Your Pitch to a Prospective Lawyer

I keep receiving the same question about finding  a lawyer. People are seeking lawyers that have come to the same conclusions that I have written about on these pages. There are very few of them. A common question is whether I can recommend the lawyer that shares my philosophy. Here is my answer:

The first thing to remember is that I don’t deal in philosophy. My philosophy is the pursuit of justice. It’s also the pursuit of truth. I know that sounds corny, but that’s all I’m about. Most attorneys share my philosophy contrary to what you have indicated. But it is also true that most attorneys lack the time or motivation to do the research on this very complicated area of litigation. Therefore they apply legal standards that can and do lead to erroneous conclusions.

Convincing a lawyer is the same as convincing a judge. You start with the fact that what you are saying is counter-intuitive. The lawyer and the judge both believe they already know what is happening. Somebody is suing in foreclosure in order to create restitution for an unpaid debt. Convincing them otherwise requires careful research, analysis and preparation for a very persuasive presentation.

So if you’re looking for a lawyer that already knows what I know and who has already done the research, analysis and preparation for court, and who has won in court based on the essential premise that the party claiming foreclosure had no right to do so, you are not going to find many people. It’s not fair but it is a fact. Instead of looking for that you should be looking for a lawyer who is open-minded enough to join a telephone conference with me where I explain how I have won these cases.

Your pitch to the prospective lawyer should not be whether they agree with me, but rather whether they are open to being convinced by me in the same way that I have convinced judges in hundreds of cases. Lawyers don’t like to lose cases. Your job and mine is to convince them that they will win and to give them the motivation and tools to do so. Let the prospective lawyer sit in judgment on your case with the bias that you are trying to get out of a legitimate debt and to get a free house.

The lawyer, like any judge, will resist the possibility of a defense that results in a windfall to a homeowner. And it is probably true that neither the lawyer or any judge will fully accept the notion that in today’s judicial context, the windfalls are all going to participants in illegal foreclosures sought in the pursuit of money for revenue and not money to pay a debt. For most lawyers and judges, that is a bridge too far. They just can’t see how that could be true. It’s only if you happen to get a judge or a lawyer who has a background of investment banking that they will understand how that is possible.

Lawyers and judges are just people like you and me. They come to your case and view it through the lens of their own history, experiences and training. In that context it is safe to say that they would rather see an outcome rewarding the players initiating a foreclosure than allow a borrower to end up on the winning side of the dispute, even if that means that the parties involved in making the claim have misbehaved and are using fabricated documents that have been forged, backdated and robosigned.

I’m telling you this not because I think your task is Mission impossible but rather to give you are realistic view of the uphill climb involved in persuading a lawyer, a judge or just another human being that you are on solid ground – legally, ethically and morally.

It can be done and I’ve done it. But to be honest, in all cases where I have been successful, the judge was ruling on the basis of deficiencies in the proof of the prima facie case for the party named as claiming the foreclosure. The judge may have ruled that way because he or she was convinced that the wrong party had brought suit. But they certainly were not embracing the notion that there was no claim on the debt because there was no existing creditor.

So the general strategy is to shoot for the stars and accept a landing on the moon.

23 Responses

  1. Yes – Java — And, Bob G — good work. And, you know – goes very deep. You know. You know exactly what is going on.

    Going through hell. Hope Neil will help get public as soon as I give Ok.

    Thanks!!!

  2. I believe the Storm doth protest too much …,

  3. I guess that settles that. The conflicts herein certainly lend themselves to some clarity. Silver lining appears…everyone is entitled to the truth. My opinion, the truth will show me the path to succeeding, no matter where it comes from.

  4. Bob G., you clearly have a lot more sense than mental lightweight junior.

    I warned Plofchan not to mention my conversation with the lawyer, who told me about the cozy relationship between the othersides’ lawyer and the judge; he refused to give me his name, hence we had no way to prove it; and not only that he would deny it if asked–not surprising.

    Furthermore, after we eventually won our case and the Bar’s complaint against Plofchan, the Bar removed it from the Bar’s website:
    https://www.vsb.org/attorney/searchResults.asp?firstname=Thomas&lastname=Plofchan%2C+Jr.&search=D&type=D&submit=Search

    This clown junior, obviously a “useful idiot” for Garfield went to an awful lot of trouble looking up Plofchan in an effort to try and discredit my reputation. And all I’ve done is provide dozens of cases that proves these legal illiterates have no clue what they’re talking about. That should worry everyone!

  5. Junior is another clown that attacks the messenger. Actually, we eventually won our case after it was proven the witnesses in the case were lying; and also won the bar complaint case based on the pleadings I wrote. So, you have no clue what you’re talking about. We are highly regarded in the legal field.

