Wow. Never expected this to come out of Floriduh...
Some excerpts from The Florida Bar News
Lawyers representing banks and other mortgage service companies must tell the courts if they know of
paperwork problemsknown felonies in their clients’ foreclosure cases, according to the Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee.
committee, at its June 24 meeting during the Bar’s Annual Convention,
voted 20-6 to uphold a Bar staff opinion which advised a lawyer
representing a bank in thousands of foreclosure cases.
According to the attorney, the bank used two employees to prepare and review
necessary affidavits needed for the foreclosures. One employee always
verified the figures in the necessary affidavits and signed the
necessary paperwork in the presence of a notary. The second signer
relied on a conscientious assistant to verify the figures before signing
that he had personally reviewed the figures. Also, those signatures
were sometimes notarized when the signer was not present, as required by
law. The second signer’s practices extended back for 20 years.
The lawyer wanted to know if the court had to be informed of those
since it was unlikely to change the outcome of any pending case. He
also inquired whether it made any difference if the case was pending or
closed, the stage of pending cases, or that the second signer had
reverified information in the improperly notarized forms.
can't believe that the lawyer even had the audacity to even ask those
questions. And talk about arrogant, "it was unlikely to change the
outcome of any pending case."
Then they surprisingly go on to say...
A Bar staff opinion held it makes no difference whether the case was open or closed or what stage an open case is
at in terms of the lawyer’s duty. The opinion said that under Rule
4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), the improperly prepared affidavits constitute false evidence, and the lawyer has a duty to disclose that to the courts.
Other rules must also be considered, the opinion said, including Rule 4-1.2(d) which prohibits assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct, Rule 4-3.4(b) which prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness who offers false testimony, Rule 4-8.4(a) which prohibits violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or assisting another to do so, Rule 4-8.4(c) which bars an attorney from conduct that constitutes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and Rule 4-8.4(d) which prohibits a lawyer from conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
that is some strong language... It looks like the foreclosure mills are
going to have HUGE problems. The courts are going to be flooded once
again due to the massive fraud perpetrated by the banks and their
This is worth repeating...
It makes no difference whether the case was open or closed or what stage an open case is... The lawyer has a duty to disclose that to the courts.
But wait, there's more...
staff opinion concluded that, “the inquiring attorney first should
attempt to have the client correct the improperly verified and notarized
affidavits. The inquiring attorney should advise the client that if the
client fails to correct the affidavits, then the inquiring attorney
will have to withdraw and will have to reveal the truth to the court. If
the client refuses to take the required corrective action, the
inquiring attorney will have to reveal the fact that there has been an
improperly verified and notarized affidavit filed in each of these
cases, whether they are pending or already closed. The inquiring attorney also will have to move to withdraw from further representation of the client
in pending cases, where the client refuses to correct the affidavits,
while making as minimal a disclosure as necessary when doing so.”
tell you what, this is going to be fun. Once an attorney knows of the
fraud, they MUST disclose it. So it may be time for a little writing
campaign to let the attorneys know which documents were fraudulent.
There are plenty out there to find...
Most affirmed the decision to follow the law...
Some quotes from the members...
strongly urge against watering down this opinion,” said committee
member Ana Maria Martinez. “I understand the practical problem, but we can’t approve lying for 20 years.”
committee member Deborah A’Hearn: “Anything other than affirming the
opinion, as is, is the functional equivalent of suborning perjury. We
shouldn’t make allowances regardless of the practical problems. It is never OK to lie.”
But some members disagreed...
“I thought the [staff] opinion assumed a little too much and went a little too far,” said committee member D. Culver “Skip” Smith, who voted against the final motion.
He noted the committee didn’t have any of the affidavits in question, and it was unclear whether anything was wrong with them other than the affidavit that the signer had personal knowledge of the information in the affidavit.
seems to me the opinion quickly assumed this qualified as ‘false
evidence,’” Smith said. “The rule talks about a lawyer making a false
statement of law or fact. This is not what this is. The staff opinion
just assumed it should be false evidence, even if the only thing untrue in it was a notarization statement.”
Hey Skippy. Looks like "false evidence" to me. Have you read the notarization statement on these AFFIDAVITS?
They mention words like upon oath, deposes on personal knowledge, sworn, and personally appeared.
Also try reading the AFFIDAVIT itself...
Most contain language such as...
genuine issue as to any material fact, I am familiar with the books of
account and have examined all books, records and documents, I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit,
Specifically, I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the sums
of money which are due and owing and penalty of perjury...
ALL FALSE STATEMENTS! Which equals FALSE EVIDENCE!
and by the way, it isn't just affidavits that were "robo-signed." And,
it wasn't just one firm that engaged in these practices. Multiple firms
also processed allonges, assignments and satisfactions, along with
affidavits, in this manner.
If you all would of only listened to us when we brought this to the bars attention in May of 2010...
Posted by 4closureFraud on May 19, 2010
May 18, 2010 Foreclosure Hamlet and 4closureFraud had a wonderful
opportunity to have lunch with Palm Beach County Bar Association
Professional Committee to discuss some of our concerns over what is
happening in our courtrooms statewide. How did we earn such an honor? We
simply asked… I am pleased to announce that the members … Read more
It was an interesting meeting where we presented concerns on robo-signing and other issues. We aslo gave them our Professional Committee Meeting Outline to show the fraud. They chose to ignore the facts and now we are even deeper into the rabbit hole of fraudclosure.
We even brought the fraud to the bar at their own annual Florida Bar event last year in Boca.
We did our best to warn you, but you did not listen.
just maybe the Florida Supreme Court will sort this all out when they
rule on the PINO case... Hopefully they do not legalize the fraud.
Info on the PINO case here...
Posted by 4closureFraud on April 11, 2011
is extremely big news all! First some background… Case involving
alleged foreclosure fraud headed to Florida Supreme Court A South
Florida homeowner who is fighting a mortgage foreclosure could end up
reshaping state law. An appeals court on Wednesday asked the Florida
Supreme Court to consider Roman Pino’s case as a matter of “great … Read more
Posted by 4closureFraud on July 15, 2011
to Argue High-Stakes Foreclosure Case Before Fla. Supreme Court As a
relative novice in the legal profession, Ice Legal senior associate
Enrique Nieves III is prepping for his biggest case and his first
appearance before the Florida Supreme Court. At 31, Nieves is assigned
to argue a case that may decide the fate of … Read more
we ever asked was for the banks and their attorneys to FOLLOW THE LAW.
No free houses, no windfalls for the homeowner, no debt forgiveness.
JUST FOLLOW THE LAW...
Because once we lose that, we lose society as we know it...
And for all you naysayers out there that think that this does not effect you, you are mistaken.
Once the rule of law is gone, there is nothing left...
See you all in the trenches...