Virtual Lawyers: Pros and Cons

see Legal Expert Network

When we asked our legal experts how clients should evaluate virtual lawyers, we received a wide array of responses and advice. Some experts explained that legal services are not the same without in-person consultation and conversation. Other experts claimed that physical law offices and virtual law firms produce the same results, just using different forms of communication. Either way, all of our experts agreed that virtual lawyers share an array of differences from physical law firms, and it is up to the client to see what type of firm would best serve their case.

Our experts all generally agreed on one thing: working with a virtual lawyer is cheaper. With essentially no overhead costs, virtual lawyers can and do charge less than lawyers at physical firms. This is one of their main draws. With that, some of our lawyers claim the level of service and attention to detail suffers with lower fees. Authentication is also a factor when working with a virtual lawyer. It is important to research the background of who you are working with, and ensure you are in fact working with that lawyer and are not being manipulated by a fraud.

Michele Colucci explains, “Not having overhead expenses attracts lawyers who may have not found a job, may have lost a job or may not have the level of financial success that would enable them to invest the money it takes to start their own firm. It’s generally unusual to find really high quality lawyers that choose not to run their own firm or work in a high paying partnership position with great benefits. And if they are not financially sound, this may also translate into them not having enough funds to pay for the expenses of your case (if a contingency fee case) or for simple filing fees or costs if they are a fee based practitioner.”

In other words, beware that virtual lawyers may be online because they were not successful enough to open up their own firm or join an established firm. This could affect the quality of service you receive, so do your research.

Zachary B Setzer points out, “There are two primary benefits of using a virtual lawyer. First, the lawyer fees are usually far less than a client would expect to pay going to a brick-and-mortar law firm. Second, the client doesn’t have to physically go to the law firm to meet with the lawyer. Many people are intimidated by the thought of going to a law office. Others find it more convenient to save time and travel cost. Some clients are do-it-yourselfers who want to take care of their legal matter on their own but just need a little bit of help from a licensed attorney. Any of these types of people can be well served by a virtual law office.”

Attorney Setzer lays out some of the top benefits of working with a virtual lawyer: both for their cost savings and for their convenience.

Shari Shore adds, “Many lawyers and/or law firms are setting up virtual interfaces to allow easy communication access for consultations and quick questions, as well as payment options or distribution of materials; yet they still have a brick and mortar office and can interact with you in person if it is necessary or more suitable to the situation.”

Hybrid virtual and physical law firms are definitely emerging. Attorney Shore explains that quick interactions can be accomplished online, but the in-person option is still available for more complicated legal matters.

In the end, choosing to work with a virtual lawyer can have benefits and drawbacks depending on the client’s need. Be certain that you are working with an accredited lawyer before embarking on a virtual relationship. And above all, work with a firm (virtual or traditional) that you feel will best serve your interests in your case.

47 Responses

  1. @johngault

    I will look into your request—thanks.

  2. @carie – I don’t disagree with anything you say because, well, I don’t really get it except the false default a little. Did you read my comments to you at “Is banksruptcy the only way out” post at 10:51 and 11:11? When I read things, generally cases, and your argument about false default comes to mind, I try to apply what I’ve just read to what you say, and what I was trying to do in my comments is to give the bad acts their legal names. It seems to me that if a loan has been put in false default, it’s been converted, for instance. Anon must be very bright and persistant, but she doesn’t have a law degree, just like the rest of us, and I quite honestly can’t get the gist of what is being said most of the time. It’s language I personally don’t understand and some of it’s me and some isn’t, imo. I know a lot of people who are very talented in their fields, but couldn’t explain how to fix a leaky faucet even it they’re plumbers. Imo, to explain how to fix “your” leaky faucet, you have to give the acts names, because that’s what the legal system demands. There seems to me a constant attempt at explanation of the mechanics of what happened, but what is its name? Is it conversion? Is it fraud? Is it unjust enrichment? Is it theft? Do the acts fall under RICO? A and B were done which as to the homeowner (the note and dot) means X because “…….”? Can I make a suggestion? Can you and anon or whomever try to frame your arguments as if you are filing a complaint and link it? Maybe that would give those of us interested in your arguments a better understanding. I’ve said often the false default used in subprime loans is not my thing, but I’m nonetheless interested enough to wade thru a well-writtten articulation of the acts framed as a complaint. fwiw. Just a thought. If anon can’t frame the legal arguments herself, then she needs help from the legal field. I know of some attorneys who have the smarts for the mission ( I think) and I would give you the names, but she’d have to be the one to see if they’d participate generically and the only ref to me she could make is that I said I admire their work, again fwiw, which might not be much.

  3. “You’re not worth my wasting one more minute”

    Then PLEASE don’t, your highness.

  4. For Gods sake, @enraged—I have absolutely nothing to gain by lying about an email being opened. I seriously have no idea what you are talking about—I never got an email from you…I’m looking at both my accounts right now and there is nothing from you.

    I am so glad you are going to let this go—but since you continue to lie about what I did or did not do with regards to my foreclosure, once again I will set the record straight because you can’t seem to let it sink into your thick skull.

    I did what I did for the sake of the well-being of my family. You don’t knoweverything that happened in my life to cause me to make the choices that I did…and it’s none of your business anyway. It had nothing to do with being a “coward”—which you love to call me—I weighed options and took the best one for my family, and some of the decisions had to do with courts in the STATE that I live in.

    I and my family are very happy with our lives. I made the right decisions. And if I want to enter into some kind of lawsuit with the entities that stole my home—well that’s my business.

    I will continue to post the TRUTH that ANONYMOUS has found out—because I think it is very important. I’m not giving legal advice—I’m just sharing the truth.

    @enraged, I hope you are sincere when you say you will let this foolishness go and finally stop with the harrassing.

    Please do.

  5. “What the hell are you talking about, @enraged?”

    You’re lying, once again. I know it and you know it. That e-mail was confirmed received and opened. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve amply proved yourself. I will, however, continue to set the record straight. You lost your house because you refused to defend your foreclosure and you simply walked away. All you know is how to lose by folding like a cheap suit.

    You’re not worth my wasting one more minute addressing your stupidity. Case closed.

  6. keep on posting everyone, but you all are some crazy biatches

  7. Thank you, @papergate—I for one will keep posting the truth…even if I am repeatedly told to stop, and bullied by @enraged.

  8. “I realize that that e-mail I sent you earlier”

    What the hell are you talking about, @enraged? I never got an email from you—I just got home, and I checked both of my email accounts…nothing from you. You are really losing it.

  9. @Pagergate, there is no Failure or Loses for those who Fight a Long and Hard War for the Right Causes. Stand True to yourself and be Honest with yourself and others.Those who fight the Good War and Play By the Rules will always come out a Winner. There is Nothing in Life Worth Having Unless Its Worth Working and Fighting For! Many Blessings to You!

  10. @enraged

    You’re a complete idiot.

    I will continue to post the truth—you’re the one that needs to get over whatever the hell your problem is—I personally have no idea why you’re so obsessed with what I do here.

    Get over the obsession and get a life.

  11. I’d like to remind all who come here that those who would like to see us fail, are ardently watching and reading and counting on us to fail – our fight is not with each other but with schemes – relentless schemes put into action by financial elite – these are our enemies – it is up to each of us to circle our dens like angry tigers protecting the cubs and souls that reside within them – while jackals and hyenas circle our efforts – hoping to catch us off guard so they can enter and destroy those we mean to protect – keep vigilant – keep your focus on the fight and not each other – that’s exactly what they want us to do. . .

    I find each one of your contributions to this site so incredibly vital – don’t lose your cool – there are thousands out here that need all the ammo they can get – it’s been a long couple of years – we’re getting punchy and frustrated to no end – no one to rely on – our commander in chief has let us down – our authoritative ‘cops’ have abandoned us – we’ve been sister soldiers protecting our nests together these past few years – no two cases are alike – so one’s set of comments may be apropos or help one – while another set of comments benefit another – but none of us will win if you lose sight now.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I would genuinely be weakened by the loss of any of you and your insightful comments to this site. It does not matter who is or is not right on the money or exacting – this is a new war and frontier in our history with no past to help or guide us even attorneys – thus all your comments, research, knowledge, intuition, etc., is needed and greatly appreciated. . .

  12. Let go of it Carie. I realize that that e-mail I sent you earlier, proving that, indeed, I am in constant contact with Anonymous is a real slap in your face. You deserved it. You asked for it.

    Get over it and grow up.

  13. …and haughtiness will get us nowhere.

  14. “Expect this issue also to suddenly be of paramount importance in next week’s final presidential debate.” (Zerohedge)

    Many small minds posting here have absolutely no idea of what is really going on worldwide. It has nothing to do with foreclosures and never did. Foreclosures are only part of the global upset, upheaval or change for the better (whichever way you want to look at it).

    China’s CNPC begins oil production in Afghanistan

    By Hamid Shalizi
    updated 10/21/2012 9:25:00 AM ET

    AMU DARYA, Afghanistan (Reuters) – A Chinese firm has started extracting oil from the Amu Darya basin in northern Afghanistan, mining officials said, a key moment in the country’s quest to pay its own way.

    Afghanistan signed a 25-year contract with National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) last December covering drilling and a planned refinery in the northern provinces of Faryab and Sar-e-Pul. It is the first major oil production in the country.

    “The company will extract 1,950 barrels per day, which will crucially help Afghanistan towards self-sustainability and economic independence,” mining minister Wahidullah Shahrani told Reuters on Sunday as huge machines started drilling next to mud houses in remote Sar-e-Pul.

    The venture with CNPC, which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars, was expected to produce billions of dollars over the next two decades – CNPC will pay a 15 percent royalty on oil, 20 percent corporate tax and give 50-70 percent of its profit from the project to the government.

