FORECLOSURE LAWYERS THE NEXT TARGET

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

Last 2010 Workshop: December 11 Sacremento CA 50 Seat Maximum Register NOW!!!

Editor’s Note: The keystone of leverage that the pretender lenders have been using is that there is a general practice (which incidentally is completely necessary) of accepting the lawyers’ representations as true on basic “obvious” components of the motion or case in front of a judge. The problem is the same moral hazard that produced lying and cheating by the banks when they sold bogus mortgage bonds, synthetic derivatives, and securities products disguised as loans that could never be justified, repaid, or viable.

It is unfortunately true that not only are the foreclosure lawyers misrepresenting basic facts — including their own authority to represent — but also that they have found it profitable and risk-free to literally create fabricated forged documents and submit these as a fraud upon the court which the court will take as being true or at least carrying a favorable presumption. After all the firms that represent banks are usually involved in local politics, appointments and elections and many judges either previously represented banks, or are friendly with those attorneys. Jusges are erring on the side of banks because it is not credible in their minds that a friend would come into court and

• say he represents a client when he doesn’t
• say that the plaintiff is the creditor and seeks to foreclose when it isn’t the creditor and he has received no such instruction from THAT client
• say that the documents are true and correct copies of originals in his possession or in possession of his client when they have yet to fabricated and forged much less in existence as of the date they purport to represent
• say that the the homeowner received a loan from the creditor the lawyer represents

These are normal starting points which normally are accepted at face value. The problem for homeowners is that these starting representations are largely untrue and baseless — but you are facing a judge who would find it difficult to believe that lawyers would risk their licenses, reputations and even liberty for the sake of a client who was trying to game the system and steal homes.

My suggestion is that if you want to gain any credibility with the Judge, you need to find a succinct message or introduction that addresses these points to get the Judges attention and get the Judge to start listening instead of thinking what he wants for lunch. Once you acknowledge the obvious, you can transition to the fact that YOU would not have taken the case unless you thought there was merit to the homeowner’s position and a high likelihood that they could prevail on the merits if given the chance to contest the action of the pretender lender in accordance with the rules of civil procedure and the laws governing the admissibility of evidence.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |