Dorean lawyer gets nailed

#1 01-22-2005, 05:21 AM

This post is not intended to start an "I told you so thread". This is for informational purpouses only! It's really long. Sorry for that. I hope this is not violating any rules of the board. I find it interesting that the judge declared all the reasons we believe in M.E. to be invalid and already ruled on in previous cases. As always I wish I was a lawyer so I could understand this to the fullest.

BassBoy · #2 01-22-2005, 05:23 AM

PraisinJC,

I saw this too. In fact, I was going to post it as well until I saw you had already done so. It's quite shocking, especially the $77,306 they were ordered to pay. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PraisinJC

This post is not intended to start an "I told you so thread". This is for informational purpouses only! It's really long. Sorry for that. I hope this is not violating any rules of the board. I find it interesting that the judge declared all the reasons we believe in M.E. to be invalid and already ruled on in previous cases. As always I wish I was a lawyer so I could understand this to the fullest.

#3 01-22-2005, 05:32 AM

This is very upsetting. Maybe there's more to it than meets the eye.

BassBoy · #4 01-22-2005, 05:34 AM

That is something we'll probably never know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PraisinJC

This is very upsetting. Maybe there's more to it than meets the eye.

I can only imagine the attention this thread will draw.

#5 01-22-2005, 07:11 AM

PJC,

You need to learn to use the word "alleged". First of all this document seems suspect and it was rumored to be iniated into circulation by Dana and Linda Kelly of Mortgage Alternatives. This seems to give cause to the validity of this document, especially since TDG knows nothing about as of last night.

#6 01-22-2005, 07:41 AM

I can assure you that they won't be paying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassBoy

PraisinJC,

I saw this too. In fact, I was going to post it as well until I saw you had already done so. It's quite shocking, especially the $77,306 they were ordered to pay. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

BassBoy · #7 01-22-2005, 07:54 AM

Hi Fle,

I don't know how they can get out of it, but I'm sure it will be a lot of legal stuff (i.e. appeals and what not)....and since I'm not a lawyer, I probably would never fully understand it. What I do know is that it doesn't appear that this was a forclosure case. Did this person or will this person lose their home now?

Without getting into too much detail, do you know what happened in this case that brought the judge to this decision? Any info that may ease our minds about the ME process would be greatly appreciated because I would bet that after this case spreads (and it will spread rapidly), people would shy away from TDG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flecompte

I can assure you that they won't be paying it.

#8 01-22-2005, 07:58 AM

I just noticed something. Where is the filing information that shows this order filed into the record?

This was a suit initiated by TDG on behalf of client Kenny. The attorney on staff brought arguments that he was told not to by TDG into this case. But b/c he had 22 yrs. litigation experience, he felt he knew what he was doing. Well, b/c he chose his path, he's responsible for this complaint, and the monetary penalities that goes along with it.

I do not know the dispositon of this client with respect to their property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassBoy

Hi Fle,

I don't know how they can get out of it, but I'm sure it will be a lot of legal stuff (i.e. appeals and what not)....and since I'm not a lawyer, I probably would never fully understand it. What I do know is that it doesn't appear that this was a forclosure case. Did this person or will this person lose their home now?

Without getting into too much detail, do you know what happened in this case that brought the judge to this decision? Any info that may ease our minds about the ME process would be greatly appreciated because I would bet that after this case spreads (and it will spread rapidly), people would shy away from TDG.

BassBoy · #9 01-22-2005, 08:06 AM

Wait a minute......You're right!!! Do you remember my post in the other thread when I posted a link to a live radio broadcast with Kurt Johnson???? He talked about this! Kurt also said that TDG was looking for a new litigator.

So, why is the case versus a bank? Shouldn't it be the plaintiff versus the litigator? What am I missing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by flecompte

I just noticed something. Where is the filing information that shows this order filed into the record?

This was a suit initiated by TDG on behalf of client Kenny. The attorney on staff brought arguments that he was told not to by TDG into this case. But b/c he had 22 yrs. litigation experience, he felt he knew what he was doing. Well, b/c he chose his path, he's responsible for this complaint, and the monetary penalities that goes along with it.

I do not know the dispositon of this client with respect to their property.

#10 01-22-2005, 08:14 AM

I do not know the circumstances as to why this was initiated. I can only report what I know as fact, and the circumstances surrounding this case was the attorney's fault, not TDG. The attorney was given clear instructions as to what TDG's argument is, and he chose not to pursue it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassBoy

Wait a minute......You're right!!! Do you remember my post in the other thread when I posted a link to a live radio broadcast with Kurt Johnson???? He talked about this! Kurt also said that TDG was looking for a new litigator.

So, why is the case versus a bank? Shouldn't it be the plaintiff versus the litigator? What am I missing?