    From January 1, CNPC will extract 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, Shahrani said. Up to 87 million barrels of crude are estimated to be in Amu Darya.

  15. Wow–your envious bitchy ego is showing, enraged.

    Yes, I do have her blessing and I talk to her all the time…no skin off my nose if you don’t believe it.

    Get a life.

  16. And Carie,

    Last I checked… with no other than Anonymous, mind you, she never asked you to be her mouthpiece. Get another mission. Like doing your primitive artwork or something…

  17. I post her info because she can’t…”

    Don’t flatter yourself. She can. She willfully stopped posting by choice and because she has better things to do.

    People who don’t fight their own battles have no business telling others how to do it. And people who do have other things to do than sympathize with your self-inflicted plight and taking sides in your ridiculous, substanceless, epistolary wars.

    Grow up.

  18. ANONYMOUS has the proof—undeniable concrete proof—and is working behind the scenes to expose it—however she can.

  19. Anybody can post stuff from somebody … but without proof to back it up, its just stuffing. You have lots of that Stuff … is it the only thing in your Diet?

  20. Also, SC—what I posted doesn’t say that borrowers bought bonds…read it again…nowhere does it say that.

  21. @SC

    Everything I post was written by ANONYMOUS. Not me.

    The person that @enraged described as :

    “..It is Anonymous, the holder of an MBA in finance, a former college professor and someone who’s been fighting this fight for about 10 years…”

    I post her info because she can’t…if you don’t like it—go do something else with your time.

  22. Carie, when are you going to stop saying that borrowers did not buy Junk Bonds? Tell the Truth …. Borrowers Did Not Buy any Bonds! Your Little Charade running all over this site using Iwantmynpv s name is nothing more than your self-centered Attention Seeking True Self Showing. Do you know what Scarasim is? Knock! Knock! Anybody Home? NO!!! Everyone here with any common sense is still HOME and Laughing their Butts Off … a few pounds at a time. Who Needs Weight Watchers when we have You?

  23. (okay, @enraged—whatever you say…you’re the perfect genius.)

    Moving on:

    ANSWER to @iwantmynvp:

    “…First, borrowers did not buy junk bonds. The bonds are junk because they were derived from JUNK loans.

    That is, loans already charged-off by the GSEs. (there is concrete proof of this). Subprime refinances were not valid mortgages – they were mods of classified default/non-compliant debt, which is why the subprime “bonds” were junk.

    Borrowers are only considered as in default with GSEs, not the servicer and/or “investor,” because the servicer advanced payment to GSE and refinanced the GSE default loan (the JUNK).

    Agree that hedge funds were not duped.

    Anyone who actually read the prospectus to the subprime REMICs would understand that the “loans” being securitized were high risk with highly questionable compliance.

    Hedge funds are considered sophisticated investors – it is not good enough to say you did not read the prospectus. Further, the mezzanine tranches to the subprime trusts were sold FIRST to the hedge funds. These mezzanine tranches provided the credit enhancement to the higher tranches, which the banks retained themselves.

    By the nature of the structure of the REMIC itself, the mezzanine tranches were considered high risk. It is through these tranches that the collection rights are swapped out of the trusts.

    Thus, since the mezzanine tranches required little capital for investment, these tranches provided the hedge funds, and other distressed debt buyers, to make a nice profit by acquiring collection rights, dirt cheap, for a property they counted on eventually acquiring.

    Hedge funds are not stupid, they know a bargain when they see one. ..”

  24. “…attack on true and tried theories”

    Sure—that’ll work.”

    It does. for people who actually do it. Then again, how would you know…?

  25. Must be tough to live life while feeling constantly persecuted and with the need to constantly explain and justify one’s self…

    Grow up Carie.

  26. “…attack on true and tried theories”

    Sure—that’ll work.


    I will KEEP POSTING the TRUTH of what ANONYMOUS (with her blessing, by the way—as she can’t post here anymore herself) HAS DISCOVERED.

    Take the information and do what you like with it…I am not here to give legal advice.

    I DON’T CARE what @enraged says.

    I find it highly suspicious that @enraged is trying to discredit the TRUTH…what could her real motives be? These questions must be asked…I believe she is working for someone who doesn’t want the truth out…her behavior doesn’t make sense otherwise…or, she could just be an egomaniac who simply resents people who don’t think and act exactly like she does.

    @enraged is a bully and for some reason constantly attacks me for posting the information I know is the truth—and that is extremely suspicious. She apparently doesn’t want the truth out in the open, for whatever reason—and ANONYMOUS has found the truth—so it needs to be out there.

    I will never stop. Ever. It’s too important.

    (and whatever I did with regards to my own situation, was soley for the well being of my family—and @enraged has made it her mission to make up lies about me…very suspicious indeed.)

  28. Reports such as this one keep coming. I don’t know what to make of it: so, I will choose to see it as a positive sign that things are moving in the right direction. Too many bankers are alleged to have “committed suicide” lately.

    FROM: Santa Barbara Independent

    The Mysterious Case of Christopher Marks
    Vintner Found Dead One Month Ago, but Authorities Still Don’t Know Why

    Thursday, October 18, 2012

    It’s been one month since the body of Christopher Marks was found on the beach below Shoreline Park, but authorities are still puzzled as to what circumstances led to the death of the 60-year-old Santa Barbara County vintner and investment advisor.

    The Santa Barbara Police Department and the FBI ​— ​called in to conduct an extensive underwater search on October 3 ​— ​will only confirm that the death was suspicious, which points to either homicide or suicide, and that the specific cause was blunt force trauma to the head, which is what the family has been told. Meanwhile, others with knowledge of the case have told The Santa Barbara Independent that Marks was shot in the back of the head, but authorities have not yet verified that claim.

    While blunt force trauma remains consistent with a fall from the cliffs at Shoreline ​— ​which was the initial hunch until the autopsy came back suggesting otherwise ​— ​those familiar with police forensics say that such trauma can also describe injuries caused by a gunshot wound. Given that the police and FBI spent at least two days scouring the sands, surf, and cliff sides with metal detectors, there is strong reason to believe that the authorities are searching for metallic evidence, suggesting that a gun or weapon of some sort was employed, self-inflicted or otherwise.

    The Marks family remains largely in the dark and continues to wonder why the beloved father of five ​— ​who owned and operated Sweeney Canyon Vineyard since 1981 and was a partner in the Marks Theriot Walston & Co. investment firm in Los Angeles ​— ​is gone. In an extensive interview with The Independent last week, son Casey Marks said that his father seemingly vanished from his Vista Del Pueblo condo that Wednesday night, September 19, leaving his laptop open, cell phones on the table, and truck in the driveway. “It literally looked like he was picked up from the apartment and dropped in the ocean,” said Marks, who is 27 years old and works at Fidelity Investments on upper State Street.

    “Earlier that day, he delivered wine to the Bacara, and that evening we had a 15-minute conversation about pouring at the Rancho Sisquoc harvest festival and barbecuing for a Teddy Bear Cancer Foundation fundraiser,” said Marks. “Twelve hours later, he was dead.” When found on the beach, Christopher Marks, witnesses say, was wearing slacks, a button-up shirt, and shoes or sandals. “He wasn’t a walker, and he wasn’t a drinker, so the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense,” said Marks, noting the coroner is still in possession of his father’s body, wallet, and wedding ring.

  29. Johngault,

    It is not Carie writing. It is Anonymous, the holder of an MBA in finance, a former college professor and someone who’s been fighting this fight for about 10 years. Her situation has never been a straight foreclosure and it started out in a completely unrelated manner. She fully realizes and agrees that very, very few judges have the ability to understand her arguments (hence the pickle she’s been in for 10 years) and she would never advise anyone to follow her, especially as a pro se.

    Carie is pushing people to tread on unchartered terrain she, herself, hasn’t had the guts to tread and inciting people to try them, almost as a proxy for her. She keeps doing it over and over and it is simply dishonest and dangerous. Tnharry used to say it (he is an attorney), DCB (an attorney) is still trying to make sense of Carie’s posts. And wins based on securitization keep being extremely rare and not something to “try at home unsupervised”. Then again, this is the same individual who plasters this site with statements to the effect that all lawyers are crooked and incompetent and all they want is your money while all judges are corrupts and sellouts.

    Protect yourself and get an attorney. Then, attack on true and tried theories. And do yourself a favor: take your advice from someone who fought. Not someone who simply regurgitates ad nauseam the same, poorly misunderstood theories enunciated by someone else and from an expert standpoint! Or… end up with the same result!

  30. There have always been FCs and there always will be. If you can pay your mortgage … you can keep your home. If they FF’up you Title, you will get damages if you fight them. If your a Deadbeat or Freeloader …. Pfffft!

  31. When most Judicial States mandated the FC freeze in 2010 ….. It was not out of Kindness in the Hearts …. it was because of the Titles!

  32. John, …. they collect the swaps upon default for themselves and continue to make invester payments.. FNMA does not kick in to pay the investers til after the sale. If the loan was or again became a performing loan …. the Banksters have trouble. They have to payback the Swaps and clear the title … neither of witch they can do. Because they started FC in the Banksters Name without Title and could not complete it …… left LPs on Title for years …. in some cases left Judicial Preceeding in Limbo also … when borrowers thought it was History. Buybacks? Sure they Are! No Sale … No Invester Payoff. Imagine if the homeowner went to Sell or Refi and found out? The Lies and Corruption of our Land Title System Will Stop!

  33. carie said:
    “When anyone advances payments on another party’s behalf — this does NOT mean the borrower is not in default –they are in default to the party that advanced the payments.”
    I don’t personally believe that, as I have argued more than once. Parties who guarantee payments or make payments for any other reason are legally “volunteers” and have no recourse against a note maker. And if someone is making payments, the note’s not in default.

    This link is to my opinions posted in March of 2011 regarding loan guarantee payments and false claims. It’s at my blog at and is called Payment Guarantees by Loan Servicers. I can’t figure out why there hasn’t been more discussion of this issue. The way I get it, the only way to end the guarantee payments is to repurchase the loan (or the rights to payments, whatever was actually sold to the investors). Banksters don’t want to expend the cash, so they skip the repurchase, claim the loan is in default (which it isn’t because of their own payments) and foreclose in the trust’s name (now that they can’t foreclose in MERS’ name), inappropriately using the handier than hell credit bid (when they find it beneficial to foreclose and end their rampant conversion by racking up fees after fees. Monstrous and unconscionable conflicts of interest here. The servicer is often if not always reimbursed by FNMA, but this, too, is kept secret. There is so much crud going on, it’s hard to get or reconcile it all.

  34. IRS names acting commissioner, Doug Shulman steps down

    Doug Shulman
    The Internal Revenue Service said on Wednesday that Steven Miller will become acting head of the tax agency after Doug Shulman, the present commissioner, steps down on November 9.

    Shulman had been expected to resign at the end of his term in early November as head of the 104,000-employee agency that each year collects trillions of dollars in federal tax revenue and enforces the nation’s complex tax laws.

    Miller, IRS deputy commissioner for services and enforcement since September 2009, is a 25-year veteran of the agency.

    The IRS leadership change comes ahead of a turbulent period, with Congress facing several major decisions on taxes as part of the “fiscal cliff” events at year-end. Tax experts have said that delays in issuing tax refunds could result next year.

    Miller’s top challenge will be “navigating next year’s filing season,” said Kevin Brown, a principal at Big Four accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP who was an IRS acting commissioner for several months in 2007.

    “This is the worst set of circumstances that I can remember with the ‘fiscal cliff’ looming,” Brown said, but added that with Miller on the job, “the IRS is in very good hands.”

    The commissioner’s post is a presidential appointment subject to Senate confirmation.

    Shulman, a Democrat appointed to the post under Republican President George W. Bush, has served since March 2008. The IRS did not provide details about Shulman’s next career move.

    Before Shulman was confirmed by the Senate at the start of his term, the IRS was led by two acting commissioners over a transition period of more than nine months.

    The previous Senate-confirmed commissioner was Mark Everson, who stepped down in May 2007.

    Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner praised Miller as a “dedicated career public servant.” The Treasury Department oversees the IRS.

    Treasury and IRS did not say when a nominee for commissioner would be announced. That decision hinges on the outcome of the November 6 presidential election

    IRS Deputy Commissioner Mark Ernst Resigns

    OCTOBER 21, 2010

    Mark Ernst
    Mark Ernst, the former chairman and CEO of H&R Block who went on to become deputy commissioner for operations support at the Internal Revenue Service, will be leaving the IRS later this year, according to an announcement Thursday by IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman.

    Ernst joined the IRS last year after having been chairman and CEO of H&R Block from 1998 to 2007. He left Block to head the venture capital firm Bellevue Capital for two years before joining the IRS.

    “Mark has been a most valued, respected and dedicated member of my leadership team, and he brought a unique perspective and focus to some of our most important initiatives, such as technology modernization, cybersecurity, financial management and workforce issues,” said Shulman. “I want to thank him for his strong contributions to the nation’s tax system, and he will be deeply missed by all of those who had the opportunity to work with him.”

    Shulman noted that Ernst plans to return to the private sector. Succeeding him as deputy commissioner for operations support will be Beth Tucker, who currently serves as deputy commissioner for support in the IRS’s Wage & Income division.

  35. A lot seems to be happening in a very short time in terms of disclosure. The pace is accelerating.

    The End of The New World Order

    Culture shock… the collapse of
    Lehman Brothers ushered in the deepest
    economic crisis since the 1930s.
    Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

    The end of the New World Order

    The upheavals of the early 21st century have changed our world. Now, in the aftermath of failed wars and economic disasters, pressure for a social alternative can only grow

    Seumas Milne
    The Guardian, Friday 19 October 2012 13.00 EDT

    In the late summer of 2008, two events in quick succession signalled the end of the New World Order. In August, the US client state of Georgia was crushed in a brief but bloody war after it attacked Russian troops in the contested territory of South Ossetia.

    The former Soviet republic was a favourite of Washington’s neoconservatives. Its authoritarian president had been lobbying hard for Georgia to join Nato’s eastward expansion. In an unblinking inversion of reality, US vice-president Dick Cheney denounced Russia’s response as an act of “aggression” that “must not go unanswered”. Fresh from unleashing a catastrophic war on Iraq, George Bush declared Russia’s “invasion of a sovereign state” to be “unacceptable in the 21st century”.

    As the fighting ended, Bush warned Russia not to recognise South Ossetia’s independence. Russia did exactly that, while US warships were reduced to sailing around the Black Sea. The conflict marked an international turning point. The US’s bluff had been called, its military sway undermined by the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. After two decades during which it bestrode the world like a colossus, the years of uncontested US power were over.

    Three weeks later, a second, still more far-reaching event threatened the heart of the US-dominated global financial system. On 15 September, the credit crisis finally erupted in the collapse of America’s fourth-largest investment bank. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers engulfed the western world in its deepest economic crisis since the 1930s.

    The first decade of the 21st century shook the international order, turning the received wisdom of the global elites on its head – and 2008 was its watershed. With the end of the cold war, the great political and economic questions had all been settled, we were told. Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism had triumphed. Socialism had been consigned to history. Political controversy would now be confined to culture wars and tax-and-spend trade-offs.

    In 1990, George Bush Senior had inaugurated a New World Order, based on uncontested US military supremacy and western economic dominance. This was to be a unipolar world without rivals. Regional powers would bend the knee to the new worldwide imperium. History itself, it was said, had come to an end.

    But between the attack on the Twin Towers and the fall of Lehman Brothers, that global order had crumbled. Two factors were crucial. By the end of a decade of continuous warfare, the US had succeeded in exposing the limits, rather than the extent, of its military power. And the neoliberal capitalist model that had reigned supreme for a generation had crashed.

  36. Why did banker with perfect life take a fatal leap? Fourth tragedy at same City restaurant

    Nico Lambrechts posted this tropical holiday photo online three weeks ago
    But 46-year-old investment analyst fell 80ft to his death from Coq d’Argent
    The Investec Asset Management worker landed next to diners in London who were enjoying lunch at cafes and bars
    His wife Adele is too distressed to talk but neighbours said they were baffled

    By Arthur Martin and Lucy Osborne

    PUBLISHED: 18:13 EST, 17 October 2012 | UPDATED: 07:00 EST,
    He appeared to have the perfect life. Pictured on a recent tropical holiday, Nico Lambrechts looked a relaxed and contented family man as he posed with his wife.

    But less than three weeks after he posted this photograph on the internet, the investment analyst fell 80ft to his death from an exclusive open-air restaurant in London.

    The successful 46-year-old took a lift to Sir Terence Conran’s Coq d’Argent at lunchtime and then fell through the atrium within the building.

    He landed next to diners who were enjoying lunch at cafes and bars in a shopping complex at the bottom of the building in the City.

    Medics reached him within minutes but were unable to save him. He was pronounced dead by a doctor at the scene minutes later.

    Mr Lambrechts is thought to have made the short walk to the restaurant from his office at Investec Asset Management in the Square Mile.

    Last night neighbours said they were baffled as to why a devoted family man would want to potentially commit suicide.

    His wife Adele was too distressed to talk about her loss.

    But a neighbour said: ‘He was a really great guy.’

    When asked about the reason behind the possible suicide, he said: ‘You never know. He was a random man, unpredictable – you know.’

    Mr Lambrechts lived with his wife and three children in a £2million six-bedroom gated home in the upmarket town of Cobham, Surrey.

    He took his family on luxury holidays to destinations such as Venice.

    The banker’s death last week is the fourth to have occurred at the restaurant and the second in as many months.

    In May 2007, City employee Richard Ford, 33, died after he plunged from the terrace onto a bus.

    In July 2009 stockbroker Anjool Malde, 24, leapt to his death from the venue holding a glass of champagne after being suspended from his job at Deutsche Bank.

    And last month diners watched in horror as businesswoman Rema Begum, 29, took a sip of wine from her glass on the outdoor terrace, before putting her handbag on the floor and then toppling over the edge.

    Read more:


    “…Neil should be providing services to trace what happened to the money at the borrowers last refinance (and/or subprime purchase).

    Neil has a big problem if he is only looking at the securitization of the last refinance.

    Neil must look to the securitization related to the property PRIOR to the last refinance.

    Is Neil going to check THAT securitization??

    Is Neil going to corroborate with the SEC to insure that the last refinance paid off the trust that the supposed PRIOR loan was securitized into — PRIOR to the last refinance, PRIOR to the foreclosure in question??

    If not, his services are severely flawed…”

  38. When the same idea is repeated over and over, eventually, it becomes reality. First, it is timidly implemented in small pockets of population (Ireland, Iceland). Then, it spreads, once it has become obvious that it works. It’s only a question of time before it is implemented here.

    Professor Richard D. Wolff

    With individual debt being a significant cause of the present economic crisis, what effect would individuals getting completely out of debt have on the present crisis?

    Many religions have, at least in earlier times, supported the idea of “jubilee,” when all debts were erased and also a time when property such as land was re-divided so everyone could restart their productive lives on a more or less equal footing. Jubilees would happen every 20 or 50 years. The logic behind jubilee was is clear: unequal economic starting points tend toward producing greater inequality. Those with wealth like those who lend tend to use their capital to make it grow while those without wealth or in debt tend to slip further behind.

    Every community must choose between allowing debt inequality to become worse – and suffering the consequences that include resentments, envies, social tensions and conflicts – or else endorsing periodic jubilees or making other social changes to prevent the recurrence of debt inequalities. Among such changes would be reorganizing enterprises producing the good and services we depend on. Suppose workers would become their own bosses, their own board of directors. That would end the structural inequality between wage earners and profit earners, itself one key cause of debt inequality.

    Cutting individual debts now would be a problem for creditors and a blessing for debtors. Given who are the debtors and creditors in the US today, my view is that a debt forgiveness – if fairly distributed among the debtors and matched with help also given to those who struggled to avoid debt – could be a major boost to the US economy at a time when that is badly needed. But debt forgiveness should also be accompanied by social changes that could preclude repetition of debt, debt inequality, and jubilees in the future.

  39. “…did servicer advance payments or not? Only ledgers will tell — and both servicers and securities trustees MUST have those ledgers.

    Because if they did not advance as required by PSA — then the “security investor” argument as creditor is immediately quashed — even without application of TILA Amendment as to defined Creditor.

    If they did advance — then loan not in default — but then have to apply — security investors are not the creditor. When anyone advances payments on another party’s behalf — this does NOT mean the borrower is not in default –they are in default to the party that advanced the payments.

    Of course, servicers rarely act on their own behalf — they act on behalf of someone else — the current “investor/creditor.” — And, that is why the creditor definition must be introduced.

    Courts that continue to apply antiquated law to subprime securitization — otherwise called — the advent of fraud — are simply not “educated.” They need to educated. And, if not plead properly — court will “simplify” for its own convenience. .

    Now — why the need for such secrecy at closings and by MERS as “nominee.” A reason for this — and that is why you have to have all “loan” accounting prior to the “refinance” in question.

    Due to passage of time and discovery difficulties —this can be a problem ascertaining — but, not impossible — and is definitely — available. .
    Once you get this Neil — you will have nailed it.

    FRAUD — BEGETS Fraud .”

    also—for @iwantmynvp

    “…First, “certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid.

    There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.

    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults,(YES THEY WERE), no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans).

    The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders.

    Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator).

    This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.

    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default.

    However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone.

    That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.”

    (FYI—all this stuff I’ve been posting is from our friend ANONYMOUS—but then, you all knew this.)

  40. “There is a growing groundswell of informed opinion among modern commentators and even some politicians that financial regulators should be far more willing to bring criminal charges against those financial practitioners whose actions should be construed as more than just negligent or incompetent.

    I have never understood why ‘white collar’ criminals should be treated any differently from any other criminals, but the fact remains that they are treated differently, and it has been so for many years. The phenomenon was first recorded in a book entitled White Collar Crime by the American criminologist Edwin Sutherland, published in 1949. He pointed out that

    “There is a consistent bias involved in the administration of criminal justice under laws which apply to business and the professions and which therefore involve only the upper socio-economic group…”

    In White Collar Crime, Sutherland argued that the behaviour of ‘respectable’ people, from the upper socio-economic class, frequently exhibits all the essential attributes of crime, but that it is rarely dealt with as such. This situation had arisen, he said, from the tendency for systems of criminal justice in Western societies to favour certain economically and politically powerful groups and to disfavour others — notably the poor and unskilled who comprise the bulk of the visibly criminal population. He added:-

    “Probably much more important however, is the cultural homogeneity of legislators, judges and administrators with businessmen. Legislators admire and respect businessmen and cannot conceive of them as ‘criminals’; businessmen do not conform to the popular stereotype of the ‘criminal..”


  41. Just a year ago, Ron Paul announced it. Since then, the same policies have been kept in place to artificially jack up the dollar.

    I have been predicting it over and over and advised everyone to get your money out and stock up in non-perishable. (Something to do with understanding world cultures, history and that America is not the center of the universe or the standard by which humanity functions and the world survives…)

    You are looking at it crumble. And it will crumble, make no mistake about it. Why do you think the Dow closed so low yesterday and gas prices have taken such a dive?

  42. “There is a limit to how many times we can bail out the dollar… 1% or no interest loans to the banks encouraged the moral hazard we’ve been seeing… inflation is a tax… the federal reserve creates inflation artificially and has become the biggest tax collector in the world… Fortunately, we’ve been exporting the dollar everywhere but now, countries have stopped buying it. What we’ve created was a dollar bubble. All it’s going to take for the American economy to completely tank is for countries not only to stop buying our dollars but to dump it back on our lap and I think that’s what we are looking at in the near future…”

    Funny. Takes a country MD to gather enough common sense and spell it like it is. All those attorneys in WS and government officials don’t seem to have the elementary understanding required to even approach a solution… Virtual or real, attorneys threw us in the sewer. Don’t expect them to pull us out: they can’t.

    Sad to say, the only ones able to pull us out are the military. And that’s exactly what is in the works…

  43. I’ve learned my lesson on hiring an attorney through internet and not once had face to face. Thank god they are off the case, and am pro se, they didn’t do the right thing to protect me and have been pro se since.

  44. Follow up:

    “…First, servicer only acquires collection rights on behalf of the investor/current creditor – servicer is not the creditor.

    A servicer cannot acquire any interest when they are acting as a servicer for another.

    Second, any refinance that was conducted under the guise of a mortgage refinance when, in fact, it was just a modification of a (false) prior default, with the prior mortgage never validly discharged, is not a mortgage refinance at all.
    And, therefore, the note fails to fall under the UCC as no negotiable note actually exists.

    This was the root cause that exploded the financial crisis.

    Notes were not notes at all — and foreign investors knew it — but, US has refused to investigate.

    It is why investor lawsuits are settling, but homeowners got nothing more than a bogus 49 state Attorney General settlement — all without investigation. (Settlements do not divulge the fraud).

    Yes, correct, the role that servicers actually occupy is — concealed. Servicers will not disclose WHO they are actually servicing for and this is from the onset of the fictitious refinance to the fraudulent foreclosure in question.

    Deregulation has allowed servicers to publicly withhold any information that discloses the actual creditor.

    In fact, disclosure would disclose that the note in question is not a valid UCC instrument but, actually, a modification of the PRIOR mortgage/note.

    Courts run scared. All they need to hear is the name of bank and they accept this falsity.

    It does not matter what false capacity that bank is appearing in — including as trustee to a fraudulent trust that holds false and invalid mortgage loans, notes (and UCC instruments). .

    The Court hears “bank” in name, especially with “NA” attached, and they believe it is valid. This is simply not so.

    Court is not given the opportunity to hear the evidence that the subprime refinance was orchestrated under fraud, and that no valid UCC instrument exists, and that the “Bank”, “NA”, and/or servicer, is NOT the creditor.

    Further, under federal law, which preempts state law when there is conflict, the CURRENT creditor must be identified.

    Servicers are not the creditor if assignment is executed for the ministerial purpose of administering a foreclosure action. No legal rights transferred under this scenario.

    Time for attorneys to wake up. Start digging at records, and pursue records disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as to the GSEs. This may take a federal action to enforce. But, would clearly win on this as it involves the borrowers’ right to the those records.

    When Neil finally understands that this is about homeowner victims, and not “investors”, we may finally get somewhere. Until Neil realizes this, we will remain without media help.

    Neil’s allegiance is not on the same page. And, any help to homeowners is bogus — unless the truth is told.

    Help without the truth is simply a continuation of the fraud.

    Modify??? Not without disclosure of ALL records. To do so without disclosure – is to continue the fraud.

    Fraud upon the court. No Statute of Limitations for that.”

  45. The Wheels of Justice go Round and Round, Round and Round. Slow thou …. Thank You for Posting!

  46. Former GE execs get prison terms in bid-rigging case

    By James O’Toole @CNNMoney October 18, 2012: 6:47 PM ET

    The three men sentenced Thursday formerly worked in General Electric’s GE Capital unit.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — A trio of former financial executives from General Electric are headed to prison after being found guilty of defrauding taxpayers in the municipal bond market.

    The men are the first to be sentenced as part of the government’s ongoing investigation of bid-rigging in auctions for the investment of municipal bond proceeds by some of Wall Street’s biggest firms. The probe has yielded 20 indictments so far, with defendants coming from institutions including Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan (JPM, Fortune 500) and UBS (UBS).

    The three men sentenced Thursday formerly worked at General Electric’s (GE, Fortune 500) GE Capital unit, where prosecutors say they colluded with counterparts at other firms to rip off bond issuers. Two men — Dominick Carollo and Peter Grimm — received three years in prison, while the third, Steven Goldberg, got four years.

    Prosecutors had requested 10 years in prison for Carollo, as well as up to 12 years for Grimm and 17 for Goldberg.

    How the scheme worked: When states and local governments issue bonds, they usually don’t spend all the proceeds right away. To figure out how to invest the extra money, they hire brokers who manage a bidding process among financial institutions competing for their business.

    Bids are solicited from firms like UBS and JPMorgan, which submit the interest rates they’re willing to offer on the extra bond proceeds. The winning institution, generally, is the one that offers the highest rate of return.

    In cases like that of the former GE executives, prosecutors say the process was corrupted when executives from different firms conspired with one another, dividing up business in advance and devising their bids in cooperation, a practice known as bid-rigging. This allowed the winning bidders to offer issuers lower rates of return than they would have secured through an honest process.

    Read the rest here:

  47. This is Just my Opinion of Course .. Virtual Lawyers? Was it not Virtual Banks that got us in Trouble? Have we not learned that if you can not conduct business face to face …. you shouldnt be doing it? But I am Just a Silly and Simple Person … so What Do I Know?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: