This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
If you passed your boards with a D+, and can sign your name, you possess all the credentials required for this job
Wow...
From a recently posted Craigslist ad...
We are a collection agency/debt buyer. What we are looking for is a part time attorney to work for us as our corporate counsel, on our payroll, about 5 to 6 hours a week. This is a short term employment arrangement, no longer than 90 to 120 days.
Your job will be to sign pleadings, praecipe for entry of appearances, praecipe for writ of execution, and garnishment orders. Our paralegal will prepare all paperwork for your signature. This is very standard stuff for us.
If you are an attorney looking for challenging legal work, this is not for you. WE DO NOT NEED F LEE BAILEY- we are fee shopping. If you passed your boards with a D+, and you can sign your name, you possess all the credentials required for this job. If this opportunity interests you, please feel free to reply to this email with a brief description of who you are, when you got your law license, and what you will be needing from us in the way of compensation.
I wonder if this is a division of LPS?
No wonder why everything is so FUBAR'ed
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
"D+, thats not a grade they like to give out...."
If I were a lawyer, I'd just make a stamp with my signature on it and sell it to them for a large fee.
"Out of nowhere ! A former greenskeeper -- now about to become the corporate counsel for a debt collecting boiler room !"
Carl Spackler, J.D.
http://moreintelligentlife.com/files/Bill%20Murray.jpg
The U.S. has the best legal system in the world... for lawyers.
care to present a better one and explain the specific areas in which it is better?
sounds like they need a robo signer.....
survivingsurvivalism.com
Eric Holder might qualify....
In an Indiana courtroom before the judge was seated the states prosecutor took from my wifes hand the speeding ticket issued her with the wrong state license plate and number and year of her vehicle on it and tore it up. No evidence any longer for her. When the judge asked the prosecutor if he took anything from my wife in the courtroom he said "no your honor". End of the case and she paid the fine. There were 20 or so people including some attorneys with their clients who witnessed the offense and no one said a word. I had already been told to leave the courtroom when I protested the original action. There is no rule of law here in America. It is mental masturbation to believe so. Those who make the rules rule. Prepare accordingly. I wrote a letter to the Judge certified mail to explain what had happened in his courtroom and never heard a boo for a reply.
So what did the prosecutor use for evidence?
There is a lot more to the story, presuming its basic facts are even remotely plausible... you definitely make a good point... if there was no record of a ticket, then there is no ticket unless you admit to it...
Really? An anonymous posting on Craigslist. This is the best 4closurefreaud can come up with? Give me a minute and I can create a "job opening" too. How's this? " Micro-blog on foreclosure fraud seeks similarly delusional assistant to point wildly and scream "foreclosure fraud" every 12.25 minutes or upon passing any bank or ATM owned by Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, US National Bank Assoc., or Bank of NY., whichever comes first. Actually witnessing foreclosure fraud is not a prerequisite for this position. As along as you think there is fraud going on, that's good enough for us. Your idea of fraud need not meet any recognizable legal definition of same. We make up our own definition in-house. Compensation is commensurate with experience. Prior stints in a mental health facility is a plus.
If you are not actually an attorney, please make sure not to mention that during our brief interview process.
Attention fellow serf's, the proper answer is called a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.
Chances are Mr. or Ms. D+ will sign prepared docs based on fraud including improper service. Look it up at a state website near you.
They are openly advertising the need for a useful idiot.
These fucks think they can use the legal system to act like the IRS, don't be afraid of them. They are agressive by nature because they compete with other scavengers over husks of former financial lives.
I published an answer to a reader question this morning about settling a credit card debt when you are sued. I later read an article in a semi local weekly publication for 20 somethings: http://consumerrecoverynetwork.com/question/can-you-negotiate-and-settle...
Be sure to read the article I link at the end where the robo signer for the largest debt buyer in the nation admits to not reading or understanding what she was signing so that they could be sent to attorney collection firms around the country for use in active lawsuits.
Along with my states Harmon Law Offices P.C., we also have ads for these, as business is booming:
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/lgl/3145270926.html
I thought about doing it, just so I could see if there was fraud and then throw them under the bus. However, since my impotent State AG Coakley sold us out already, it would fall on deaf ears.
This is now policy across the country.
chanelling roseanne rosanna danna....
"whats all this talk of the mules of law? isnt a jackass a jackass after all? "
"oh, never mind".
Antonio Villaraigosa (the Acalde of LosAngeles) would take the job if he passed the bar,but he didn't,.
anyone stupid enough to take this "job" will be disbarred and rightfully so.
http://expose2.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/a-voice-from-the-dark/
You could also become the president of the EU parliament with that kind of qualification: Martin Schulz went 13 years to high school, failed to get a diploma and never went to university.
It's all about a post on craigslist, that's really noise for nothing. Sorry guys!
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/lgl/3143539847.html
date: 2012-07-16, 5:04PM EDT
Reply to: gvscj-3143539847@job.craigslist.org
I don't know how you find this stuff 4closurefraud, but it's just unbelievable. What does it say about the courts if a D+ student lackey comes in with robosigned papers and the court just goes along?
While 95% of foreclosures are undefended,any chimpanze with a license will
do.
bingo. we know we didn't pay, so why do we care to defend... let em have it. We're also turnips so... they can try and collect a deficiency, but good luck with that shit... we're moving in with relatives or, alternatively, borrowing more money from a different lender before everyone figures out what's going on
If only this were true. I am highly skeptical that this offer appeared in craigslist really. In my experience, and this has been confirmed by other lawyers representing hapless borrowers, the courts refuse to treat borrowers equally. Servicer counsel pull the most outrageous stunts and are ignored. They routinely refuse to comply with the civil rules and meet with no sanctions. They hide evidence and lie in depositions. They promulgate false affidavits, sometimes in the same lawsuit, and the judges give them a universal bye on this conduct. Conduct that would land an ordinary lawyer in deep trouble and broke from sanctions. The general, though not universal, attitude is that the borrower is always wrong and a deadbeat. His arguments, even when plausible, are just a waste of time becuase the bank (actually the government now, thank you Fannie and Freddie) will ultimatley get the house. Court's rationalize this usually with the bleat that they are too overwhelmed to listen to these disputes. Though apparently the court's coffers are well filled by this tsunami of foreclosure actions, all funded by the servicers (or, again, the government ultimately through bailouts). My advice; do not buy a house on credit. Do not use any national or especially bailout bank. Do not transact a mortgage that will ultimately be sold to Fannie Freddie. You are not equal before the law in a dispute with these persons. They will get your house on a pretense.
I don't doubt it's posted on craigslist... I get cold calls quite a bit from different referral sources trying to get me to nibble. There are quite a few .coms that specialize in taking a cut from customers/clients who call with legal problems... often times it's debt collection. (I have some serious reservations as to how it's ethically possible to do this, especially across state lines). At any rate, I basically laugh them off the phone each time based upon the amount they're willing to pay for certain transaction (and the afore-mentioned reservations)... "we'll draft all the documents for you, all you have to do is go to the hearing and get the court's approval"... well, they'll offer something like $70 to go a couple towns away and sit at a hearing for a few hours waiting on our turn... good luck with that shit. I'm not sure they really need to tell anyone that they're wanting to hire anyone with a license and just want the cheapest possible with those types of numbers... it's all they're going to get. The offers are literally in line with minimum wage or slightly above by the time you net out gas and other costs. You would be net ahead to take any job paying $10/hr. or more.
As to being "equal" in front of the law... you're technically wrong and practically right. The difference between plaintiffs and defendants in this case is their access to counsel. Generally speaking, deadbeats are pro se or have bottom of the barrel legal talent unless someone is throwing a charity case. The legal talent available typically doesn't have the same kind of relationship with the court that a creditor attorney does (in there all the time, etc.). Often times, it's the attorney's credibility that wins cases, not his client's... especially in a bench trial. When it's J6P against someone that's in the judge's ear all day, every day, then it's tilted from the start. Aside from the fact that pro se defendants "have fools for clients". The strangest part is that courts often bend over backwards for pro se parties... make their arguments for them... etc. But this is rarely enough to win the day. Inevitably, there is some failure on their part to legally dot all their i's and cross all their t's. In short, I dispute that the parties don't start off equal in the eyes of the law... they do... but they don't end up that way.
And yes, there is a reluctance by all courts to re-litigate matters. The court does not want to give a debtor back a house only to see the same parties back in court when the bank sues on the note instead of the mortgage. Obviously there are priority considerations to be made by the foreclosing party, but this is a PUBLIC POLICY argument from the court... judicial expediency... and the court is right 95% of the time to implement it... unfortunately, just not in the case of fraudclosures. (remember, if you have to retry a case, then you're missing out on fishing time).
I'd also like to add that I believe the trend is changing in favor of parties defending against foreclosure... and I think we need to give props to OP, foreclosure hamlet, chunga, et al for their light drawing endeavors. I believe that the wheels are slowly turning and that before much longer, critical mass will be achieved.
Here's the ad:
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/lgl/3143539847.html
The Court simply looks at forms dispite content. They will set a court date whether or not the defendent was served, whether or not the plaintiff has proof of claim.
Until we decide that labor is not fair game for the parasites, this will keep going on.
f'n funny
Craigslist has some great ads.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/fay/938646501.html
in a similar vein, i'm glad to find out that the lps cited in the post is probably lender processing services. i had hoped that littlest pet shop was more reputable (and apparently they are) http://www.hasbro.com/littlestpetshop/en_US/.
i would have thought the naked tail would have given the cat finder pause. but then i voted for obama so there is no telling.
Stil easier work than chasing ambulances or hanging around the local police station waiting for arrests to come in..... the clever - if less than competent ones - all went into politics. That is all too clear in local politics. Seems like that's where the truly mediocre and less than cutthroat ones end up (the rfeally scheming ones end up at the state or national level).
"the clever - if less than competent ones - all went into politics."
When a lawyer passes the Bar exam and is accepted into the club they become "Officers of the Court", which is in the judicial branch of govt. Separation of Powers should require their resignation from this position if they take a post in either of the other branches, in order to prevent obvious conflicts of interest, should it not?
Is it possible that enrolled lawyers that have, or are, serving in elective legislative or govt. executive roles do so illegally?
no... this isn't really how separation of powers works... I don't think you'd be arguing a justiciable issue.
I think you're confusing some type of vague impropriety with illegality...
That's why I asked the question.
If you are right, would you not agree that resignation from the bar should be a requirement?
No... being a lawyer is basically having a doctorate in legal studies... except more practically applied than a phd (and a lot higher alcohol tolerance). I see no inherent conflict... lawyers are not incentivized to care what the law is...
Yes, I think there should be a prohibition on regulatory capture... I think requiring a waiting period (very long, if not infinite) for switching back and forth between regulator and regulatee (certainly in financial arenas) is a must... but lawyers traverse every industry... as do many other professions... so, what you're talking about is an issue for all professions, not just attorneys.
Practically speaking, you're trying to draw some uber technical stance on lawyers being an "officer of the court." This is an illusory title at best... the benefits de minimis. Lawyers can be stripped of the right to practice in a court (no longer being officers thereof) while still being able to generally practice law... Lawyers are not government officials... judges are government officials... prosecutors are government officials... but lawyers in general are not... so I'm not sure what separation of powers has anything to do with it. Nor do I see any inherent problem with anything outside of the regulator v. regulatee conflict... In other words, a standard lawyer would need to expressly join some branch of the government before a conflict could arise... just like any other profession.
You'll also have to determine the scope of the conflict... if I'm the prosecutor of bfe indiana am I going to have a constitutional conflict with some contract dispute in florida? Conflicts don't exist in a vacuum... you must also determine the extent to which a conflict actually exists... the remainder is fair game, regardless of what you think it looks like (which is why many professions, including lawyers, have ethical rules based on the appearance of impropriety... however, I do not believe these apply to what you're discussing).
Perhaps the ad should read "if you are a recently retired attorney and/or an attorney diagnosed with an imminently terminal illness, who is still licensed to practice law, and don't mind getting disbarred and ending your career in shame in exchange for a short term, one time injection of fast easy cash, give us a call. Applicants with the shortest life expectancy will be given priority consideration. Our corporate motto is: "With An Officer Of The Court, Together We Can Reach New Lows."
While I do not research such things, I have yet to hear of a single foreclosure plaintiff's attorney who has suffered any ill effects of their activities, though I do recall a firm getting in trouble in Florida. Here in Ohio, they have a a lawfirm that created a separate department manufacturing ownership documents for lenders (a nice service for them I'm sure), and the authorities do nothing. They did get sued by a former and disgraced Attorney General (now in private practice) and reputedly paid a big settlement for this activity. but no sanctions. Foreclosure attorneys seem to be doing quite well thank you, no matter how they treat the law.
The bar doesn't attack the bar... there is a conflict of interest here... not in the direct sense (e.g. representing both sides in a case), but in the indirect sense... in the sense of legal culture. There really need to be independent investigations and tribunals set up to deal with the issue...
The other aspect, practically speaking, is that foreclosure defendants (deadbeats) don't have any scratch to pursue anything... granted, each state's ethics committee/supreme court should take up the issue... but, generally speaking, unless you're stealing money from your trust account (prepaid legal fees), you're probably not going to lose your license.
Further, the real way lawyers get in trouble ethically is for local judges to rat them out... basically, in some respects, judges are mandated reporters. When things go badly in that judge's court, he or she is sometimes bound to report the actions of an attorney to the ethics committee... if anyone really wanted to tackle the issue, they could implement more strict procedures on mandatory reporting for fraudclosure cases/debt collections as well as strict liability penalities (e.g. fail to catch a document that's fraudulent on its face, get automatic suspension and $X fine per doc). This would at least put the impetus on states' ethics committees to start cracking heads.
Realistically though... the only effect all of this would have is that no one would foreclose... and I'm having a really hard time understanding how that helps clear malinvestment from the market (one of the first steps towards our recovery).
"The bar doesn't attack the bar..."
The primary purpose of "The Bar" is to perpetuate and protect their legal monopoly.
This is the same for any industry. If you really want to dive into the issue though, check out your state's laws on the practice of law without a license... probably much more broadly defined than its medicinal counterpart... and, of course, interpreted by... lawyers.
But the perpetuation of the legal monopoly doesn't incentivize bar members to protect other bar members... in fact, the incentive would be for an elimination of competition... throwing your competitors to the wolves so you can cannibalize their clients. It's self preservation and machiavellian aptitude that guides these decisions... the tucking of an ace up the sleeve so to speak.
the court system has become a joke anyway... justice to those who can afford it... a system designed mainly to protect corporations, while giving the illusion of fairness under the rubrik of "rule of law". ever notice how hitlary clinton likes to go around to third world countries and preach about the rule of law? why? just like elections, the "rule of law" is just a simple way for the criminals to take over while the sheeple sleep through... usually not a shot required.
The court system is bound by the law... if law is bad, then courts will be bad... courts don't create law, they have to abide by it... aside from equitable powers (one of the few bastions of justice remaining)
However, you are correct regarding the law... the law is a joke... although, it has always been and will always be a joke... the law has ALWAYS been designed to protect property/wealth... the only difference is in the degree to which (or the speed at which) law can be corrupted and cooperative efforts can be utilized to profit (e.g. barriers to entry, imposed monopolies, etc.). So, maybe it hasn't always been a joke in a relative sense, but in an absolute sense, it has and always will be... we're not experiencing anything new...
Personally, I'd say they are bound by the facade of the law. Marc Stevens has written THE must read book on the subject.
Adventures in Legal Land
http://marcstevens.net/store/aillbook.html
Would 12 cents per signature be too much?
Booyah!
The real estate biz was getting kinda slow.
Does it help if your name is "Linda Green?"...
Yes it would be too much. The exchange rate of rupees to dollar is only 0.017 rupee per dollar. So, perhaps 1.2 cents per signature would be more economical outsourcing of the rule of law.
Good answer, I Am - had to give you a greenie for that one.
"Yes it would be too much."
But you can make it up with volume - say, 10,000 signatures / hour avg.
Interesting that the job is listed as "no longer than 90 to 120 days."
My guess is that the instant the polls close in November they (and everybody else) are going on a massive filing spree, while using the lead-time to prepare the docs.