Foggy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:38 am
He did it to disclose home addresses of all the defendants. He wants you to go to their houses and fuck them up. If you won't do it, someone else will. It's all about doxxing his enemies in a legal way.
Yep. Klayman does this as well: Uses the courts to publish sensitive information or outright lies. All from the safety of his mailbox office.
* * *
SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 12:45 pmWho is left to sue?
Again referencing Klayman, anyone who might say a mean thing about her or her client. Klayman lurves to sue people for defamation over the reporting about him. And, again, the goal isn't to win, but to harass and punish.
Stripping away all the RICO!!!! decorations, at bottom this is a (time-barred) defamation suit. Clinton and her allies are alleged to have said untrue things about the plaintiff (in 2016). As if "public figure" and "actual malice" don't exist.
Foggy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:38 am
He did it to disclose home addresses of all the defendants. He wants you to go to their houses and fuck them up. If you won't do it, someone else will. It's all about doxxing his enemies in a legal way.
Inexplicably? I used to call this type of cheap, inaccurate, cowardly reportage "normalizing malign acts" and "confusing neutrality with neutralizing".
Suranis wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:33 pm
If he just believed in his own greatness he would be Marlon Brando - not giving a fuck what anyone thought of him.
But he does not. So he makes people applaud him say he is great, desperately tries to hang out with big men, talks about how people like him and have emotional outbursts, proves he really won an election, take revenge to make himself the alpha again at every slight, sues people who say he is just a millionaire, etc.
Hence one of my first favorite monikers for him:
"Trumplethinskin"
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
Repeached Florida Man wrote:We filed this great case, we've got a judge* that was appointed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. How do you think that's going to go? This shit can only happen to me.**
Repeached Florida Man wrote:We filed this great case, we've got a judge* that was appointed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. How do you think that's going to go? This shit can only happen to me.**
HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
keith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 pm
HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
True, but who in the secondary mortgage market would buy a mortgage that was precluded from foreclosure? If such a clause is in the mortgage agreement, it must be honored by any buyer. If its not in the document, it doesn't exist.
Even if he can't foreclose, he have every right to refuse to remove the lien until the debt had been paid. That means that the client can't sell the house without paying him.
keith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 pm
HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
True, but who in the secondary mortgage market would buy a mortgage that was precluded from foreclosure? If such a clause is in the mortgage agreement, it must be honored by any buyer. If its not in the document, it doesn't exist.
Even if he can't foreclose, he have every right to refuse to remove the lien until the debt had been paid. That means that the client can't sell the house without paying him.
If the lien is contingent upon the lawyer's actual success in litigation (in getting some portion of the client's liability to the bank eliminated), I don't see the problem with having a lien secure the lawyer's contingent fee.
Whether the amount of the contingent fee was reasonable in relation to the actual benefit received by the client is a different question. During a time of declining home values where many individual's liabilities exceeded their assets, the fee may have been high if the combined liens (bank's and lawyer's) approached or exceeded the property's value. The property would still be fully encumbered; the only difference being that a portion would be owed to the lawyer rather than the bank.
keith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 pm
HE might not foreclose, but mortgages can be sold, ya know? And anyway, when was that GFC thingamabob that was caused by shady mortgage shenanigans? Wasnt it about 14 years ago - so within range of that story's history?
True, but who in the secondary mortgage market would buy a mortgage that was precluded from foreclosure? If such a clause is in the mortgage agreement, it must be honored by any buyer. If its not in the document, it doesn't exist.
Even if he can't foreclose, he have every right to refuse to remove the lien until the debt had been paid. That means that the client can't sell the house without paying him.
If the lien is contingent upon the lawyer's actual success in litigation (in getting some portion of the client's liability to the bank eliminated), I don't see the problem with having a lien secure the lawyer's contingent fee.
Whether the amount of the contingent fee was reasonable in relation to the actual benefit received by the client is a different question. During a time of declining home values where many individual's liabilities exceeded their assets, the fee may have been high if the combined liens (bank's and lawyer's) approached or exceeded the property's value. The property would still be fully encumbered; the only difference being that a portion would be owed to the lawyer rather than the bank.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the lawyer having a lien to secure the contingent fee. But someone said that the lawyer promised not to foreclose on the debt, even in the event that the client stopped paying. That is what I was talking about. If the agreement contained a clause precluding foreclosure, I doubt if the secondary market would touch it, but it could complicate the sale of the client's home. If the agreement does not contain that clause and the client is relying on the lawyer's verbal promise not to foreclose, he is a fool. As the say, a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper its written on.
noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:18 pm
If the agreement contained a clause precluding foreclosure, I doubt if the secondary market would touch it
Which was no impediment to the CDS abuse going on in the early 2000's. Shitty mortgages were bundled into CDS and then rated AAA.
Nobody cared about the quality of the mortgage being bundled, they just wanted to keep feeding the CD numbers and giving FALSE quality ratings.
You know this.
Don't........ I was involved with LBHI (Lehman Brothers Holding Inc) and LAMCO (Legacy Asset Management COmpany) that were spun up after the Lehman bankruptcy to manage and liquidate the bad assets.
I spent a lot of time explaining to some folks that "No, I wasn't one of the ebil Banksters wot took your money" and explaining at Mickey Mouse level what CDO's, MBA's, Sub Prime and CDS's were and how they got taken by a rapacious bunch of thieving swine, profit humping lemmings, snake oil salesmen and magical thinking, abetted by credit rating agencies that should have all been put up against a wall and don't get me started on Fannie May, Freddie Mac and the rest.......
He may have two big problems. 1. Hillary Clinton declined to use this information in any of her campaigning and none of it came to light until after the election. And 2. It was Trump's own administration that undertook the investigation.
“A know-it-all is a person who knows everything except for how annoying he is.”
RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:22 pm
He may have two big problems. 1. Hillary Clinton declined to use this information in any of her campaigning and none of it came to light until after the election. And 2. It was Trump's own administration that undertook the investigation.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams