This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Fraudclosure Case v ABBY G. LOPEZ Involving Leaked Email Heats Up, Akerman Senterfitt Tries to Close Off the Courtroom

4closureFraud's picture




 

Akerman Senterfitt Joins the Smith, Hiatt & Diaz Case v ABBY G. LOPEZ | Fraudclosure Case Involving Leaked Email Heats Up, Akerman Tries to Close the Courtroom

And it goes a little something like this...

A few weeks ago we put up some documents that were accidentally leaked from an LPS email.

The conversation evolves like this:

“Yikes! The name of the foreclosing party (HSBC as Trustee for Deutsche Bank Alt-A 2007-BAR1) matches the name on the affidavit of amount owed BUT that name doesn’t match what is in our system. It’s pretty far into the legal foreclosure process. What should we do now?”

“Hey, no problemo! We have two options;

1) change the name now and possibly be hit with higher homeowner association fees or

2) quit claim deed the home over to the right name after the sale, but that will cost documentary stamp taxes. The doc stamp taxes will probably be less costly than the HOA fees. Please advise.”

“Go with the quit claim deed (QCD). After the foreclosure sale to the trust, just deed the home over to Bank of America! Problem solved.”

Then there was a Motion to Purge Lender Processing Services’ (LPS) Accidentally Leaked Internal Email…

And shortly after that, the Palm Beach Post took up the story…

A suburban West Palm Beach foreclosure case has even bank employees confused, with internal emails that question whether the wrong entity is repossessing the house - but that then decide to move forward anyway.

Bank attorneys now want to purge the court file with the messages, which were filed mistakenly. The emails also mention trying to avoid mounting community association fees.

What happened next will amaze you.

We posted the hearing date on 4closureFraud.org as an action alert to round up some court watchers to witness the hearing.

Well, about 15-20 observers showed up, some with these awesome "Foreclosure Court Watcher" shirts on and the attorney for Akerman did not like it one bit.

Before the Judge even entered the courtroom, the Akerman attorney aggressively tried to convince the bailiff to clear the courtroom. Yes, you got that right. The Akerman attorney wanted to close the courtroom to the public because he did not want his "client's" dirty laundry exposed more than it already was.

The bailiff refused to do his bidding and told him to take it up with the judge. After a few minutes of back and forth, the Akerman attorney convinced the bailiff to go back and ask the judge to order all of us out of the courtroom.

When the bailiff returned, he told the Akerman attorney that the judge was busy and he said he would have to wait until he entered the courtroom to address his concerns. Shortly thereafter the Judge entered the room.

This is when it got interesting. For what seemed like 20 minutes, the Akerman attorney tried to convince the judge to kick us all out of the courtroom. It was joyful to watch as the judge kept saying "You want me to close this public courtroom?" while getting angrier by the minute. At a final moment of desperation, it almost appeared that the Akerman attorney was going to throw a temper tantrum by kicking his feet on the ground and waving his arms in the air if he did not get his way.

Ultimately, the Akerman attorney refused to proceed with the hearing with all of us observers in the courtroom and requested to continue the hearing (as suggested by the judge) until they could file the proper motion to attempt to close the courtroom and purge the record. The request was granted and the hearing came to an end. Wait til you hear the transcript...

Anywho, that brings us to today. We just received Akerman's motion to close the courtroom to the public, which is posted below for your reading pleasure...

Some excerpts from the motion...

Piaintiff has filed a Motion to Purge from the court record, and to prevent further use and disclosure of, an attorney-client privileged communication that was inadvertently attached to an affidavit of indebtedness filed with the court.

...

On or about October 10, 201 1 , Plaintiff filed the afflrdavit of Kimberly Sue Daley in support of its motion for sunmary judgment in a document entitled "Payment History and Amended Affidavit of Indebtedness Supporting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice withdrawing Previous Affidavit of Indebtedness" (the AoI).