    Neil Garfield on the other hand is known as an incompetent kook. And it is he who has never won a foreclosure case. Moreover, the Florida bar nailed him for ripping off homeowners:

    Neil Franklin Garfield, Parkland, to be publicly reprimanded. (Admitted to practice: 1977) In at least four instances, Garfield accepted money to represent clients and failed to follow through. In one case, Garfield did not perform the work and, when asked for a refund, denied knowing the client. In other cases, he failed to communicate, charged excessive fees, failed to return refunds upon request and failed to timely respond to Bar inquiries.

    There are plenty of people that saved their homes using the services of MFE. Because of a non-disclosure agreement, we’re prohibited from identifying and talking about client’s cases without their permission; but plenty have given their permission as evidenced by homeowners testimonials and the lawyers who use our services have stated in press releases. Garfield doesn’t even have that to back him up.

    Moreover, never said standing wasn’t a defense, said it was a stall tactic; because the bank comes back with standing and takes the property, because the homeowner has no other defense. Obviously this mental lightweight doesn’t know that. Sounds like he got scammed and is a sore loser.

    You should know what you’re talking about before you spread scammer lies.

  6. @JUNIOR – PART 3

    First, let me apologize for the typos in part 2.

    more substantively, however, it should be noted in all fairness to Mr. Bradford, that the disciplinary proceeding that you cited resulted in sanctions against Mr. Bradford’s atty, and not Mr. Bradford personally, even if Mr. Bradford was somewhat responsible. The atty got tagged for not digging deeper into his client’s accusations, before they atty repeated those accusations.

  7. @ JUNION…PART 2

    The federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with you. In the first Slop decision the court said:

    “If Bank of America had no right to file the foreclosure action, it makes no difference whether Slorp previously had defaulted on his mortgage.”

    See Slorp v. Lerner, Sampson et al.

  8. @JUNIOR

    Pretty good exposition. I would say one thing, though, and that is to keep in mind that every jurisdiction is different. For example, here in NY, if you don’t challenge standing in the trial court, you’ve waived it when you get to the appellate court.

    If you can get past the P’s motion for summary judgment, you will get a trial. Here’s where you can get some traction.

    The P will have to bring in a real human to testify, typically someone from the servicer. P’s atty will put his witness on the stand, and then you will get to cross examine the guy. But you can only cross him on what he has testified to on direct.

    So here’s what you do. You call the servicer guy AS YOUR WITNESS, and you request that you get to treat him or her as a “hostile” witness. The court will grant your request, because he’s the P’s witness and surely is hostile to your defense.

    Now you get to run the show and drive the bus, and because the guy is a hostile witness, you can also lead him just like you would on cross examination. And if you know the law, the facts, and what is going on behind the curtain, you can show that the guy doesn’t know jack shit.

  9. Storm — according to Americold — servicer can only act on authority from the trustee if a traditional trust. Are you saying these are NOT traditional trusts?

  10. ah, here we go again with the infamous Storm Bradford…AKA Norman Bradford. The guy that talks in circles….declares over and over again ad nauseum that he knows how to win, yet cannot cite even one case, under any jurisdiction, where he specifically used his “wisdom” to help a homeowner save their home. Not for lack of asking…I’ve seen people ask Storm since at least 2010 or so to provide such an example….he cannot and does not. Mr. Bradford does, however, have a history of being involved in false claims against both opposing counsel and a sitting judge, as evidenced by the below link….

    https://www.vsb.org/disciplinary_orders/plofchan_opinion.pdf

    Bradford’s attorney was publicly reprimanded as a result of Ol’ Stormin’ Norman’s claim.

    It’s amazing how Norman used to operate a property moving business, was forced to declare bankruptcy, and has not shown success anywhere else in the business world….and has reportedly even claimed at times to be an attorney….but most certainly is not. And he can talk a whirlwind of crap though….telling you about general principles and cases he had literally no connection to, but claiming that his research and hard work won those cases even when his name is nowhere close to it.

    All told, over nearly a decade of watching people ask Norman for proof of his claims about his so-called success, and not seeing him being able to respond with even one case that shows he consulted on it, here we are. He’s not an attorney. He cannot show evidence of even a single case that he consulted on where the homeowner won as a result of his consulting. But he sure talks a lot. For what its worth, he even has made some statements that most of us would basically agree on–but that’s not evidence of anything because we all have seen plenty of cases where things like securitization arguments fail, and so on. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. I’d still like to see actual cases where Stormin’ Norman consulted and his consulting actually led to the win. He has a history of challenging people like Neil Garfield, asking to see even one case that was won using those concepts…but he cannot provide a single case of his own? Interesting….

    On a final note for now, the existence of a contract is not the end-all of the issue. STANDING is the issue. If Norm makes a contract with you, and then I show up, with no standing, to sue you over that contract, then the existence of a contract is moot because there is no standing to act on said contract. The only party that can enforce the contract is a party specifically entitled to enforce as defined by law. If you can show that the party attempting to enforce has no standing to enforce, then nothing in that contract matters to the case because they are without legal standing to act upon it. Standing is so vital that it can be challenged at any time during litigation, up to and including on appeal even if it was never brought up in the trial court. Standing is vital–without standing, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction and by law only has the authority to choose not to hear the case/dismiss. Don’t let Norm fool you with a list of a dozen or more cases that he literally had zero involvement in. Standing is essential. Attack the standing where appropriate. It matters. In my own case, the so-called plaintiff actually admitted that it had no involvement in any foreclosure case bearing my name. In fact, they even said that they had no involvement to such a point that they could not even tell if the account was in default or not. The attorney actually represented the servicer—while concealing that detail from the court. The law firm actually did not even represent the named plaintiff, and there was no POA or any other agreement presented that would grant them such authority. They represented the servicer—and that servicer contradicted their own attorney’s claims regarding who owned what. That presents a slight problem….when Mr. Lawyer tells the court under certification that the “trustee” is his client….and then his actual client comes forward and says that the named trustee and named trust never owned anything in this case. But OOPS….they already fabricated a phony assignment claiming that the trust was the owner. STANDING, folks. It’s a legitimate requirement.

    As always, Norm, it’s been fun. Good to see that you’re still taking up all your time pretending to be the expert you never were.

  11. Poppy, sorry for misspelling your nickname.

  12. Hey Storm, poppy not poopy. Lol I hear you…I have claims. Not a direct assignment issue or REMIC. Breaches of contract and fraud, meet all 5 elements. Plus, appraisal is too high for value in 2007. And substitute trustee problems from state court. Possible SOL…that’s 50/50. depending on acceleration time frame and remedy. Stay issue from 2012…Yes, I am sure…100%.

  13. Hopefully, these cases make it clearer for you:

    KALNOKI V. FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING SOLUTIONS, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23, 39.) (“A LOAN SERVICER IS AN AGENT OF THE BENEFICIARY. (Id. at p. 46; § 2920.5, subd. (a).); SEPEHRY-FARD V. MB FIN. SERVS., 2015 WL 903364, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015) (“District courts routinely reject [] allegations that a servicer commits fraud in collecting on a note that it does not own or physically hold.” (collecting cases));WHITE V. INDYMAC BANK, FSB, No. 09-00571, 2012 WL 966638, at *7-8 (D. Haw. Mar.20, 2012) (recognizing a servicer can foreclose on behalf of the beneficial owner of the loan); FARKAS V. GMAC MORTG., L.L.C., 737 F.3d 338, 342-43 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), (two parties have standing to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure sale: the mortgagee and the mortgage servicer acting on behalf of the mortgagee.); VAN HAUEN V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 2012 WL 4162138 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 4322518 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2012) (“Courts in Texas have repeatedly recognized that Texas law allows either a mortgagee or a mortgage servicer to administer a deed of trust foreclosure without production of the original note.”); MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICE V. AZIZE, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“A servicing agent has standing to prosecute a foreclosure case on behalf of the principal.”) BLAIR CONST., INC. V. MCBETH, 273 Kan. 679, 691, 44 P.3d 1244 (2002); Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., Nat’l Ass’n v. Ginsberg, 221 So. 3d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).(“a plaintiff is not required to identify or prove the trust on whose behalf the plaintiff acts.).

  14. Paragraph 2 of my Promissory Notes states: the party “who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the “Note Holder “. Oh but wait, the Court ruled in Tyler vs Wells/B of A that it is “generally accepted” that a loan servicer has a pecuniary interest”… Just blatant evidence that the Courts are so in on the scam game.
    Where in the Note does it say anything about pecuniary interest? This is a major problem and this is how the “banks” steal homes under the guise of a revolving door loan servicer.
    The loan servicer is not entitled to payment, the servicer only “collects’ payment. The servicer cannot go to Vegas and spend your payment. They are not entitled to it and therefore they are not the holder that can bring the lawsuit. Pretty clear to me. Does the REPO man have a pecuniary interest in your car if you default and he comes to collect it?

  15. Poopy, just don’t want to see you lose your home following a bunch of nonsense the courts have already ruled is frivolous!

  16. Okay, Storm. No need to get loud. I just disagree, that servicers can go way outside the boundaries of “MY” contract with a lender. I don’t have to like this…just saying. I hear everything you say.

