According to the AP, Texas Governor Rick Perry has declared a tort reform measure to be "emergency legislation", which means that it will be placed on a fast track to be considered and passed by the Texas Legislature.
The measure, House Bill 274, will call upon the Texas Supreme Court to tighten rules for bringing a civil law suit. It would also institute a "loser pays" system that would require the plaintiff to pay for the defendant's legal bills should he or she lose the law suit.
According to the Point of Law website, the United States is unique in all of western democracies in the fact that it does not have a loser pays regime for civil law suits, with the exception of Alaska, which has had the rule for decades, and Oregon and Oklahoma, which has applied loser pays to a significant amount of civil actions.
Point of Law suggests that he principle behind loser pays is that it would discourage frivolous law suits, often brought to persuade a defendant to settle out of court rather than undergo the expense of a trial. It would also provide an incentive for more reasonable out of court settlements.
A further argument for loser pays points to the fact that even if a party who is being sued prevails in court, he or she is often out a significant amount of money simply defending him or herself.
The Point of Law website suggests, however, that one reason that loser pays has not been more widely enacted in the United States is that the American bar is very powerful and jealously defends what for it is a lucrative industry. Contingency fee lawyers can make a considerable amount of money in filing legal actions, even if sometimes the cases are weak.
Texas has previously passed a tort reform bill that limited non economic damages to $750,000. The bill, passed in 2003, was aimed primarily at curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Association claims that the law has resulted in a decrease in medical liability premiums for physicians in Texas and an increase in physician recruitment and retention in the state,
Texas resident Mark Whittington writes about state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network
Yeah we don't have Sharia law either, nor do most other countries have Corporations writing all the laws, and in all European countries most of what we have as civil law is criminal. If a bridge falls down or a train derails because of negligence or bad engineering people go to jail. (BP) Plus it goes both ways not just for people who are injured.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Injustice of the week:Texans need to be another country, like Iran....
Texas already passed the second more comprehensive"tort reform" aka corporate welfare and irresponsibility bill in the county a few years back. (Next to Mississippi) They laws are so bad there that builders are vitually immune for building bad houses, and trust me they have worst in the country by far, doctors are immune, and big business kills people for fun. Plus they have a complete Republican Supreme Court that reverse what verdict people actually manage to get. But apparently that is not enough they now want loser pays. Not like in England, as the defendant corportaion never has to pay, just the injured plaintiff. Texas Justice style! Why not just do what they really want just make civil trial by jury illegal in Texas. Mexico already has better justice system they they do now. (Read prior post)
Texas governor declares tort reform "emergency."
The Houston Chronicle (5/6, Rogers) reported after Gov. Rick Perry declared tort reform "an 'emergency,'" on Saturday lawmakers were slated to consider a lawsuit reform proposal "that includes a 'loser pays' provision." Proponents say the bill reins in frivolous lawsuits, changes what party pays legal fees, and allows "questions of law to be appealed during a trial and encourage parties to settle." Brad Parker of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association said the measure "has morphed into a bill that could apply not only to a frivolous lawsuit but to a lawsuit that someone happened to lose." Parker added, "It's closing the courthouse doors because it's financially infeasible to proceed with the litigation due to the high economic risk."
Any doubt about this being a political attack....
Well, the GOP controlled Texas House handed Mostyn and the trial lawyers a major defeat on Saturday. They moved forward on HB 274, which would create a “loser pays” tort system similar to the one already prevalent in Britain. The purpose is to choke off frivolous lawsuits by making contingency fee trial lawyers themselves subject to expense recovery if they lose a case, improving the legal and employment climate in the state according to Gov. Rick Perry. Given the importance of trial lawyers to the Texas Democratic Party, the House session was every bit as contentious as might be expected, but at least the Democrats didn’t run off to Oklahoma this time. Even if they had it wouldn’t have mattered much, since the GOP enjoys a massive majority in the House.
The bill will be up for final House passage on Monday. The Senate version, SB 13, is still in committee. Gov. Perry has made tort reform one of his priorities for the 2011 legislative session and specifically supports “loser pays”; if the bill passes the Senate and gets to his desk, he will sign it.
Texas governor declares tort reform "emergency."
The Houston Chronicle (5/6, Rogers) reported after Gov. Rick Perry declared tort reform "an 'emergency,'" on Saturday lawmakers were slated to consider a lawsuit reform proposal "that includes a 'loser pays' provision." Proponents say the bill reins in frivolous lawsuits, changes what party pays legal fees, and allows "questions of law to be appealed during a trial and encourage parties to settle." Brad Parker of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association said the measure "has morphed into a bill that could apply not only to a frivolous lawsuit but to a lawsuit that someone happened to lose." Parker added, "It's closing the courthouse doors because it's financially infeasible to proceed with the litigation due to the high economic risk."
Any doubt about this being a political attack....
Texas House passes ‘loser pays’ tort reform
The past couple of weeks, airwaves around the state capital in Austin have been saturated with TV ads decrying an “assault” on liberties. The “assault” was actually a strong tort reform bill that discourages frivolous lawsuits by making plaintiffs pay defendant’s expenses if they lose a lawsuit. The ads were paid for by the Mostyn law firm out of Houston. That name might be familiar to PJM readers and has certainly become familiar to everyone who watches Texas politics. Over the past couple of years, trial lawyer Steve Mostyn has reaped millions from lawsuits in the aftermath of hurricanes (and mold lawsuits prior to that), lawsuits that all but emptied the state’s windstorm insurance fund. Mostyn has used some of those millions to set himself up as a Texas version of George Soros, funding a “shadow party” on behalf of far left Democrats all over the state. His latest ad campaign defended the status quo, in which there is no early opt out for frivolous lawsuits in Texas, and which allows trial lawyers to sue on contingency knowing that the worst that can happen to them is they won’t collect; meanwhile, those they sue will be out expenses for defending themselves. That environment encourages frivolous lawsuits, and has made lawyers like Mostyn and fellow Democrat Jim Dunnam very wealthy men. And, it has made insurance more and more expensive for everyday Texans.Well, the GOP controlled Texas House handed Mostyn and the trial lawyers a major defeat on Saturday. They moved forward on HB 274, which would create a “loser pays” tort system similar to the one already prevalent in Britain. The purpose is to choke off frivolous lawsuits by making contingency fee trial lawyers themselves subject to expense recovery if they lose a case, improving the legal and employment climate in the state according to Gov. Rick Perry. Given the importance of trial lawyers to the Texas Democratic Party, the House session was every bit as contentious as might be expected, but at least the Democrats didn’t run off to Oklahoma this time. Even if they had it wouldn’t have mattered much, since the GOP enjoys a massive majority in the House.
The bill will be up for final House passage on Monday. The Senate version, SB 13, is still in committee. Gov. Perry has made tort reform one of his priorities for the 2011 legislative session and specifically supports “loser pays”; if the bill passes the Senate and gets to his desk, he will sign it.
'Loser pays' bill passes with no debate
Rare GOP move causes controversy on House floor
Updated: Saturday, 07 May 2011, 11:31 PM CDT
Published : Saturday, 07 May 2011, 9:50 PM CDT
Published : Saturday, 07 May 2011, 9:50 PM CDT
AUSTIN (KXAN) - Drama hit the Texas House floor in a rare Saturday session, as Republicans worked to suspend rules to push a handful of bills through the process quickly.
"We're now here at two o'clock before Mother's Day. People are testy. People are tired," said Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, one of the minority party’s most vocal members during the weekend tiff.
HB 274 , the latest of Gov. Rick Perry’s emergency items, brought the most contention. The measure would force plaintiffs who lose their lawsuits to pay the legal fees. Democrats scoffed at the legislation they said protects big corporations but not the “little man” seeking to sue them.
"Everyone on this floor has measures to be considered that are very important following this bill we have to get to,” said the bill’s author, Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe.
For Creighton, three days of delay were enough. He said Democrats were using the chamber’s rules to stall his bill and hold up the House.
“We've had parliamentary procedure used as trench warfare to keep this bill from being considered,” he said.
Every member mattered, as the House barely had the necessary quorum to take action. Many Republicans were nowhere to be found.
"Until DPS goes wherever they need to go to bring all members back to the Texas House of Representatives and that the doors be locked,” said Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston.
"We're here,” said Rep. Larry Taylor, R-League City. “We're ready to work, and we're not being offered that opportunity to work with our colleagues on the Democratic side."
With a vote of 86-11 (with three present but not voting), Republicans had the exact 100 members needed to pass motions and bills, pushing HB 274 to a vote with no amendments or debate. Shortly after, the House passed the bill 89-12.
"Are you recognizing for that motion to be made at this bill at this time without a single amendment being offered by any member of the House?” Creighton asked Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio.
"You're the chair,” Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer, D-San Antonio, shouted at Straus. “You're the arbiter of these rules. We threw out a chair, because they didn't enforce the rules. If you don't want to enforce the rules, that's on you."
With their 101 supermajority, Republicans can make this move at anytime for any bill. This was a first for this session.
"We have to watch out for the precedents that we're setting,” said Rep. Mark Strama. “When we set a precedent that says we're going to suspend rules when they get in our way, we really make ourselves vulnerable to having processes that are purely driven by the majority."
Creighton said, when the House gets to final passage on Monday, members can debate and amend all they want. However, it takes a lofty two-thirds vote for amendments on final passage, which is once again a process not in favor of the Democratic voice.
"We're now here at two o'clock before Mother's Day. People are testy. People are tired," said Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, one of the minority party’s most vocal members during the weekend tiff.
HB 274 , the latest of Gov. Rick Perry’s emergency items, brought the most contention. The measure would force plaintiffs who lose their lawsuits to pay the legal fees. Democrats scoffed at the legislation they said protects big corporations but not the “little man” seeking to sue them.
"Everyone on this floor has measures to be considered that are very important following this bill we have to get to,” said the bill’s author, Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe.
For Creighton, three days of delay were enough. He said Democrats were using the chamber’s rules to stall his bill and hold up the House.
“We've had parliamentary procedure used as trench warfare to keep this bill from being considered,” he said.
Every member mattered, as the House barely had the necessary quorum to take action. Many Republicans were nowhere to be found.
"Until DPS goes wherever they need to go to bring all members back to the Texas House of Representatives and that the doors be locked,” said Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston.
"We're here,” said Rep. Larry Taylor, R-League City. “We're ready to work, and we're not being offered that opportunity to work with our colleagues on the Democratic side."
With a vote of 86-11 (with three present but not voting), Republicans had the exact 100 members needed to pass motions and bills, pushing HB 274 to a vote with no amendments or debate. Shortly after, the House passed the bill 89-12.
"Are you recognizing for that motion to be made at this bill at this time without a single amendment being offered by any member of the House?” Creighton asked Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio.
"You're the chair,” Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer, D-San Antonio, shouted at Straus. “You're the arbiter of these rules. We threw out a chair, because they didn't enforce the rules. If you don't want to enforce the rules, that's on you."
With their 101 supermajority, Republicans can make this move at anytime for any bill. This was a first for this session.
"We have to watch out for the precedents that we're setting,” said Rep. Mark Strama. “When we set a precedent that says we're going to suspend rules when they get in our way, we really make ourselves vulnerable to having processes that are purely driven by the majority."
Creighton said, when the House gets to final passage on Monday, members can debate and amend all they want. However, it takes a lofty two-thirds vote for amendments on final passage, which is once again a process not in favor of the Democratic voice.
Texas Considers 'Loser Pays' Tort Reform Measure
Contribute content like this. Start here.
Texas Considers 'Loser Pays' Tort Reform Measure
Contribute content like this. Start here.
According to the AP, Texas Governor Rick Perry has declared a tort reform measure to be "emergency legislation", which means that it will be placed on a fast track to be considered and passed by the Texas Legislature.
The measure, House Bill 274, will call upon the Texas Supreme Court to tighten rules for bringing a civil law suit. It would also institute a "loser pays" system that would require the plaintiff to pay for the defendant's legal bills should he or she lose the law suit.
According to the Point of Law website, the United States is unique in all of western democracies in the fact that it does not have a loser pays regime for civil law suits, with the exception of Alaska, which has had the rule for decades, and Oregon and Oklahoma, which has applied loser pays to a significant amount of civil actions.
Point of Law suggests that he principle behind loser pays is that it would discourage frivolous law suits, often brought to persuade a defendant to settle out of court rather than undergo the expense of a trial. It would also provide an incentive for more reasonable out of court settlements.
A further argument for loser pays points to the fact that even if a party who is being sued prevails in court, he or she is often out a significant amount of money simply defending him or herself.
The Point of Law website suggests, however, that one reason that loser pays has not been more widely enacted in the United States is that the American bar is very powerful and jealously defends what for it is a lucrative industry. Contingency fee lawyers can make a considerable amount of money in filing legal actions, even if sometimes the cases are weak.
Texas has previously passed a tort reform bill that limited non economic damages to $750,000. The bill, passed in 2003, was aimed primarily at curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Association claims that the law has resulted in a decrease in medical liability premiums for physicians in Texas and an increase in physician recruitment and retention in the state,
Texas resident Mark Whittington writes about state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network
The measure, House Bill 274, will call upon the Texas Supreme Court to tighten rules for bringing a civil law suit. It would also institute a "loser pays" system that would require the plaintiff to pay for the defendant's legal bills should he or she lose the law suit.
According to the Point of Law website, the United States is unique in all of western democracies in the fact that it does not have a loser pays regime for civil law suits, with the exception of Alaska, which has had the rule for decades, and Oregon and Oklahoma, which has applied loser pays to a significant amount of civil actions.
Point of Law suggests that he principle behind loser pays is that it would discourage frivolous law suits, often brought to persuade a defendant to settle out of court rather than undergo the expense of a trial. It would also provide an incentive for more reasonable out of court settlements.
A further argument for loser pays points to the fact that even if a party who is being sued prevails in court, he or she is often out a significant amount of money simply defending him or herself.
The Point of Law website suggests, however, that one reason that loser pays has not been more widely enacted in the United States is that the American bar is very powerful and jealously defends what for it is a lucrative industry. Contingency fee lawyers can make a considerable amount of money in filing legal actions, even if sometimes the cases are weak.
Texas has previously passed a tort reform bill that limited non economic damages to $750,000. The bill, passed in 2003, was aimed primarily at curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Association claims that the law has resulted in a decrease in medical liability premiums for physicians in Texas and an increase in physician recruitment and retention in the state,
Texas resident Mark Whittington writes about state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network
“Loser Pays” Means Families Pay
Texas Watch—May 4th, 2011
Here we go again. Lobbyists in Austin are once again trying to shield their corporate clients by socializing the cost when they cause needless death, injury, or financial devastation. This time they are pushing HB 274, an un-American scheme that threatens families and small businesses with having to pay the bloated legal costs of big insurance companies and multi-national corporations. Act Now to stop this dangerous legislation.
After 20+ years of pro-defendant legal changes, passing legislation that will make it even more difficult for Texans with valid claims to access the legal system is at best detrimental to public accountability and at worst unconstitutional.The bottom line is that their proposals are designed to intimidate families and small business owners into foregoing the legal accountability process, immunizing polluters, insurance companies, and other big corporate defendants from responsibility.
These schemes most acutely impact middle class families who could be financially devastated not only if they lose a valid lawsuit, but even if they just don’t win big enough. And, the proposal before lawmakers puts small businesses at a particular disadvantage when facing a big corporation in court.
If this bill passes, defendants will be in complete control, leaving the family or business owner at the whim of the accused wrongdoer. Also, under their gerry-rigged formula, even if you win a verdict, you could still be forced to pay the defendant’s legal costs. In other words, you can win and still lose.
Despite the lobbyists’ rhetorical misdirections, this issue has nothing to do with penalizing people who file meritless lawsuits. We already have stiff penalties on the books for that, including the payment of attorneys’ fees. Their real goal is to erase the notion of corporate responsibility. They want to erect so many obstacles to justice that we just throw up our hands and let corporate criminals like BP off the hook.
HB 274 would allow insurance companies even more latitude to deny and underpay valid claims. For instance, a family injured in an auto accident would face an impossible choice if the at-fault driver’s insurance company denied a valid claim. The family would face the threat of paying the bloated legal costs of the insurance company’s legions of lawyers or accepting whatever low-ball offer the insurer makes.
Florida’s experience with a scheme similar to the one being debated by our legislature was so bad that lawmakers there repealed it just five years later. As the Duke Law Journal notes, proponents are “diplomatically silent about Florida’s unsuccessful experience.” A former president of the nation’s oldest association of civil defense lawyers put it bluntly: “They tried it in Florida, and it was a disaster.”
Known as the “British Rule,” this concept was roundly rejected by our nation’s founders more than two centuries ago because it guts individual liberty. In recent years, however, Britain and other countries have begun to rethink the wisdom of this system. In fact, the British Ministry of Justice recently commissioned a report that recommends that Britain scrap its current system in favor of the “American Rule” in which both parties are responsible for their own legal costs. The Economist magazine proclaimed that “every citizen in the land would, at last, have a fair opportunity to have a case heard in the nation’s courts.”
The bottom line is that Texas families already face significant barriers to accessing the constitutional promise of a right to Trial by Jury. Adopting a scheme that has a dubious history and is designed to force families and small businesses with valid claims to weigh the possibility of paying the legal costs of multi-national corporations is not in the best interests of public safety, public justice, or public policy.
After 20+ years of pro-defendant legal changes, passing legislation that will make it even more difficult for Texans with valid claims to access the legal system is at best detrimental to public accountability and at worst unconstitutional.The bottom line is that their proposals are designed to intimidate families and small business owners into foregoing the legal accountability process, immunizing polluters, insurance companies, and other big corporate defendants from responsibility.These schemes most acutely impact middle class families who could be financially devastated not only if they lose a valid lawsuit, but even if they just don’t win big enough. And, the proposal before lawmakers puts small businesses at a particular disadvantage when facing a big corporation in court.
If this bill passes, defendants will be in complete control, leaving the family or business owner at the whim of the accused wrongdoer. Also, under their gerry-rigged formula, even if you win a verdict, you could still be forced to pay the defendant’s legal costs. In other words, you can win and still lose.
Despite the lobbyists’ rhetorical misdirections, this issue has nothing to do with penalizing people who file meritless lawsuits. We already have stiff penalties on the books for that, including the payment of attorneys’ fees. Their real goal is to erase the notion of corporate responsibility. They want to erect so many obstacles to justice that we just throw up our hands and let corporate criminals like BP off the hook.
HB 274 would allow insurance companies even more latitude to deny and underpay valid claims. For instance, a family injured in an auto accident would face an impossible choice if the at-fault driver’s insurance company denied a valid claim. The family would face the threat of paying the bloated legal costs of the insurance company’s legions of lawyers or accepting whatever low-ball offer the insurer makes.
Florida’s experience with a scheme similar to the one being debated by our legislature was so bad that lawmakers there repealed it just five years later. As the Duke Law Journal notes, proponents are “diplomatically silent about Florida’s unsuccessful experience.” A former president of the nation’s oldest association of civil defense lawyers put it bluntly: “They tried it in Florida, and it was a disaster.”
Known as the “British Rule,” this concept was roundly rejected by our nation’s founders more than two centuries ago because it guts individual liberty. In recent years, however, Britain and other countries have begun to rethink the wisdom of this system. In fact, the British Ministry of Justice recently commissioned a report that recommends that Britain scrap its current system in favor of the “American Rule” in which both parties are responsible for their own legal costs. The Economist magazine proclaimed that “every citizen in the land would, at last, have a fair opportunity to have a case heard in the nation’s courts.”
The bottom line is that Texas families already face significant barriers to accessing the constitutional promise of a right to Trial by Jury. Adopting a scheme that has a dubious history and is designed to force families and small businesses with valid claims to weigh the possibility of paying the legal costs of multi-national corporations is not in the best interests of public safety, public justice, or public policy.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Lawyers arrogantly screw up paperwork on Mortgages..Bar wont do jack
Post from Frank Coxwell, I will add nothing other than Res Ipsa Loquitor brother.
EDITOR'S COMMENT: I'd like to see the expression of someone who sits on
a Bar grievance committee that meets out discipline to lawyers, when
they read this. In any situation, until the mortgage meltdown, if a
lawyer signed documents and then presented them as his client's
"evidence" he would be subject to severe discipline if not disbarment.
But as long as we have trillions of dollars at stake, nobody at the Bar
associations is saying anything. Here we have, courtesy of
stopforeclosurefraud.com, part of the transcript in which the lawyer
testifies rather arrogantly, that "sure" he signed the documents, so
what? No, he didn't ever speak to anyone about doing it, no he never
obtained permission or instructions, he just did it.The bottom line is that as long as we delay applying the law as it was
written and followed for hundreds of years concerning property rights,
contract rights, lending and attorney misconduct, the foreclosures will
continue, the housing mess will get larger, and the economy will
continue to sag under the weight of 80 million mortgage transactions
that in any other setting would be called grand theft. And as long as we
continue to hear that correction and restoration of the wealth taken
from investor-lenders and homeowners would be unfair to those who were
not defrauded, we will continue to be subjected to Alice in Wonderland
policies.
ROY DIAZ TRANSCRIPT
Excerpts:
Q. So through that corporate authority as Exhibit 4 to this deposition,
MERS assented to the terms Of this assignment of mortgage?
A. Through me.
Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of This assignment of
mortgage.
A. The one in this case, yes.
Q. And no one else.
A. Correct
Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS acting solely as a nominee
for America's Wholesale Lender; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for America's Wholesale
Lender?
A. By reviewing documentation.
Q. What documentation?
A. I don't specifically recall what I reviewed In this case to see that,
to determine that, but I would have reviewed either the mortgage or I
would have reviewed other documentation that would have established that
to me.
Q. So in this case you don't remember a single Document that you looked
at that would establish the Nominee status of MERS for America's
Wholesale Lenders; Is that correct?
A. I don't
Q. Did someone at America's Wholesale Lender Tell you that MERS was
acting as the nominee?
A. No.
Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were Acting as Nominee for
America's Wholesale Lender?
A. NO.
Q. Was America's Wholesale Lender in existence On May 19, 2010?
A. don't now.
Q. Did you check that before signing this assignment of mortgage?
A. No.
Q. Now, you've said you review the MERS
Website and you've seen documents like this, like Composite Exhibit 6.
Any reason why you wouldn't review the documents contained in Exhibit 6
before executing the assignment of mortgage?
A. It's not necessary.
Q. Why not?
A. Because it's not. Because I decided it's not.
Q. You as vice president of MERS?
A. In every possible capacity as it relates to This case.
Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage after being retained as
counsel for the plaintiff?
A. After my law firm was retained?
Q. (Nods head.)
A. Is that the question?
Q. Sure.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be Used as evidence in your
case, correct?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. It's a sure.
Q. Is that a yes o a no?
A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a No?
Q. Okay. So...
A. It's a yes.
Q. It's a yes.
EDITOR'S COMMENT: I'd like to see the expression of someone who sits on
a Bar grievance committee that meets out discipline to lawyers, when
they read this. In any situation, until the mortgage meltdown, if a
lawyer signed documents and then presented them as his client's
"evidence" he would be subject to severe discipline if not disbarment.
But as long as we have trillions of dollars at stake, nobody at the Bar
associations is saying anything. Here we have, courtesy of
stopforeclosurefraud.com, part of the transcript in which the lawyer
testifies rather arrogantly, that "sure" he signed the documents, so
what? No, he didn't ever speak to anyone about doing it, no he never
obtained permission or instructions, he just did it.The bottom line is that as long as we delay applying the law as it was
written and followed for hundreds of years concerning property rights,
contract rights, lending and attorney misconduct, the foreclosures will
continue, the housing mess will get larger, and the economy will
continue to sag under the weight of 80 million mortgage transactions
that in any other setting would be called grand theft. And as long as we
continue to hear that correction and restoration of the wealth taken
from investor-lenders and homeowners would be unfair to those who were
not defrauded, we will continue to be subjected to Alice in Wonderland
policies.
ROY DIAZ TRANSCRIPT
Excerpts:
Q. So through that corporate authority as Exhibit 4 to this deposition,
MERS assented to the terms Of this assignment of mortgage?
A. Through me.
Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of This assignment of
mortgage.
A. The one in this case, yes.
Q. And no one else.
A. Correct
Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS acting solely as a nominee
for America's Wholesale Lender; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for America's Wholesale
Lender?
A. By reviewing documentation.
Q. What documentation?
A. I don't specifically recall what I reviewed In this case to see that,
to determine that, but I would have reviewed either the mortgage or I
would have reviewed other documentation that would have established that
to me.
Q. So in this case you don't remember a single Document that you looked
at that would establish the Nominee status of MERS for America's
Wholesale Lenders; Is that correct?
A. I don't
Q. Did someone at America's Wholesale Lender Tell you that MERS was
acting as the nominee?
A. No.
Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were Acting as Nominee for
America's Wholesale Lender?
A. NO.
Q. Was America's Wholesale Lender in existence On May 19, 2010?
A. don't now.
Q. Did you check that before signing this assignment of mortgage?
A. No.
Q. Now, you've said you review the MERS
Website and you've seen documents like this, like Composite Exhibit 6.
Any reason why you wouldn't review the documents contained in Exhibit 6
before executing the assignment of mortgage?
A. It's not necessary.
Q. Why not?
A. Because it's not. Because I decided it's not.
Q. You as vice president of MERS?
A. In every possible capacity as it relates to This case.
Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage after being retained as
counsel for the plaintiff?
A. After my law firm was retained?
Q. (Nods head.)
A. Is that the question?
Q. Sure.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be Used as evidence in your
case, correct?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. It's a sure.
Q. Is that a yes o a no?
A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a No?
Q. Okay. So...
A. It's a yes.
Q. It's a yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)