The AoI referenced and attached as an exhibit a BANA business record showing, among other things, the date of default under the subject loan and amounts due thereunder'

The AOI inadvertently and unintentionally also included an electronic intercom communication by and between BANA emproyee Nicholas Leonhard and "BAc Affidavits" (the Intercom Exchange). The Intercom Exchange was not referenced or described in the AoI'

The hearing on the Motion to Purge was originally scheuduled to Determine May 24, 2ol2, As the Motion to Purge inevitably required discussion of the attomey-client privileged Intercom Exchange, including possibly the meaning and purpose of that privileged communication, Plaintiff made an ore tenus motion that the hearing be held in camera and closed from pubiic view. The court advised that it would not conduct a confidenttal, in camera hearing without a separate motion and hearing on the propriety of an in camera hearing' The court gave Plaintiff the option of proceeding with an open hearing or fi1ing a motion requesting a confidential, in camera hearing. Accordingly, the undersigned requested that the hearing on the Motion to purge be continued so that he could request such relief via the instant motion' ll.Due to the privileged nature of the inadvertently disclosed,attomey-client priveged communication sought to be purged from the record, plaintiff hereby requests that this Court allow the Motion to Purge to proceed by a confidential, in camera hearing.

Full motion below...

We will notice everyone on the hearing to close the hearing once we have the date!

Oh, and BTW, we have a big surprise for you all on this one so stay tuned!

And I thought the Florida Bar said foreclosure lawyers must report fraud to court...

I also wonder if anyone notified the homeowners association that the "Plaintiff" is trying to cheat them out of their money. Guess I'll give em a call and find out...

www.4closureFraud.org

 

Akerman Motion to Close the Court

 

LPS Internal Emails Pg 1 - Foreclosed in Wrong Party Name

LPS Internal Emails Pg 2 - Foreclosed in Wrong Party Name 

 

 Lopez Affidavit

 

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/06/2012 - 08:05 | 2498778 Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

If the judge grants the closed hearing and the motion to purge, I can't help but think that he has joined a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 09:08 | 2498916 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Oh I FULLY expect the judge to grant a closed hearing. It was the judge who repeatedly herded the panicked lawyer towards that option. Why didn't the judge just say: "Fuck NO, let's proceed." ?

We know why. The money, late night phone calls, or compromising pictures have already been served. What happened here is the lawyer almost fucked up the whole thing, but the judge made a last minute stick-save.

 

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:21 | 2499399 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Depends.  I think it's fair to presume that the motion will be granted, but often times a good judge helps out lawyers from malpractice (the judge has been in the same position after all).  It isn't a giant conspiracy in favor of the bank...  it's simply the judge saving a fellow member of the bar.  Happens every day.

The other thing to remember...  it's often times like NBA referees...  a favor on this thing will often times be repaid with a detriment on down the road...  probably in the same case.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:34 | 2499493 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Good ole "Professional Courtesy" aka, "Honor Amongst Thieves."

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 12:07 | 2499671 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

There isn't honor amongst thieves, but there is with the old guard bar...  similar to, but not as annoying as, the "blue shield."

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 07:01 | 2498677 Benjamin Glutton
Benjamin Glutton's picture
Quelle Surprise! Treasury Inspector Audit Report Whitewashes OCC Fail on Foreclosure Fraud

Yesterday, various news and financial sites picked up the release last Friday of a report by the Treasury’s Inspector General titled “SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS: OCC’s Supervision of National Bank’s Foreclosure Practices“. The media accounts are workman-like summaries with titles like “Bank oversight office failed to spot foreclosure fraud, Treasury inspector general says.”

The problem is that these various accounts are narrowly accurate (in that they summarize the report) but missed the real story. First is that this tamely critical report was released well after the mortgage settlement was completed, even though its text has marks of it being finished before then. Notice this section:

The regulatory environment surrounding mortgage servicing continues to evolve. Developing national mortgage servicing standards has been suggested and certain state attorneys general are working toward a comprehensive settlement with some banks that, among other goals, would define standards of servicer
behavior.

This strongly suggests the report was completed prior to the settlement and not updated.

That in turn means there’s good reason to suspect that this official confirmation of what numerous critics had claimed, that the OCC was not at all on top of servicing bad practices, was held back until the settlement was no longer deemed news. Why? Well, the OCC and other regulators maintained they had a solid grasp of what was wrong; this was critical to believing they were competent to negotiate a settlement. Thus this inspector general report undermines the legitimacy of the settlement (not that anyone who is not part of the problem believes it was adequate).

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 00:48 | 2498423 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

If this judge grants the motion to close the court to the public...

Then these corrupt judges must be voted to hell...

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:17 | 2499385 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The judge was probably voted into office...  and, if the judge does it, then presumably it is available to the judge, by law...  if not, then an appeal should quickly dispense with the issue.  If a matter is solely within the purview of a trial judge, I think you're going to have a hard time substantiating a corruption claim... 

You would be surprised at the natural, organic inclinations of many judges... 

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 02:13 | 2498493 world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

sigh, we will still take it up the ass, as we know no other way

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 21:19 | 2498081 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

And to think this Administration has picked this particular time to "throw the entirety of the Judicial Branch under the bus." Hmmmm. SMART! What's next? Invade a Middle Eastern country? Oh, ooops. Looks like we're working on "number 4" already.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:31 | 2499482 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Classic election year rhetoric. Stomp on the other two branches in order to elevate the executive. My only question is, will they find some guy in a back-office from India to blame?

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:23 | 2497963 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Akerman Senterfitt sounds like a cheap Dickens villain anyway.  Do carry on!

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 22:35 | 2498218 Buck Johnson
Buck Johnson's picture

No kidding, he sure does sound like one.  And then the judge trying to give him a  hint that you want me to close a public courtroom and he still didn't get it.  I'm surprised that the judge didn't yell at  him and tell him where to go.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:12 | 2499362 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The judge wouldn't get mad at the idiot trying to close the public courtroom...  hell, lawyers can ask for anything and generally have quite a bit of leeway in the manner of asking...  but, when the judge clearly offers you an easy out (continuing the matter and filing another motion), then you'd best take it...  and quickly...  if he keeps on after the judge throws him a bone, it may not be pretty.

The other thing...  if you deal with the same judges on a daily/weekly basis, then you NEVER make these goofy ass arguments...  a single case is not worth losing goodwill over...  but in this case, my guess is that there probably isn't much goodwill to lose...  (if it's a tie, the case is going to go to the guy with the most goodwill).

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:09 | 2497920 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

more evidence that america is a corrupt criminal enterprise.....what else would one expect from a state run by a bush crime syndicate don? oh and all of this high mindedness with the most educated generation in american history...i want a front row seat on judgment day....

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 22:39 | 2498222 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

You'll be getting a front-row seat on Judgement Day, Tony. But not in the jury; you'll be in the dock.

Oh, while you're venting your outrage over "a state run by a bush crime syndicate", have you no words for Illinois, a state run by a Daley-Jackson-Obama crime syndicate, or the Massachusetts Dead Kennedys crime syndicate?

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 09:01 | 2498911 ich1baN
ich1baN's picture

Your ignorance of the state of FLorida is apparent. The Bush families ties to FL are not strong as when JBush was governor of FL. In fact they don't really have an association with FL anymore. Their main cadre resides in Texas.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:29 | 2499470 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

They may not be tied into the visible apparatus of power at this time (all pendulums must swing!), but that in no way means they aren't still well associated with the "opposition" power players there. Besides, the whole place is a giant CIA op, so there's little doubt that associations exist.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:59 | 2497894 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

Non-lawyers can file grievance claim (Lawyer committing fraud) to the State Bar. In fact, I was not a resident of NC nor a party to the case and NC State Bar accepted my grievance claims. One claim was investigated by an independent lawyer outside the State Bar legal department. The process is completely dark to protect the ????.

I encourage people to organize their facts and file grievance claims with the appropriate State Bar. People should inudate the Florida State Bar with grievance claims! Read the state's code of professional conduct (code of ethics) and file claim per each violation of the code.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:08 | 2499340 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Generally, claims first go to a gatekeeper...  (often times the head/director of the ethics committee).  The gatekeeper reviews the claim and then if it actually states a violation of the code of conduct, contacts the subject attorney.  The attorney provides an explanation and if it's a he said/she said affair, then the claim is generally dropped...  if the attorney fails to respond, then often times the attorney is reprimanded for failure to respond, at least (but this does not necessarily have the same effect as a default in court, e.g. the allegations of the claim are not presumed true).  If it's not a he said/she said type of thing, then it will go to an administrative hearing...

Basically, disbarring an attorney is a fairly...  lengthy and difficult process...  there are only a few matters that might even warrant it in the eyes of the judiciary (kind of like the death penalty)...  however, warnings are given fairly freely.

PS, the state bar association probably gives a magazine/periodical to all members that includes all of the ethics violations of bar members...  basically gossip porn for lawyers.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:37 | 2497852 JohnKozac
JohnKozac's picture
Even After The Housing Crisis You're Still Better Off Renting Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/should-you-buy-or-rent-a-house-2012-6#ixzz1wxtGWWzS Gives some pros and cons of renting v buying.
Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:19 | 2497945 JuicedGamma
JuicedGamma's picture

www.businessinsider.com/should-you-buy-or-rent-a-house-2012-6

What the article fails to mention is hyper-inflation where your 500k mortgage may look more like 50-100k.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 22:27 | 2498204 geoffb
geoffb's picture

Do you think those banks would really honor a mortgage contract in a hyperinflation scenario? They don't follow the laws or honor the contracts now!! They would just use the Too Big To Fail get out of jail free card. Oh, btw, we forgot to notify you in advance but your fixed rate converts to a variable rate if the rate of inflation goes over 3% + prime per annum and added a 10k late payment penalty. And by the way, we can't tell you what your new rate is but we'll let you know how big your payment is to keep your home. Home "ownership" is dead until the reboot.  And don't get me started on property tax.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:27 | 2499456 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

What's interesting in these scenarios is that they will both undermine the ideology of "consent of the governed." If they ever get that blatant in their theft, well... there won't be any banks OR government left. It'll be outright open war along with martial law amongst the factions that emerge, as there's simply no way the mass of people will stand for having their homes taken away.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:23 | 2499301 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I think the risk of the banks being able to unilaterally change contracts in a hyperinflationary scenario is nil or next to nil...  The bigger risk as a pleb is whether or not any of that inflation actually increases the nominal dollars in our pockets...  I have my doubts.

You're really, really overstepping here.  If your scenario holds up, then I think it would be much more likely your property is simply outright nationalized or given to a third party under threat of force.  There are a few linchpins in our political/economic system and this is one of them.  In other words, if the banks weild this level of political power, then there would be no need to bother with other formalities or otherwise unilaterally amending contracts...

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 21:23 | 2498090 GlobalCtzn
GlobalCtzn's picture

But your $500 per month HOA is now $50,000. OUCH! Just thinking out loud.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 21:39 | 2498118 JuicedGamma
JuicedGamma's picture

And your tax bill is 50k year. Although the rent may rise even faster.

The only thing holding the lid on is the billion Chinese and Indians willing to work for $5/wk. Take them out of the equation and then things will get rolling.

Otherwise Bernanke can print with impunity and the inflation gets exported. He's much maligned but not stupid.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:16 | 2497940 JuicedGamma
JuicedGamma's picture

.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:34 | 2497848 aerial view
aerial view's picture

nice work 4cF! The corruptness in the FL legal system relegates it to 3rd world status and has dissuaded many of us from ever purchasing property there again!

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:22 | 2499417 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Hey, the CIA has to set up shop somewhere.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:24 | 2497826 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

State Bar Associations' Code of Ethical Conduct is the best example of false advertising I have ever witnessed. I have battled lawyers in NC with one being a VP of the NC State Bar Association. The lawyers basically used their position to steal a $2.0 million property from their clients who were not citizens of the USA. The state bar lawyer felt so bad she told me over the phone that one of the lawyers had been privately censored. I told her this reprimand was not an option per the written rules governing the process. She hung up the phone.

Our judicial system should be called "The Legal Mafia". They take money from the rich to pervert the spirit of the law and use the technical aspects of the law to steal from the poor. In fact, one of these lawyers had to be a witness in federal bankruptcy and told the courtroom that his partners and him created MOLAW, LLC so the firm's partners could collect all the property the practice had acquired. I was shocked he admitted this, but not one legal eyebrow was raised; therefore stealing property is common practice. 

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:25 | 2499159 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Generally speaking, there is one transgression above all others...  stealing client money.  If you take money out of your client's trust fund that isn't yours, then you'll be getting more than a slap on the wrist.  Now, doing business deals contrary to your clients' interests is...  certainly a transgression, but does not perfectly fit into the afore-mentioned category...

The only thing you have described is the business estimation of legal risk.  In other words, these types of crimes and/or ethical transgressions are done after a simple mathmatical assessment, whether the amount in controversy multiplied by the likelihood of success exceeds the possible penalty multiplied by the likelihood of getting caught AND someone actually bringing charges.  This is the basis of white collar crime...  It's a simple business decision for some people...

The other thing is that the legal system is not any more particularly perverted now than it has ever been...  the difference is that the way we receive information, with a specific eye towards the elimination of barriers (monopolies) of distribution, has changed significantly.  There is no such thing as the "spirit" of the law (this is why we have courts of equity)...  either the law says something or it doesn't...  sometimes the law actually manages to coincide with the "spirit" of morality, but often times the law is either more practically rooted or simply implemented by virtue of political control (often times patently corrupt and/or retarded).  And, the saddest part...  I'm not sure humans can devise a better system.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:16 | 2497796 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

what is the attorneys name and address......so the public knows who is committing treason

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 06:15 | 2498640 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

There's nothing wrong with a Lawyer that a rope can't fix.

We need to be proactive in community improvements, such as streetlamp 'ornaments'.

Get involved in such efforts. 

And remember...at least 99.99% of judges are actually Lawyers too.

I'd guess that at least 97% of our elected governmental offal are Lawyers also.

Lotta of streetlamps and trees in DC and State Capitols.  Shouldn't put such resources to waste.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:10 | 2499109 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

No comment on the lawyers who are bringing this case to your attention and fighting to protect the homeowner?

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:23 | 2499427 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

Sure, the 'other side' can go on the other end of the rope.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 12:37 | 2499801 Thisson
Thisson's picture

Your view is quite pathetic.  Sure, there are bad apples in every profession, but lawyers in general are the defenders of liberty and getting rid of them would enable would-be tyrants.

Furthermore, advocating violence as a solution is foolish when it is completely unnecessary.  I would rather see an Argentine-style protest of mothers and grandmother's beating their cookware.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:37 | 2497997 neidermeyer
neidermeyer's picture

Thanks 4ClosureFraud , this needed more exposure ...

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:31 | 2497842 Tortfeasor
Tortfeasor's picture

It's on the pleadings.

Committing fraud with your client's help is not attorney-client priv. 

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:30 | 2497983 max2205
max2205's picture

USA: finest legal system money can buy

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 22:35 | 2498217 Treason Season
Treason Season's picture

Guilty til proven influential.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 06:38 | 2498656 Mr Kurtz
Mr Kurtz's picture

or affluential.

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 19:45 | 2497870 4closureFraud
4closureFraud's picture

"Committing fraud with your client's help is not attorney-client priv."

+1000

Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:07 | 2497907 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

 

"One notable exception to this [attorney client] privilege is the crime-fraud exception, which applies where the client intends to consult with a lawyer in furtherance of a crime or fraud. For the purposes of asserting this exception, it doesn't matter whether a crime or fraud actually occurred, nor does it matter whether the attorney even knew about it. The entire inquiry focuses on the client's intent when he or she sought the legal advice.

White collar criminal cases, which almost always involve a fraudulent scheme or transfer of money, tend to create situations where the crime-fraud exception can apply. This is because a client, in this case a criminal defendant, can attempt to cover up financial transactions or use an attorney to find loopholes for illegal activity. Also, most white collar criminal defendants are accused of fraud and many of these defendants will continue to carry out that fraud as part of their defense, making otherwise privileged information available to the public under the crime-fraud exception."  http://libguides.law.gsu.edu/content.php?pid=197246

 

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 12:40 | 2499815 Thisson
Thisson's picture

The document at issue may not even be privileged.  To be privileged, it has to be a communication between an attorney and a client concerning legal advice, not business advice.  Is one of the parties to the communication here an attorney?  Is this a request for legal advice? Or is it just a request for business advice?  The answers do not seem obvious to me.  That being said, I think the judge will likely purge the record but will not close the court to the public.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!