Foreclosure Defense Florida

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION CALLS FOR INVALIDATION OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FORECLOSURES…

8 Comments

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    My brief impressions of this ethics opinion is that it is tepid and verbose to the point of obscurity. It also contains the bizarre suggestion which seem to imply that the attorney should present the perjury to the judge “in camera.” Does this mean ex parte? It also calls for minimal disclosure. What should happen is that the lawyer who became aware that perjury, forgery and fraud were committed by the client and its agents must correct the record, which includes notifying the opposing attorney or, in most instances, the unrepresented homeowner of the misconduct in the proceedings. Those of us who represent homeowners know that the disclosure of misconduct in the case should result in the judgment of foreclosure being vacated. As to the ultimate outcome, the bank lawyer seems to believe that the result in each case based on perjury will be the same result in the case without perjury. We know that is not true. The whole perjury, forgery scheme which has thrown hundreds of thousands of homeowners out of their homes, destroyed communities, depleted state services funded by property taxes, destroyed pension funds and brought this nation and the nations of the world to ruin is treated as a matter to be treated as a confidential matter. This ethics opinion is appalling. Considering the fact that judges already feel the need to grant foreclosure judgments based on whatever the purported Plaintiff asks, one can plainly see that the Florida bar opinion anticipates that the courts will be complicit in a continuing cover-up.
    Judge: Would the result be any different without the perjury, forgery, notary crimes and false-swearing?
    Bank Lawyer: I don’t think so.
    Homeowner/Homeowner’s Lawyer: [Apparently not invited to the “in camera” proceeding.]
    Judge: I think the error is harmless.

    God help us!

    • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

      Correction:
      The whole perjury, forgery scheme which has thrown hundreds of thousands of homeowners out of their homes, destroyed communities, depleted state services funded by property taxes, destroyed pension funds and brought this nation and the nations of the world to ruin appears to be suggested to be handled as a confidential matter.

      This is what the OCC and other regulators have been doing in their investigations as well. I spoke to an attorney at the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago about the value of submitting evidence of perjury, forgery and fraud to it as a bank regulator and was told that I would never be allowed to know the outcome of the investigation at the FRB because regulatory matters are confidential. This is not surprising coming from the private Fed, but when the OCC, Office of Thrift Supervision, most State AGs and the DOJ to date have failed to share anything about the investigations with anyone who could stop the crimes in the court system (and I am speaking of homeowner defense counsel) one should not be surprised that the Florida Bar Association is also treating this as a matter of the rights of the criminals and not of the integrity of the court system and the victims of the criminals. Lawyers cannot cover-up an ongoing crime under any theory. This is what the Florida Bar opinion misses by a mile.

  • JR Homeowner says:

    OK
    I read the Bar opinion / guidance on the matter.

    To be candid, its not so much the ethics opinion given by the Florida Bar that is noteworthy here, but the the actual QUESTION raised by the DIM BULB that submitted it to the bar!!

    I just love this “rib tickler” this nitwit poses in their question:

    “Lawyer’s considered legal opinion is that replacing Signer 2’sold affidavits and verifications in approximately 1,000 pending foreclosure caseswould raise red flags that would result in costly litigation contrary to Bank’sinterests but which would have no reasonable likelihood of changing the outcomeof the actions.”

    REALLY???!!

    The simple fact that ANY practicing lawyer in this state would pose such a series of completely moronic questions and statements such as contained in that ethics inquiry should be cause for alarm about their basic competency!!

    I knew that most of the foreclosure mills were hiring kids with fresh JD’s and even fresher bar numbers as expendable “cannon fodder”, but WOW…just how deep into the BOTTOM of their graduating class are these mills diging to fine these kinds of buffoons?

  • JR Homeowner says:

    (Spelling and grammar corrections. Please replace previous comment with this one)

    OK
    I read the Bar opinion / guidance on the matter.

    To be candid, its not so much the ethics opinion given by the Florida Bar that is noteworthy here, but the the actual QUESTION raised by the DIM BULB that submitted it to the bar!!

    I just love this ” rib tickler” the nitwit poses in their question:

    ” Lawyer’s considered legal opinion is that replacing Signer 2’sold affidavits and verifications in approximately 1,000 pending foreclosure caseswould raise red flags that would result in costly litigation contrary to Bank’sinterests but which would have no reasonable likelihood of changing the outcomeof the actions.”

    REALLY???!!

    “NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF CHANGING THE OUTCOME….???”

    The simple fact that ANY practicing lawyer in this state would pose such a series of completely moronic questions and statements such as contained in that ethics inquiry, much less come to the conclusion that none of it would “change the outcome”, should be cause for SERIOUS alarm about their basic competency!!

    I knew that most of the foreclosure mills were hiring kids with fresh JD’s and even fresher bar numbers as expendable ” cannon fodder”, but WOW”¦just how deep into the BOTTOM of their graduating classes are these mills digging to find these kind of buffoons?

  • JR Homeowner says:

    To add to my previous comment:

    Other than incredible ignorance, is it possible that we now find ourselves infested with a new generation of young lawyers that are so completely and utterly ETHICALLY BANKRUPT that we find such basic questions being submitted to the Florida bar now?

  • we have to change our message says:

    This is a disappointing but great read. I am not naive enough to believe people behave ethically or morally, including attorneys.

    My question is: what is our judiciary or attorneys doing about this? It seems to me that an individual affected by such behavior has a cause of action against the attorney as well as the attorney’s client. The challenge is will our bought and paid for judges do. Although the ethics paned specifically went out of its way to disagree that the unethical behavior would not affect a court’s ruling that was related to the questions posed. I am not naive enough to believe judges will see it that way even though they too are members of the bar.

    Enlightening and discouraging at the same time.

    Thank you for sharing it!

  • we have to change our message says:

    @JR: I think the simplicity of the “hypotheticals” posed are for clarity and do not imply insipidity. I think it was a rather brilliant way to expose the knots and twists the financial institutions have been successful in weaving (with the buy-in of judges) as they realize massive profits by foreclosing on borrowers through use of fraudulent documents.

    @Atty Nora: I had to look up the definition of “in camera” as I’m not an attorney nor did I take Latin. It means in private, as opposed to open (to the public) court. It does not mean ex parte as in the homeowner is excluded from in camera proceedings. I understood the committee’s reference to minimal disclosure to mean that the attorney still had an obligation to the client (bank in this case) to mitigate release (not eliminate release) of sensitive information when the attorney deems it necessary to notify the court of their client’s perjury whether through submission of falsified documents or fraudulent statements made to the court.

    I like the discussion!

Leave a Reply