Tonight! Liar’s Poker! The Things Lawyers Do to Present Their Alleged Client in the Best Light 6PM EST 3PM PST

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show
Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.
Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6 pm Eastern Thursdays
Lawyers have a job. Their job is to do the best they can at advancing their client’s position– within the bounds of the law. This usually involves a fair amount of bluff and any successful lawyer will tell you that it requires a great deal of knowledge, only part of which is imparted (and even less retained) in law school.
Tonight we will talk about how lawyers bluff their way through any case. And the most effective way of doing that is by asserting facts or laws that have never been introduced into the case. In some cases, those facts and those laws will never be introduced. But if the lawyer is good at bluffing, the opposing lawyer will fail to object or challenge the assertion. In the mind of the judge, a human being, the fact is then firmly established as true. The die is cast.
This is particularly true in foreclosure litigation. A lawyer stands up and says his name and says that he represents the claimant that has either been named as Plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or as Defendant in a nonjudicial state where the homeowner must file the claim against the forced sale of homestead property.
The fact that this lawyer has never spoken to any officer or employee of the named claimant does not stop him or her from asserting that he or she is the authorized legal advocate for the named claimant. That is a bluff and it is hard to overcome until later, at best. That lawyer knows that the trust, even if could be construed as technically existing, has never received a single payment from the homeowner and never will.
The lawyer advancing the position of the named claimant will invariably assert that “this is a standard foreclosure.” Same bluff, same rules. He or she knows that he is going to rely entirely upon the “records” of payments shown on a report that is generated from an unknown source. He or she knows that he is going to use the “Payment History” instead of the required loan account and that he or she will resist any and all attempts or even court orders to produce the loan account.
The lawyer then goes on to speak about his “client” even though he has not ever been retained or paid by the claimant. And he has never received any instructions or information from the named claimant. The lawyer does not know the identity of his client because very often his “client” is some bank that does exist, as trustee of a trust, which does not exist, as the injured party which is not true. This is also a bluff. But if the lawyer is good at bluffing, the opposing lawyer will fail to object or challenge the assertion. In the mind of the judge, a human being, the fact is then firmly established as true.
So tonight’s show is devoted to bluffing and what homeowners can do about it. Spoiler Alert: you probably need a lawyer of your own to counteract the effect of bluffing by the lawyer for the “foreclosure mill.”

3 Responses

  1. Excellent broadcast last night. The only problem remains – there are few attorneys who will take these cases. If 90% of the people walk away without challenge, this leaves few homeowners that do challenge, and few attorneys to hire because there is not enough profit in it for them. So getting attorneys on board should be a priority. There are a few law firms I know that take cases but will not litigate the issues Neil articulates. Maybe should send them this broadcast. Thanks.

  2. Good comment here Ian Lounsbury. Wonder if ever been tried. As to Neil’s broadcast tonight – Great — but where are the Alan Dershowitzs that will take these cases? Look and high and low — no where to be found. Why? Precedent law stinks. Attorneys rely upon precedent law. So where does the buck stop? Government.

  3. One solution that suggests itself is for the defendant homeowner to sue the foreclosure-mill attorney. That attorney is not protected by the “litigation privilege” as he does not have an attorney-client relationship with the named plaintiff. He is a rogue attorney interposing himself into another’s affairs, causing damages. Sue him.

Contribute to the discussion!