“Under the rule, banks’ attorneys in each foreclosure must affirm in writing that they communicated with their clients, that the client reviewed the documents and that the documents are accurate. The attorneys must also affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the papers are correct. Otherwise, the foreclosure can’t proceed.”


This guy does not know when to quit.

The rule in question in NY is similar to Florida’s Verification of Complaint rule that had major push back by Shapiro & Fishman last year.

Now it is unconstitutional to tell the truth?

This firm needs to be shut down just like his counterpart in FL David Stern…


Foreclosure law firm is battling rule on accuracy

N. Y. ‘procedural hurdle’ called unconstitutional

Attorneys for New York State and a delinquent Buffalo borrower facing the loss of her home squared off in court Monday against Steven J. Baum PC, as the state’s biggest foreclosure law firm sought to have a new court mandate for accuracy of documents declared unconstitutional.

The Baum firm wants a state court in Buffalo to overturn a statewide administrative rule, which the firm contends is impeding the rights of its bank and mortgage servicing clients, and intruding on the power of the local court.

The Amherst firm’s attorneys describe a “procedural” but illegal regulation as the only remaining barrier to having the Black Rock home of Shauna M. Foster seized and sold at public auction to satisfy a debt.

“This creates a procedural hurdle [that] prevents them from going to sale,” said Baum attorney Tracy M. Fourtner. “My client’s statutory remedy is being impaired. . . . The only thing that is holding up the plaintiff’s right is this order.”

The firm doesn’t say why it can’t or won’t comply with the rule. But Baum’s attorneys contend that the state’s chief administrative judge exceeded her legal authority when she issued the rule in October 2010. They cite a February 2011 decision by a state judge in Suffolk County who found the rule unconstitutional.

However, the state Attorney General’s Office, intervening in the private case because of the constitutionality issue, said the rule is needed to protect the integrity of the legal system, by guaranteeing factual papers.

Check out the rest here…

“The firm doesn’t say why it can’t or won’t comply with the rule.

Maybe because they are LYING???

No, that wouldn’t happen…