Foreclosure and Collection Mills Violating Multiple Laws and Rules

see http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/oral-arguments-in-cfpb-v-hanna-suggest-long-road-ahead/

Wall Street investment banks have distanced themselves from the loan originations and further distanced themselves from the purchase and sale of loans. The lawyers who represent the players in the chain have succeeded, up till now, in distancing themselves from the collection and enforcement practices emanating from their own firm. The CFPB has filed suit against a law firm for violating the laws regarding these “services”. It turns out that the very thing that the lawyers were seeking to accomplish is illegal. What a surprise.

The lawyers, knowing that the loans and the transfers of the loan were riddled with fatal defects, use non-lawyer personnel to process the enforcement or collection. That way, they reasoned, nobody can say that they did anything wrong because they didn’t do it. But it turns out that allowing your personnel to make it appear that the contact is with a lawyer is illegal — something I pointed out to Tiffany and Bosco (and their father and son jets) back in 2008.

This is going to be interesting, because if the ruling is what I think it will be, then lawyers won’t be able disclaim responsibility for proffering evidence that they knew or should have known was false. The net effect on their license and their liability could be profound. No lawyer is going to risk the rest of his career for the banks if what the bank is asking him to do is use false information.

The lesson in all events is that if you are talking to someone from a law firm you should ask if they are a lawyer. If they are not, tell them you only want to speak with the lawyer. I usually add that if I don’t get a call back from the lawyer within 30 minutes, I will take action. I always get the call.

14 Responses

  1. “salvage rights” you hit it!

    And it is totally “unethical” for the original closing attorney and counsel for the “debt collector” Ocwen to be playing this game. Hunoval is counsel and substitute trustee for the foreclosure action filed by Ocwen AND prior to trying to buy the note, transferred the paperwork into his solely owned LLC, called Poore Substitute Trustee…addressed at eLove dating services, in VA, WHAT? Then he goes to the District Court after removing the action into Federal Court, while that Federal Court action was “in process” trying to get the action ruled on, behind the Federal Courts back….I hired a lawyer ASAP and he voluntarily dismissed his shenanigans.

    No shady crap going on here, like too may here have said….all above board, Right! The judge should have kicked his ass all over the court house, not literally, but should have told him, keep it up, your license is on the line, PUNK!

  2. Poppy…sounds about right.
    The Question is….. Is there another party with salvage rights?

  3. 3 MA Lawyers risked their career for the Banks knowing what they were doing was using false information. Also ignoring the MA foreclosure laws, preponderance of evidence and UNETHICAL Judge ignoring the Rules of Law and his Oath. The corrupt bank did not and could not prove they had any rights to collect on an INVALID LOAN. I proved no legal closing, UCC 3 – 305, FRAUD, embezzlement of over $200,000 not credited etc

  4. Check Brock & Scott and a thug named: Mathias Hunoval…
    he and the closing attorney on my paperwork, tried to buy the note for 23K…pretty shady.

  5. this article gives good history of the case that got CFPB focus after the law firm won in the Georgia Supreme Court ruling.

    I’m not sure how the Supreme Court case was brought about, but i see why the OCA wanted to see all the lawsuits and not just the ones from the people who filed complaints. Over 350,000 lawsuits in one state alone, if you break down how many business days there are in a year, and divide that by normal hours and not overtime, and considering the ones claiming a debt owed were already paid (if you know how the money system really works), it was reasonable to see the attorney staff could not possibly do all the signing because as stated in the article

    one attorney in particular signed about 138,000 debt collection suits in Georgia in 2009 and 2010.

    Let’s do some rough math, and I won’t claim to be a math wizard, it’s late here bur for the sake of this math problem let’s assume the 2009 and 2010 are exactly one year of activity.
    One attorney over an exact year of available work days signed about 138,000 debt collection suits.

    So one year is 52 weeks, but he doesn’t work weekends.
    Take a 52 Saturdays and 52 Sundays off and we have removed 104 days as he/she is unavailable to work.
    Assume he/she has earned some vacation, and being conservative we will give him/her two weeks vacation, so we’ve already calculated out the weekend, so let’s calculate out two Mondays through two Fridays, for a total of 10 days, two sets of Monday through Friday for that two weeks.

    Now there are holidays recognized by people most are bank holidays, and then businesses or opened on others, so like New Years Day, or Christmas, or Labor Day, or Memorial Day, like that, so we will give them about 6 holiday days he didn’t work.

    that’s 104 (weekend days) 10 (Vacation days) 6 (holidays) that are unavailable for him/her to sign anything.

    Out of 365 days in a year, there are 120 days unavailable to work.
    Leaving 245 days to work.

    138,000 lawsuits, divided by 245 days leaves 563 lawsuits to sign a day.
    Assuming he/she doesn’t take lunch and signs for 8 hours, that’s
    70 lawsuits an hour.

    He/she has to churn out a little over a lawsuit a minute, signing affidavits, and having it notarized and everything, and that’s not including bathroom breaks, or any time to smoke a cigarette or take a phone call or leave early or arrive late, or be out sick or anything.

    That’s reasonable cause to wonder in one state, and this law firm has offices in other states, but in one state, Georgia alone, the law firm churned out over 350,000 but I’m not sure how many years/days for the entire batch.

    In addition, the law firm dismissed law suits when challenged (which I’m certain the he/she signing the lawsuits at a rate of over one per minute without getting hand cramps or leg cramps, and without eating or taking any breaks, would not have time to sign the dismissal that were being decided in the law firm, but the firm was totally willing to accepted default judgments for people (ah, correction persons, cause courts do not see people, they do not hear people, judges by operation in their space do not see corporeal people, they only deal with incorporeal persons and things, persons (like corporations) you cannot see, touch, feel, hear, in the court room that’s why they are always represented, etc), anyway I digressed,

    since the ‘person (corporation, association, partnership, trustee in bankruptcy, and not the people) being sued did not appear in court, the court issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Hanna law firm, suing.

    July 2014
    www(dot)insidearm(dot)com/daily/credit-card-accounts-receivable/credit-card-receivables/cfpb-sues-debt-collection-law-firm-over-suit-volume-fdcpa-violations/

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, State, Independent, In Jure Proprio (in one’s Jure Divino

  6. This case is long running
    in Hanna’s motion for dismissal this year March.

    it is stated www(dot)insidearm(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/CFPB-v-Hanna-notice-on-ITT-ruling-3-18-15.pdf?279849
    [other unmentioned wording)
    … especially germane to this case is the determination that the Bureau’s TILA claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). Section 1640 provides for civil liability for TILA violations, and further provides that “any action under this section may be brought . . . within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” Id. §1640(a), (e).

    In Neil’s link above, it is stated
    The CFPB position is that that there are two different limitations provisions under the FDCPA: one-year for civil liability claims, and no statute of limitations for an enforcement action under the FDCPA

    in 2010 in the CFPB gets testy article the CFPB apparently stated in some filing,
    quod nullum tempus occurrit regi – “Time does not run against the King.” The CFPB wrote that “In the absence of a congressional enactment clearly imposing a limitations period, the United States, in its governmental capacity, is not subject to one.”

    I guess we never heard if it because the case was dealing with how the law firm was collecting credit card debt, but how a law firm acts as a debt collector is the bigger picture.

    Once you show how the debt collection laws are supposed to be applied and adhered to, it doesn’t matter if they are collecting bags of potatoes for a client, there is a right way to do it and as a business that is under statutory requirements to collect from people who are not its customers or client, then they had better do it that right way or be adjudicated as having done it the wrong way and subject to the penalties there in.

    I am so glad we see agencies that know all men are created equal, and equal has no power over equal even if they hold a title of nobility like lawyer or attorney or esquire.

    It’s all contracts, and if the government has a way for them to execute their contracts, the law firm, it’s employees, regardless of title are not sovereign enough to do things their way and subject people to involuntary servitude to collect a purported debt.

    Every game has rules.
    They are no longer called TPTB
    The paradigm shift happened before 2012.
    They are called, TPTW (The Powers that Were)
    the people collectively have gone through the 100th monkey theory of their power and collectively we have received the conscience of they are naked and have no power.
    That’s why this paradigm is showing the collapse of what they built by fraud, deception, unfair, coercion, duress, threat, abusive, etc., ways and means.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  7. Looking up more information on this Fred Hanna, I see in 2010 he was sued
    www(dot)nsidearm(dot)com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/collection-law-firm-victorious-against-state-in-supreme-court-case/
    (in my own words, stating it here) by Georgia AG because the OCA (Georgia’s Office of Consumer Affairs), wanted to see all his files he had for debt collecting and he only wanted to provide the files of the people who were complaining about his practices.

    Either he or the lower court pulled the rabbit out of the hat, (fair use act) – I state either he or the lower court because the wording was the lower court agreed and without looking at any transcript I can’t determine who made the decision as stated below

    [Frederick J. Hanna & Associates] day-to-day operation directly involves the practice of law, and because the investigative demand directly impacts their practice of law, that demand is an attempt by the OCA to regulate the practice of law

    But seems CFPB has a good come back.
    www(dot)nsidearm(dot)com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/cfpb-gets-testy-in-latest-filing-in-debt-collection-law-firm-enforcement-action/
    (again fair use act)
    Although there is a practice of law exclusion under that [Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA)] Act, the CFPB said that it does not apply because it, [CFPB], does have authority “over attorneys who collect debts from consumers who are not their clients.” The [Consumer Financial Protection] Bureau said that “the exclusion applies only to attorneys who provide legal advice or services to consumers.” (my note, advice or services is not debt collection)

    I never checked to see if the 7 people named to steal my property were attorneys or just employees of the firm. The way they botched the theft, you’d think they were ………..well, it doesn’t matter…….the law firm botched the theft and if a nice if, it can be shown the judge let them all go through without a care, that should be enough evidence of colluding which admittedly by the Dept of Justice is hard to prove, but for all the people who went to court and saw the signed judgment the day before the hearing or just prior to the hearing, that is evidence although hearsay now. Makes you wonder if it was the judge’s handwriting or another robosigning incident in the court with a clerk’s signature or some other one’s signature.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, People, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  8. But why did they do it Louise?
    What were they trying to cover up?

    Put them on Notice!!!
    Let them weasel there way out of their motion to withdrawal as the Judge grants it with Stipulations!

    Bite Hard!

  9. Since the financial meltdown and ensuing foreclosures and all the litigation that has gone on since day one, there is fraud on the court throughout, fraudulent documents, forged documents, back dated documents, multiple Notes, unfunded Trusts, violation of due process rights, perjury, robo-signing (a form of perjury and forgery) and many more. Our judicial system, and I use the term “judicial” loosely is a mess. If this case goes where it should go, we might have some attorneys with some splaining to do. The foreclosure mills are a disgrace.

  10. I have been asked to back date and notarize by Banks, Title Companies, Brokers, LPS. …. And Lawyers.

    Lets Make Cider!

  11. Charles.. You got it Right!

    Their Time is Up!

    Nuff said. ..

    “Satisfying”

    😹😹😹

  12. Kozeny & McCubbin, in the case firm that lost Holm v. Wells Fargo & Freddie Mac for $2.9 million. They are the foreclosure mill out of St. Louis MO and have spread, but their time is over!

  13. Harvey Law Group in Texas should be investigated. She can send collection letter, but her staff and her office cant receive any response on behalf of her Client Bank of America. However they think you should send any communication to CTC Foreclosure Services. Even that information given by her administrative assistant was incorrect.

  14. Bad Apples!

    Withdraw
    Withdraw
    Withdraw

    Flavors of the Month

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: