NY J SHACK FINDS WAMU ATTORNEY IMPOSTERS

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

SEE STOPFORECLOSUREFRAUD.COM

Editor’s Note: I usually advise lawyers that from the very first word that opposing counsel utters, an objection ought to be raised, because it is all a lie. A “living lie.” From the moment he states his name and then says whom he represents, you ought to have something on hand that questions the validity of whether he actually represents the party upon whose behalf he says he is making his appearance. It is usually in the rules that you can demand proof of authority to represent. I know of a few cases that ended up dismissed on those grounds alone because the attorney never came back, never called back and never filed anything.

The way you win these cases is by forming the intent to win it. You can’t form that intent unless you believe it. Believe it! These are all impostors, pretenders and people out to make a buck at the expense of the Court and your client. Don’t get lost in their narrative.

Remember that besides the monthly payment issue, you have a right to seek modification or settlement or to ask for an evidentiary hearing on the amount required for redemption — that requires an accounting from the creditor. How are you going to do that with the wrong party standing in the courtroom and a lawyer who does not even represent anyone? Judges are  latching on to this argument, because it makes sense to them. They are not absolving your client of liability but they will force the issue, and make sure the real deciders are present IF YOU AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE IT.

[NYSC] JUDGE SCHACK Tears up WaMU’s Counsel For “Defective Verification, Phony NY House Counsel” WAMU v. PHILLIP

Posted on02 December 2010. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[NYSC] JUDGE SCHACK Tears up WaMU’s Counsel For “Defective Verification, Phony NY House Counsel” WAMU v. PHILLIP

Washington Mut. Bank v Phillip
2010 NY Slip Op 52034(U)
Decided on November 29, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.

Excerpts:

Further, the verification of the complaint was not executed by an officer of WAMU, but by Benita Taylor, a “Research Support Analyst of Washington Mutual Bank, the plaintiff in the within action” a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, on June 4, 2008. This is the same day that Ms. Maio claims to have communicated with “Mark Phelps, Esq., House Counsel.” I checked the Office of Court Administration’s Attorney Registry and found that Mark Phelps is not now nor has been an attorney registered in the State of New York. Moreover, the Court does not know what “House” employs Mr. Phelps. [*5]

Both Mr. Phelps and Ms. Maio should have discovered the defects in Ms. Taylor’s verification of the subject complaint. The jurat states that the verification was executed in the State of New York and the County of Suffolk [the home county of plaintiff’s counsel], but the notary public who took the signature is Deborah Yamaguichi, a Florida notary public, not a New York notary public. Thus, the verification lacks merit and is a nullity. Further, Ms. Yamaguchi’s notarization states that Ms. Taylor’s verification was “Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of June 2008.” Even if the jurat properly stated that it was executed in the State of Florida and the County of Duval, where Jacksonville is located, the oath failed to have a certificate required by CPLR

<SNIP>

Ms. Maio should have consulted with a representative or representatives of plaintiff WAMU or is successors subsequent to receiving my November 9, 2010 order, not referring back to an alleged June 4, 2008 communication with “House Counsel.” Affirmations by plaintiff’s counsel in foreclosure actions, pursuant to Chief Administrative Judge Ann t. Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Administrative Order, mandates in foreclosure actions prospective communication by plaintiff’s counsel with plaintiff’s representative or representatives to prevent the widespread insufficiencies now found in foreclosure filings, such as: failure to review files to establish standing; filing of notarized affidavits that falsely attest to such review, and, “robosigning: of documents.

9 Responses

  1. Judge Schack is everything a Judge should be. I wish every Judge in America followed the law like this man. Because of lawlessness, unethical lawyers and greedy bankers with everybody turning their heads away from what we know is the real problem. If the constitution and laws were upheld and respected our country would not be in half the trouble its in today. Everyday Issues of life, important issues that matter to all Americans, are now put way on the back burner because who can worry about’ The environment, education, health care, child abuse, crime, cancer,’ anything, when you don’t know where you’ll live, where you’ll raise your kids. No law. No rights. No Justice. Please God stop the madness. Thank you Judge Arthur Schack. I bet it seems like he’s fighting an uphill battle, like nobody cares anymore, like its all for nothing. But The families he’s helping find Justice think it matters. They care. A child lays his head down tonight in his house saved from illegal foreclosur by a Judge who only had to follow the law. All we need are more honest, law abiding Judges and Lawyers manning the court rooms and the battle will be over. Is that to much to ask?

    Like

  2. […] NY J SHACK FINDS WAMU ATTORNEY IMPOSTERS Posted on December 6, 2010 by Neil Garfield […]

    Like

  3. INSIGHT INTO ‘ZIPPY’ WHICH IS CHASE’S FLAWED UNDERWRITING SYSTEM!!

    Like

  4. I think what is more difficult to believe is that attorneys would perjure themselves for a lousy foreclosure. Why would they also create fraudulent documents or let their clients lie to them? I would not think that endangering their license to practice would be a good idea. Why are they doing this? It makes no sense. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

    Like

  5. A few years ago, in Miami Dade County, I raised the issue in a case before Judge Kay (sic) who responded that he would not believe that any lawyer would spend any time on a case if they were not representing who they said they were because there would be no one to pay them, so he said to take it and other issues to Appeals. When that was done the successor lender offered a settlement directly without that law firm.

    Like

  6. I agree. The reason I ask about “of counsel” is because that term has a specific meaning–4 ABA definitions, according to Wikipedia, none of which apply to the defendants’ attys.

    So if my defendants’ attys are “of counsel,” wouldn’t that mean they are not the actual attys for the defendants but rather are advising the actual attys for the defendants? These actual attys have not noticed their appearance and are undisclosed to me, but I bet they’ll swarm the courthouse come trial time. Or not. Just asking. Any opinions on this?

    Like

  7. This is the one I have been waiting for. It took me long enough, but I have realized that my opponents are not representing who they say they are. I saw it a long time ago but I couldn’t believe it. I finally pieced it together to convince myself that an attorney would come before a judge and spread dirt and call it mustard. But they do. I have had my opponents both recently perjure themselves in their replies and I still can’t believe it. I actually have the proof.
    Some days this fight feels like it will never end and you don’t get any breaks. Sometimes you wonder what you are looking at. Keep looking. If you continue to compare this statement with that, you will see they don’t add up. Get the opponent to talk or write letters (if you can) about the case. Make complaints with law enforcement they have to answer, because no one from the alleged bank has answered me in 2 years, except when they had to reply to the AG about their conduct. Write letters demanding proof of claim. Never quit.
    It gets thickest as you get closer to it. But you also get more info in the last few weeks than you are likely to have received in all your requests. This is when the opponents lie with impunity. They have nothing left to bet. You may think you have a lousy pair of twos, but they are sitting on Dr. Pepper straight. (2/4/6/8/10) It looks nice, but it doesn’t beat a pair of twos.

    Like

  8. If opposing counsel designates itself “of counsel,” does that have any significance?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: