From what I have deduced from the information that has been reported, together with private conversations with attorneys from the Darkside, it appears that the structure or infrastructure that produces legal services for the origination and foreclosure of transactions with homeowners is as complex and ornate as anything else in the securitization infrastructure.
*
The foreclosure mill appears to be at the same level, as the company designated as the “servicer.” And basically, there’s no authority to make any decisions regarding anything about litigation or settlement.
*
The initial instructions arrive on a computer screen from an unknown source that the foreclosure mill has agreed to follow exactly.
- No lawyer in the foreclosure Mill has ever had any contact with the implied “client.”
- No lawyer in the foreclosure Mill has ever had any opportunity to review or analyze any document or supporting evidence for the claim that they have been instructed to file.
- No lawyer in the foreclosure Mill has any idea whether the claim is true or not. But they have received information instructions that IMPLY the existence of a claim and the authority of the lawyer to present it in court.
*
The instructions come from a regional law firm whose sole function is to act as an intercept to pass on information and instructions. They receive instructions in the same manner as the foreclosure mill. They have no way of knowing the identity of the “Client” or whether the “Client” owns or has authorized the enforcement of a claim. And they don’t care.
*
Then you come to the muddy level of “in-house counsel.” This might be an attorney, and it might not be an attorney. The attorney might be employed by an intermediary for an investment bank, or he or she might be employed by yet another law firm that is acting as “in-house counsel.” This lawyer, and probably all of the other lawyers, follow exactly the instructions and provisions of a foreclosure manual. Such a manual has surfaced in the case of foreclosures in which Wells Fargo is one of the actors.
*
The “decision” regarding the “claim” is not made by a human being. It is made by an algorithm on a computer server that has been programmed by coding specialists who were only tasked with producing the platform for receiving automated input and automated output.
*
The input comes from financial technology companies that produce everything from reports on payments received from homeowners (regardless of whether or not those payments are owed or due), along with template forms filled in by AI for service upon the homeowner. The output is produced in the same way. Lawyers, judges, and homeowners think they are dealing directly with a lawyer and directly with the named “client.” But they are wrong.
*
Suppose this scheme ever blows up (as it should). In that case, the object is to make it virtually impossible under current law to indict anyone because no one human being made any decision concerning any one transaction with any one homeowner. No one human being made any decision concerning initiating a claim, even though the claim was false and predicated upon false, fabricated, forged, backdated documents.
*
Suits against the lawyers can only allege greed. They cannot allege that lawyers violated their professional responsibility unless they can cite specific evidence (attached as an exhibit) that is already in possession of the pleader that reveals actual knowledge the claim is false. You will never get it in discovery because of the attorney-client privilege doctrine and litigation immunity.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: this is why you never get a straight answer when you ask for acknowledgment or affirmation that the “Client” is actually present at mediation, or agrees to any settlement or modification.
The inability to produce a sworn, statement or testimony from any authorized officer or employee of the named “client” (for example, US Bank, Deutsch, or Bank of New York, Mellon) is the foundation for an argument that the opposing side never showed up at mediation, and therefore violated court orders. Having violated the orders, they should be sanctioned in the form of preventing them from proceeding with the litigation.
Filed under: foreclosure |
This story is correct…never met their clients, never verified anything. A fact. Completely reliant on transfers and assignments, before the court. There are “no servicer’s” for REMIC Trusts, zero. Trusts were/are empty.