  17. Poppy, they do have “skin in the game.” Out of your back yard:

    MICHAEL TYLER, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellees. (United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. October 12, 2018.) (“IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT A LOAN SERVICER IS A `PARTY IN INTEREST’ AND HAS STANDING BY VIRTUE OF ITS PECUNIARY INTEREST IN COLLECTING PAYMENTS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE.”).

    As to your other comment: ” if it’s a “slam dunk”….why bother paying for anyone’s service?” its not a “slam dunk” if you attack the mortgage transaction (contract). IN RE FORECLOSURE OF DEED OF TRUST, 334 N.C. 369, 432 S.E.2d 855, 859 (N.C.1993)(“Historically, foreclosure under a power of sale has been a private contractual remedy.”)

    If you have evidence of wrongdoing in the contract, you have almost a 100% chance of keeping your home!

  18. Storm, not what I said…I vehemently “disagree” with the “idea” anyone can foreclose, not that you said it. What you say has validity. However, Free houses are given everyday, to people with “no skin” in this game. You know that now, what to do about it, is the issue. I agree with you, you know that, but I do not have to like the way this “game” is twisted”.

    Losing a house is not always the issue and you know that too. Honestly Storm, if it’s a “slam dunk”….why bother paying for anyone’s service? Just let the chips fall, where they may. There are solutions and modifications are not always favorable to the party getting them. These contracts are unilateral, not favorable for both parties. And, unless one is savvy and reads the “entire” contract, which 99% do not do or do not have the ability to understand, you could be screwed.

    Closing table…30 minutes or less. I am not debating your common sense response. There are answers, just difficult for laymen, to untangle. With a breach, just about anyone can foreclose…it shouldn’t be the case. Just saying…BTW: I don’t even like Kool-Aid.

  19. Poppy, throw out the Kool-Aid theses stall attorneys, securitization/chain of title/forensic audit scammers are selling, because there’s nothing unusual going on. You contractually agreed that the bank, it’s agents, or it’s assignees could foreclose if you breached the contract. Therefore, if you’ve breached; you best have evidence of contractual wrongdoing, or the bank is willing to give you a mod, if not, you can kiss your home goodbye!

  20. Your claim:“I have convinced judges in hundreds of cases.”

    Please provide one case, where you’ve been successful defending a foreclosure; couldn’t find any.

  21. Personally, I think finding a “well qualified” lawyer for anything is difficult, never mind this. I have found after three attorney’s they stall, which we can easily do ourselves. Over time I have only spoken to two lawyers, that had the guts and savvy to handle this stuff and they were very expensive and did not practice in my state, creating another cost. Most think too, if you’re not making payments, you have the money, move on or pay me.

    Early on, I was clueless, to be honest. Didn’t even know what to ask. Now my issues is getting properly before the court and being a pro se….The courts don’t like us. Pro se’s are becoming commonplace. They need to suck it up.

    The big issue I have with all the counter arguments is “entitled to enforce-collect”…when people come to the court with “unclean hands” themselves, and they do, the court should evaluate our claims. The players have put many of us, underwater, without recourse with the proper party, recoupment, and no disclosure of material breaches.

    Ten million people didn’t do this to themselves. And millions didn’t wake up one day and walk in banks, throwing their house keys on the desk, saying here: take my house, I’m done. (and I have know some, who have. Too expensive, can take over your life). They have the money and resources to twist you in the wind, for years.

    My experience tells me, this foreclosure en-masse is still going on. They got smarter. They move less inventory into the market, so it doesn’t explode and goes relatively unnoticed. No matter what anyone says: why does this continue on such a large scale? If they have rights, why does it take years? The courts are conflicted too…for every case dismissed, some survive. The courts give away free houses, every day, just not to homeowner’s…the debt collector’s get them, even if they haven’t paid a dime for them. In many courts a simple transfer of the deed of trust is all it takes, to enforce-allow the sale of our property.

    As much as I see and understand what some are saying, I will continue to fight. There is something very wrong with a system, that allows anyone who holds a debt, not belonging to them, to take land. Missing payments should not be the only reason millions lose property, to those who haven’t lent or made payments either. BS all of it…just saying.

  22. And because Judges love donations from banks lawyers

    And because Judges are politically connected with those who support banks fraud on the top..

    And because Judges have their money invested in the same banks

    And because Judges family members are often in banking industry

    And because average lawyers know that they can lose their license if they say something about Judicial corruption

    And because lawyers know that banks own the Government and Courts

  23. “Tis better to shoot for Mars and Land on the Moon than to head for the bathroom upstairs and never make it off of the couch” John Reed

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: