Are Your Clients Aware That You Are Representing Them Here Today: Do They Exist?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“…a lawyer stating that he represents the tooth fairy does not make the tooth fairy real nor does he have a client or any reason for being in court except to trick you and the Judge.” Neil Garfield, livinglies.me

Submitted by Matt: “Neil has ALWAYS said to question EVERYTHING and assume NOTHING! I did that yesterday while in mediation in a post-foreclosure case I am handling. At the beginning of the mediation I told the mediator that we needed to establish some “grouund rules” to ensure everyone is acting in good faith. I addressed the 2 attorneys representing MERS, Aurora, and Homecomings and asked them “are your clients aware that you are representing them today in mediation?” Each of them, and simultaneously FREAKED OUT. Neither would answer and “none of your business” was the heated and infuriated response I received. These are folks who are normally calm, cool, and generally flat line personalities. Have I struck a nerve yet?”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Just take a second to think about that. Simple question. Ordered into mediation, the respective parties must have someone who is a decision-maker at the mediation or it isn’t a mediation. A discussion and “ill get back to you” is not a mediation. It is a conversation. Asking the lawyers if their “clients” are aware of the mediation and that the lawyer is at the mediation representing them would seem to be a no-brainer. But it isn’t. The lawyers get nervous and angry when challenged on that very simple question. Why?

I think I know why, and most of the evidence I can lay my hands on would seem to corroborate this. The lawyer is there just to be there and make it appear that the party he says he is representing is complying with the order that sent them to mediation. Note that they must be ordered into mediation because all they want is the foreclosure.

Before securitization, the norm WAS that a bank would try any kind of possible workout before it went to the extreme remedy of foreclosure because there was nothing else they could do. Go to any CLE seminar for lawyers on workouts and you’ll hear the same thing. Figure out a way to make this work, to bring it back alive even if it is worth a little less because foreclosure will yield the least amount of recovery to the Bank. Now foreclosure is the first order of business.

The answer to Matt’s question is “NO.” Because the parties the lawyer is stating that he is representing have not retained him in that case. In fact, they don’t even know the case is pending. In fact, they don’t care. The real parties in interest in the current wave of foreclosures are the lawyers and the servicers. Every other party has their name used in vain because they are being paid to shut up. The servicer is calling the shots through layers of companies that are “foreclosure specialists.” The lawyer will say anything he must to maintain the appearance of the existence of a client and his authority to represent them.

It is fundamental that nothing is accepted in court without either evidence or stipulation from the other side. Usually the stipulation that the client exists and that the lawyer is authorized to represent the client is tacit — accepted by the Judge as inferred from silence. I have previously said that the moment the attorney opens his/her mouth you should be objecting because you challenge whether or not the lawyer actually has the authority to represent the client. I now think you should go further.

In addition to demanding that the lawyer prove his/her authority to represent the client, you should object based upon whether the client exists, and if they do exist whether the client is aware that the case is pending. And if they are aware the case is pending whether they are aware that the hearing was scheduled.

As for existence, here are some examples of clients that do not legally exist:

  1. Americas Service Companies — it is a division of Wells Fargo. If wells Fargo is not named then there is no entity named and the lawyer has no client.
  2. Wells Fargo, Trustee — unless a trust is specifically identified, then the client doesn’t exist. If Wells Fargo is not claiming they are in court for themselves and that they are only in court to represent a trust, then the caption and the pleadings must state that. This would be an actual entity: “Wells Fargo, as Trustee for ABCDE Trust, a common law trust organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware” [I can’t say I have seen that wording on any of these “Securitized” debts].  NOTE: In discovery you might find out that there is no such trust registered in Delaware and that the trust does not conform to the requirements of Delaware Law as a common law trust. If that is the case, the trust does not exist. And therefore there is no client because Wells Fargo was ONLY there as representative of the “trust” which has now been shown not to exist.
  3. Deutsch …., Trustee for Series KL6897 Certificates 2007R: No trust mentioned or described and no other form of legal entity mentioned or described. The entity does not exist and therefore the lawyer has no client. A fictitious entity can perform no legal act. 
  4. US Bank, as Trustee relating to Series JP99-2223 2009BA Certificates: No trust mentioned and the wording seems to state that there isn’t any trust. Certificates are not people and a group of certificates does not make a group of people much less a company, corporation, trust or partnership. The entity does not exist and therefore the lawyer has no client. A fictitious entity can perform no legal act. The words “relating to” would seem to say that “we know what a trust is, and there isn’t one. But we are here representing the certificate holders but we are not going to name them even by description. We are just going to mention the certificates.” That doesn’t cut it in any court.
  5. Let me put it this way. If you hire a taxi, are you expecting him and his car to take you to the airport or are you willing to accept his license (without him and his car) that is just a piece of paper that will levitate you like Aladdin’s magic carpet? Fictitious entities have no more reality than the tooth fairy —only this one takes your teeth, your money and your home. And a lawyer stating that he represents the tooth fairy does not make the tooth fairy real nor does he have a client or any reason for being in court except to trick you and the Judge.

 

8 Responses

  1. Neil,

    We already have an attorney. We wanted to purchase multiple audits from you through our attorney, but we are not sure which would be most relevant and wanted to discuss that with you as well as purchasing a Letter of Declaration for testimony purposes.

    PLEASE ADVISE!

  2. In my foreclosure case I brought in Mass Federal District Court the judge said she would vouch for the attorney when I demanded to see his power of attorney to represent Wells Fargo. Yep, imagine that, she said “he is an officer of the court and I can vouch for him”. She also said that they could email me a copy of the promissory note, when I objected she said ok, just send her one by mail. Motion to dismiss was allowed for failure to state a claim. It has been over a year, I am still in my house, any thoughts? Certainly I did not receive due process.

  3. @Spitfire,

    Mandelman has announced a whole lot of info directly from Atty Max Gardner, a crackerjack of a defense attorney. Check out what he has. The site is Mandelman Matters.

  4. Neil is absolutely correct about — “who do you represent.” And, would add that a trust name — MUST – include a Depositor — because it the Depositor who owns the trust.

    johngault — I am not accountant — but, it has recently been stated that only 20% of loans are actually bank owned. The attachment does not refer to securitization.

    With the vast majority of “loans” — collection rights can be sold/swapped anywhere. Derivatives are contracts — not securities.. Thus, the security never changes actually changes hands when derivatives are traded and executed. This means security should remain “alive” until derivatives are executed. A derivative cannot survive without the security that a derivative is derived from. Although receivables that back securities are charged-off, this tells us nothing as to where collection rights lie. Of course, derivatives are deregulated — and this is the advantage foreclosure networks have in courts. .

    That is the BIG problem. And, this is the reason the tooth fairy lives on — even though we all know — there is no such thing.

  5. Neil,

    I am a former mortgage broker and a still practicing real estate broker in Texas. I have tons of clients that have been duped by this gigantic ponzi scheme that I would like to help. I have tried reaching you multiple times via e-mail and a number I found for your offices online and have had ZERO success at reaching anyone or getting a response back. I wanted to discuss your products as to which ones would be best suited for two clients specific needs. Their suits are being filed now, but we would like the attorney to be able to order whatever it is they most need before hand. Could you PLEASE respond to me at april@thrillseekerstravel.com and let me know how we can best go about determining which products would be most helpful??

  6. So how did this end? Were the attorneys reprimanded for attempting to represent a non existent client? Was the mediation even held? What happens next?

  7. Neil , if the plaintiff was :

    Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. as trustee for (trustname)

    WITHOUT the explaination .. “a common law trust organized and existing under the laws of the state of XXXXXXXXX”

    What do we have? And when should objections be stated… First hearing (on my motion to dismiss) in just under 2 weeks. Is this worth muddying the waters over ,, banksters has answered objection with verbiage indicating they have no chain of ownership of the note..although the try to make it appear so with a single blank assignment and some irrelevant case cites.

    P.S. Trust paid off in full by AIG years ago…

  8. This came up in a case in Nevada (bankster attorney at mediation: who do you represent?) I’ll see what the judge said when I can find it. In the meantime, this is for

    Anonymous: Looks like ihis is more up your alley than mine. Would you
    mind reading it and telling us what if anything there is we give a hoot about?
    thanks

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/68017221/How-Banks-Write-Off-Foreclosed-Properties

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: