PERJURY OR JUST FRAUD ON THE COURT?

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

article by r j koenig

Editor’s Comment: The following article exposes the anger, confusion and frustration that homeowners feel when they hear the lawyers for pretender lenders state things that are patently and obviously untrue. Perhaps more importantly it addresses the underlying bias of the court system for people with the most money — and nobody has more money than banks. AND finally, the underlying theme here is that there is an honest confusion on the part of members of the fiduciary and members of the Bar over what is actually happening — which is contrary to virtually everything they learned in law school.

For the sake of clarification, the general consensus is that a lawyer does not commit perjury unless he is under oath and is testifying as a witness. It is also generally accepted that if there is even a hint of an arguable point, the lawyer is free to make the most of it in his oral presentation and pleadings.

However, it is also true that the lawyer puts his license at risk if he knowingly misleads the court, and, more to the point of our contributor below, probably ought to be investigated for the commission of a crime if he or she as lawyer is knowingly acting in furtherance of a fraudulent conspiracy for the sole reason or mostly because of the monetary benefit flowing to the “lawyer” for doing it.

I put “lawyer” in quotes, because a lawyer is acting as an advocate when he makes the best of what is available in the facts and in the law on behalf of his client. In fact, he is obligated to do exactly that or he is not living up to the standards of his profession. But if the person who is licensed as a lawyer is taking affirmative action to further or create or promote a fraud upon the court and innocent victims, then he or she is no longer acting as a lawyer and so not protected by the above statements for effective advocacy.

The mere fact that someone is licensed as a lawyer doesn’t mean everything they do, even in a courtroom falls under the scope of their work as a lawyer. This might ring familiar: the mere fact that a company is a bank doesn’t mean it was acting as a bank. In most cases, the “bank” that acts as an originator was in fact acting as a mortgage broker and their financial records will show that they didn’t make the loan, they merely got paid a fee for arranging it.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

by r j koenig

I write about the observed practice of US lawyers to fraudulently utter, in front of judges, prejudicial statements of arguable and questionable beliefs as if they were fact.

Is there a term for these sorts of lies: the lies and patently false assertions that lawyers routinely utter in front of judges?

This sort of lawyers perjury often takes place when a lawyer states a “hoped for fact”, or perhaps a fact he/she wishes to prove, without preceding the utterance with the qualification “upon information and belief”.

A simple way to place this sort of information before a court might be to precede it with the word “arguendo”.

It also strikes me as being extraordinary that lawyers are allowed to state any fact(s) at all except those that have been established by a prior trial upon the facts; and even then only then when pertinent to the instant litigation.

Over the course of a 10-year legal action in NY City involving whether my insurer or my cooperative apartment corporation should pay for exploding steam pipe damages to the physical premises of my family’s leased cooperative apartment . . .

. . lawyer Daniel White for 55 Liberty Owners Corporation and Robert Spadaro for my insurer USAA uttered serially untrue statements to the long sequence of apparently corrupt judges who sort of heard the case.

I found myself paralyzed by the lies these two lawyers told – one after the other: what do you say in a court as a non-lawyer civilian when the licenses lawyers cavort with the judge by lying? It’s really disheartening.

One of Daniel White’s particular lies to Judge Carol Huff was most memorable.

Lawyer White actually told Judge Huff that the reason why “I” did not want to pay the $25,000 to repair “my” apartment’s damage from the landlord’s exploded steam pipes was because “I” was not insured.

Well – my insurance policy and USAA’s lawyer were standing right there in the court when lawyer Danial White lied to the judge.

I was insured but my insurer USAA was characteristically evading its obligation to indemnify my wife’s and my obligation to repair the damage even though it was landlord’s exploding steam pipes which caused the damage.

USAA’s skillful evasion of its obligations is another story for another time.

At one point I finally interrupted and stated my concern to Judge Huff that the lawyers were being patently untruthful.

So help me God – this is what Judge Huff said.

She said that all lawyers lie; that lawyers are allowed to lie; and that she (the judge) would sort out the truth. But if I were to utter one single even minimally questionable fact – that I would be jailed for contempt.

A review of the pertinent Federal Statute:

18 U.S.C. § 1001 False Statements (The Martha Stewart Act)

shows indeed that lawyers are allowed by Federal Statute to tell lies to judges; to wit,

b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

So: what do we call these sorts of lies that lawyers tell judges?

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |