6 to 18 month. If the victim receives $10,000 in a cash-for-keys deal and saves $15,000 to $25,000 that the victim would have paid the lawyer, the resulting $35,000 will fund the purchase of a house at a real estate auction where houses go for 1/5 to 1/6 of their 2007 selling price.

I believe foreclosure victims should stay away from foreclosure pretender defender lawyers who bilk them, and go to personal injury attorneys with a new appraisal that shows the REAL value of the house at the time of the mortgage. Most would find the house worth 50% to 70% of its selling price at the time of the mortgage.

A good personal injury attorney would probably get a comprehensive examination of the mortgage done, and then lobby the lender for a settlement or sue. He might end up with a result like this

I asked some foreclosure pretender defender attorneys how many clients they had. One had 5, one had 40, and one claimed to have 200. An attorney cannot handle more than 5 active cases at once by himself UNLESS he files boilerplate pleadings and does a delaying action that strings foreclosures out for a year or two. THEN, if he only pretends to defend, he might handle dozens. I asked them how many cases they had won. They generally said "That depends on what you mean by win." They believed they won by keeping the client in the house longer, regardless of the downside. None of them ever won a house free and clear like Jim Bordas did in the West Virginia Quicken Loans story cited above.

For the foregoing reasons, I believe the mainstream foreclosure pretender-defenders have won themselves a rightly deserved peg on the Quatloos Hall of Shame board.

Alongside them belong all the foreclosure mill attorneys who committed the sins to which Garfield alluded, and the judges who failed to file criminal charges against them for those sins.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2654
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:54 am

Just a quick reply at present. You missed out (fraudulently) filed for bankruptcy as a foreclosure delay tactic. One of the issues with the people who offer foreclosure defence is that they aren't lawyers and, in some cases, they have got into trouble for practising law without a license.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6311
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby wserra » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:27 pm

I don't believe it. A bobhurt post with which I largely agree. There must be something wrong with my instruments. Yes, he writes some things that are of dubious accuracy. But allow us this rare Kumbaya moment.

He describes a pattern we see all the time. Somebody blows the whistle on a bunch of scammers - here the shady side (is there another?) of the mortgage origination/servicing business. It gets a lot of publicity. Out from under various rocks crawl another group of scammers who promise to save you from the original group of scammers. I don't know about the people Hurt mentions, but the practice is American as apple pie.

As far as the Quicken Loans case Hurt cites - no one should start getting too enthusiastic. Here is the opinion. As I read it, the case is a happy confluence of factors that will be difficult to repeat - especially a sympathetic judge in a bench trial who found several vital disputed facts in the homeowner's favor. Great result - for them.

But I'm still shaking my head.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:19 pm

bobhurt wrote:... Mostly nobody defended against foreclosure because people generally knew (but have begun to waver from their certainty) that if you don't pay, you lose the house, a principle they learned before entering kindergarten.


Actually, no, Bob - that's a very popular and oft-repeated myth. In far too many cases, whether or how much the borrower paid or not was a subject of major dispute that was too hard to defend against - and if there was equity to be captured in a property an un-represented borrower was doomed. One company spent eight years in litigation using two firms (no less than three attorneys at trial) when the borrower's case was picked up pro-bono by a well-known attorney from a prestigious firm. It finally went to settlement but the borrower was not made whole despite the figures involved.

Several of the sub-prime servicers paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements over these tactics - and relatively speaking, the victims got pennies from it. Former executives will tell you it's just a cost of doing business; you can never admit wrongdoing. They will even allow strategic default dismissals if push comes to shove on some evidence.

The "mainstream legal community" and the judiciary were content to live with the collateral damage to victims they lumped in with the "people who can't afford their house;" the same robo-signing, forgery, mythological accounting, document manufacturing and perjury that is now such a major brouhaha became so acceptable that entire businesses sprung up to make it more efficient for the system.
bobhurt wrote:Now the mainstream legal community has evolved a foreclosure defense industry of sorts, but it has become laden with scammer-attorneys.

I explain this in the below interchange with Neil Garfield on his Livinglies blog.

I could provide you the links to my response, but he sometimes deletes them, particularly if they seem to disagree with his expressions or business purposes.


Bingo. I gave up on Neil some time ago. There is so much chaff flying around on his site finding the aircraft is impossible. as altruistic as many of these types of operators seem to be, some of them are downright dangerous.

bobhurt wrote:One more thing: Neil has turned his blog into a sales organ for his audit service with this ad:

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Go ahead and click the link. I changed it from his service to a better one. I don’t want you to go to his service because I believe the analysis boils down to a scam.


He clearly is willing to try and take money from people in trouble.
bobhurt wrote:I explain why in my comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Livinglies's Weblog <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 12:25 pm
Subject: [New post] MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID

MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID
Neil Garfield | August 17, 2011 at 9:24 am |


I held back on writing this post until I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that I was right. I've said it one form or another, but not like this. It is my opinion (to be checked with licensed attorney) that most mortgage liens over the last 10 years+ were never perfected and improperly filed. If you check with cases involving mechanics liens, mortgage liens, bankruptcy etc., the issue is always about priority of liens and perfection of liens. The essential tests I have distilled from many sources are as follows:

1. The most important test of the perfection of a lien is whether the lienholder could issue a satisfaction of that lien.
2. The other statutory steps in establishing the lien and giving it the right place in the priority of the lien must be fulfilled to the letter. Each state differs slightly on such procedures.

Be careful here because this is not one size fits all. There are two classes of such mortgages, and this conclusion regarding the perfection, priority, enforcement and viability of the lien only applies to one class. The first class is the minority by far, but it is a significant minority. There were some actual lenders, apparently like World Savings, that did in fact make loans out of their own cash or credit. That they were later sold into the secondary market does nothing for you if you are challenging the original loan, which presumably was otherwise executed and properly filed. Hence, at the time of origination neither misrepresentation of the creditor nor the PSA were involved.

The other class, including subclasses, accounts for at least 85% of all loans during this period. In most cases the loan originator was either a thinly capitalized mortgage broker who was called "the lender" even though they never gave the borrower one penny and never intended to do so. If there were any borrower claims arising out of the loan transaction itself it would, the strategy goes, be filed against the loan originator (except now we know they were not the lender and were acting as an agent for an undisclosed principal).

The fact that the loan originator was not the lender/creditor means that the real creditor was outside the transaction. Thus a satisfaction of the obligation could only be given by or on behalf of the undisclosed creditor. By definition there is no way of knowing, but for off-record communication, who to go to for a satisfaction. Factually the Promissory Note is a lie. And therefore the "Security instrument" which misstates the terms itself, is based upon a document that does not properly recite the terms of repayment (i.e., including the terms of the PSA).

It does not properly recite the terms of repayment because (1) it provides a nominee instead of the real name of the creditor/lender and (2) it does include all the terms and parties to the deal (see the PSA). If MERS was used, you have a nominee for title, a nominee for creditor, and therefore no real party on the side of the lender, in terms of on-record activity. This results in the lien being imperfect or never perfected. Check the cases and statutes. This conclusion is unavoidable based upon the factual assumptions I have made here.

The focus on forgery, fabrication and misrepresentation (robo-signing) is important. After all this shows fraudulent intent. But it begs the question as to whether the original lien was perfected. And by the way (see previous post) invalidating the lien does not eliminate the obligation or even the possibility of a judgment lien if it is available to the creditor (depends upon the state).

So the narrow issue addressed here ONLY relates to the perfection of the mortgage or deed of trust, which is only one method of enforcement of a debt. These issues are important as to discharge-ability of the obligation in bankruptcy and enforceability of the putative lien in state or Federal Court. There are obvious ramifications as to lawsuits to Quiet Title as well.
Add a comment to this post


Bob Hurt Comments:

bobhurt, on August 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I don’t quite agree, Neil. The borrower makes a valid deal with the lender. The borrower gets funds, buys the house with the funds. It does not matter how the lender got the money or what he does with the note afterward. Until the borrower pays that note off, the mortgage controls any default, and the court must give the lender redress. Period. End of subject.

Eventually, the holder of the note will sue or demand foreclosure from the trustee and the court or trustee will order it. Rightly so.

Aside from tricks, loopholes, and sloppy litigation, only one thing will permanently block the foreclosure and sale of the realty to pay the debt off: some malfeasance that invalidated the deal – contract breaches or tortious conduct underlying the mortgage. Most famous torts: lender agent lies about the value of the realty, and lender agent falsehoods on the loan application.

This explains why nearly all defaults result in foreclosure and forced sale of the realty to pay the debt. Yes, the tricky stuff like robosigning, bad notarizations, assignments in blank, splitting the note from the mortgage, wrong entity suing, and securitization snafus often delay the foreclosure sale, but the sale happens eventually in, I guess, at least 99% of the foreclosures(or some other mind-bogglingly huge percentage).

This means the foreclosure defense industry operates generally like feckless boobs furtively lurching around for some gotcha like robosigning. This delays the sale, but it also increases the interest damage and legal fees and other costs, all to the detriment of the borrower who generally ends up with such a whopping judgment lien as to justify bankruptcy.

The legislature should order general reparations against the lending industry for their policies that collapsed the housing values and destroyed everybody’s home equity, even for those who never face foreclosure. It constitutes an industry-wide tort that injured and damaged every home owner. Just as Congress liberated the slaves and ordered reparations, Congress ought to enact similar relief for homeowners to liberate them from and compensate them for economic enslavement to the financial industry.

Where’s our model legislation and model lawsuit for that, Neil?.


I believe the vast majority of foreclosure victims would deserve their foreclosure but for the fact that the real estate and finance industry operatives blatantly cheated them through falsely inflating the apparent value of real estate.


I suggest "vast" is an overstatement. You also have to remember the servicing system was designed to rapidly clear defaults from the pools. Knowing that it could, many originators knew there would be no viable defense to foreclosure and had no skin in the game after closing.

bobhurt wrote:I have estimated that at least 90% of single family residential loans have appraisal fraud at their root.


I disagree. My largely anecdotal experience is that more of the problem lies with ARMs and option ARM-type situations where the jump in payment was either concealed (unanticipated) or the borrower was convinced they could come back and get a refi before the jump. (Ameriquest was famous for having extra documents signed at closing to facilitate the hidden ARM.)

There were far too-many down payments that were actually disguised loans and I would agree that there is some level of participatory appraisal inflation in second mortgages, especially.

But the other anecdotal evidence of not having that high a ratio of inflated appraisals is the number of foreclosures that didn't occur. In cases where a down-payment was made and/or where PMI was in force, the gain available through foreclosure would have been non-existent if the original appraisal were way out of line. Servicers dispatch small armies of RE agents to do BPO (Broker Price Opinions) every month on borrowers with a late payment or two. They developed sophisticated models for deciding whether or not and when to foreclose and the sob-story of the alleged costs of foreclosure are pretty much public-relations fluff.

bobhurt wrote:But instead of attacking that or the tradition of mortgage broker falsification of family income to make the borrower seem qualified for a loan for which the borrower did not qualify, foreclosure defense lawyers charge the victim $1500 to $2500 retainer and $500 to $1000 a month to forestall the foreclosure by badgering the court over robosigning, note split from mortgage, lack of standing, etc. Generally, the plaintiff either refiles with corrected paperwork or appeals and wins. The victim stays in the house longer with the lawyer pocketing money the victim should have saved for buying the next house.

Delaying the foreclosure might constitute malpractice, for two reasons: 1) the lawyer thereby increases the client's cost of litigation and exposing the client to additional interest charges, late fees, and opposing counsel fees; the lawyer could have gone after a legitimate cause of action like contract breaches and torts by the lender's agents. Furthermore, dilatory actions violate Bar rules and cheat the client out of a good advocacy.


So does ignoring the fact that evidence was cut from whole cloth and filing knowingly bogus lawsuits based on it, Bob. The foreclosure mills have had their way for so long that the Bar should be ashamed of their willingness to follow your theory that these foreclosures are going to happen anyway.

bobhurt wrote:Even worse, the victim didn't need the lawyer to delay the foreclosure. The victim could have haggled over loan modification, short sale, and cash-for-keys and delayed the foreclosure another 6 to 18 month.

Sorry, but I call B.S. on that one. Servicers will only act in their own best interests. As it stands now, they have no duty to negotiate with a borrower because that's the way the system was designed and the recent "incentives" have not fundamentally changed that. The people who are getting mods are the ones with property that the servicer doesn't want in their REO inventory - yet.

Consider the fact that this is the only consumer relationship in which the consumer has no choice in who they have to deal with; no matter how poorly they're treated, they have no option to take their business elsewhere. There is no business need to operate responsibly because there is no real penalty for shoddy servicing practices - even with litigation it is simply a cost of doing business if a settlement finally takes place. Worse, no one in these organizations faces criminal penalties for manufacturing evidence or forging documents - or for filing them knowing the source's credibility.

If you or I submitted a forged affidavit with a bogus notarization in a civil trial we'd be ... well, let's just say we wouldn't get away with it. If we did it more than once we'd probably be looking for another line of work. But if we did it routinely over a period of years, apparently we have a get-out-of-jail-free card.

bobhurt wrote:If the victim receives $10,000 in a cash-for-keys deal and saves $15,000 to $25,000 that the victim would have paid the lawyer, the resulting $35,000 will fund the purchase of a house at a real estate auction where houses go for 1/5 to 1/6 of their 2007 selling price.

I believe foreclosure victims should stay away from foreclosure pretender defender lawyers who bilk them, and go to personal injury attorneys with a new appraisal that shows the REAL value of the house at the time of the mortgage. Most would find the house worth 50% to 70% of its selling price at the time of the mortgage.


I wish it were that simple. The perpetrators of those schemes are no longer in existence and the servicers and foreclosure mills would litigate it to the death.
bobhurt wrote:A good personal injury attorney would probably get a comprehensive examination of the mortgage done, and then lobby the lender for a settlement or sue.

Lobbying = being ignored. Unless or until a servicer is served with a lawsuit, they will continue to act in their own best interests.
bobhurt wrote:He might end up with a result like this

I asked some foreclosure pretender defender attorneys how many clients they had. One had 5, one had 40, and one claimed to have 200. An attorney cannot handle more than 5 active cases at once by himself UNLESS he files boilerplate pleadings and does a delaying action that strings foreclosures out for a year or two. THEN, if he only pretends to defend, he might handle dozens. I asked them how many cases they had won. They generally said "That depends on what you mean by win." They believed they won by keeping the client in the house longer, regardless of the downside. None of them ever won a house free and clear like Jim Bordas did in the West Virginia Quicken Loans story cited above.

Bingo - the lure of getting out from under that damn servicer!

There are people making a difference, but not enough of them. They focus more on forcing the servicer to prove not only standing, but what the real numbers are.

When the servicing on loans is transferred, the new servicer "boards" the loan into their system and in the vast majority of cases, whatever the previous servicer says becomes fact - no matter what the borrower says about the payment history, specious fees, escrow fallacies, force-placed insurance schemes, etc., etc.
bobhurt wrote:For the foregoing reasons, I believe the mainstream foreclosure pretender-defenders have won themselves a rightly deserved peg on the Quatloos Hall of Shame board.

Alongside them belong all the foreclosure mill attorneys who committed the sins to which Garfield alluded, and the judges who failed to file criminal charges against them for those sins.


I concur, but let's not forget the companies that mutated into document forgery mills to support them - Lender Processing Services/DocX for just one.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:18 pm

Timely, to say the least:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/19/39125.htm

The state claims the law office and a long list of other defendants "prey on desperate consumer homeowners facing foreclosure" by selling participation in bogus "mass joinder" lawsuits and "litigation settlement(s)," but "No settlements exist and in some cases no lawsuit has even been filed."


:roll:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

bobhurt
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:59 pm

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby bobhurt » Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:47 am

I feel honored by the nod, and glad for the insightful comments. Somehow "we" who care ought to do something effective to cause judges to file charge against attorneys and their clients who use the courts to cheat victims of predatory lending and those who precipitated the financial crisis by preying on those victims.

In the end, hard core litigation, suing for the easily provable torts and breaches by agents of the lenders, and the lenders themselves, provides the only practical avenue for correction of the lending industry.

And we need a new breed of legislators who will manacle the lending and realty industries so they cannot cheat home buyers and mortgagors and get away with it.

I have concluded that we must start by revivifying the pinnacle of civilization's hard-won achievement, the family, and concomitantly the neighborhood. Without those, we shall continue to suffer government by the corrupt and incompetent who feed at the trough of the banking industry.

I want to start a campaign nationwide of doing what churches should have done for the past century - go out two by two and minister to the needs of families, providing them with guidance and encouragement. Would any of you care to work with me on that?

Judge Bean, I like your incisive grasp of the problem and your hint at solutions. Thank you for sharing them.

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:48 am

bobhurt wrote:I feel honored by the nod, and glad for the insightful comments. ...
Judge Bean, I like your incisive grasp of the problem and your hint at solutions. Thank you for sharing them.


Your site brings up a plethora of antivirus threats so I can't visit it, Bob.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
Prof
El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: East of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Foreclosure Pretender-Defender Scams

Postby Prof » Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:15 pm

While some judges will act on their own to report a matter to the regulatory authority, most often in my experience in federal court, usually the state supreme court acting thru some bar group), ordinarily complaints should be filed by the client with the appropriate Supreme Court/Bar Group entity. Most are filed by clients.
"My Health is Better in November."


Return to “Advance Fee Fraud and Mortgage & Debt Elimination”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest