We the People
Our story is a direct reflection of how manipulative, dishonest, and out and out ruthless the Big Banks, Indiana lawyers, and Judicial system has become. They have infiltrated the very core of our Justice System, while leaving the hard working Americans to fend for themselves. When lawyers mislead, abuse, and manipulate the Federal courts, and the Judges turn a blind eye then it’s time to say enough. We have been forced to endure a sadistic emotional and financial roller coaster ride throughout our journey to reveal the truth of an unsubstantiated wrongful foreclosure. Our understanding of the Judiciary obligation to the people is quite different from what has happened to us. Our understanding of the Judiciary’s obligation is to uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and Impartiality of the office, while avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. We have always believed the people have the right to be heard. Truth, Justice and The American way is literally becoming a myth. We the People are beginning to lose confidence in the very thing we hold so dear. When I hear of the corruption in the Judicial system, I immediately coincide it with Treason against the citizens of this great nation.
This is just a sample of the affects caused by the broken Justice system. It continues on its path of destruction, while affecting the citizens of America, OUTRAGIOUS.
After months of deliberation, Bank of America authorized a short sale of our home in Indiana. We closed the mortgage of 7502 Prairie Lake Dr. Indianapolis, Indiana 46256 on January 6, 2010. In April 2010 my wife (Chris) and I started noticing our credit cards were being canceled, our once high credit limits reduced and other peculiar alterations being made to our credit accounts. We reviewed our credit reports through the website www.annualcreditreport.com. My wife’s credit report reflected a serious derogatory, reported by BAC/Countrywide Mortgage. I sent letters of dispute to each credit reporting agency (Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax) including our closing documents to show we did not owe the debt reported and to have the credit reporting agencies investigate them. In the meantime on April 26, 2010 my wife and I received a letter of suit from Toae A. Kim of the Feiwell & Hannoy, P.C. Attorneys at Law group, dated April 22, 2010. I immediately called the phone number attached to the letters; I was greeted by an automated recording requesting personal information such as social security numbers and so on. I left a detailed message including the loan # and file # stating we had closed this loan on January 6, 2010. I also requested someone from their office contact me by telephone within the next 24 hours. Within minutes of leaving the message, I began researching the internet for other means to contact Feiwell & Hannoy P.C. Attorneys at Law. Feiwell and Hannoy P.C made it very difficult to make contact with them. The only contact portal I could find to Feiwell & Hannoy P.C. was through a website called Lawyers.com. I emailed a letter with my contact information demanding someone from Feiwell & Hannoy’s office give me a courtesy call within 24 hours. Feiwell and Hannoy P.C. have never responded to our requests. On April 27, 2010 I contacted, Lynn Geiss our realtor from REMAX who represented us through the short sale of our home. I explained our problem and in turn questioned her on whether or not she knew if the closing on 1-6-2010 had been funded. Lynn said she would get with Holly Catt from the closing company (Chicago Title) to verify whether or not the funds were wire transferred and received; in the meantime she suggested I speak to an attorney and referred me to her personal attorney, Chris Jackson. After a brief conversation with Chris Jackson on 4-27-2010, she advised me to try and contact the short sale closing department of Bank of America. On 4-27-2010 I sent an email to Stephanie Rye and Andrea Wilkes within the short sale closing department of Bank of America. I attached documents supporting the fact the loan was closed several months prior. I also gave each of them my contact information and a deadline to respond. I have never heard from anyone within Bank of America’s short sale closing department. To our disbelief, a few days later my wife and I received a summons of foreclosure lawsuit (49D14 10 04 MF 018380 Filed on 4-22-2010). We were appalled and shocked by the method of injustice that was taking place. We could not get anyone to listen to us or help us. I spent several days trying to find an ear willing to listen and stop this wrongful suit. It was as if we were invisible to Bank of America, their counter parts, and associates. In the first week of May 2010 we received a response from Experian regarding the initial dispute letter I sent April 19, 2010. The response letter was dated April 30, 2010. We were shocked to read the credit reporting agency (Experian) said they had investigated our dispute and found the credit grantor verified the information and they (Experian) will not investigate our dispute again. Keep in mind Experian spent but only a few days investigating this dispute and deemed it investigated thoroughly. Days had slipped by with no contact from anyone related to the wrongful foreclosure suit filed by Feiwell and Hannoy P.C. I discussed our dilemma with our realtor and our realtor’s attorney on numerous occasions searching for answers. They felt we should be able to resolve and correct this wrongful lawsuit ourselves. We finally realized we needed to try a different approach in order to get someone’s attention just to listen to us and help stop the wrongful lawsuit that was filed against us. During the month of May 2010 I sent complaint letters to as many public servants as possible including, Florida’s Governor, State Representatives, Indiana Governor, Indiana Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission, The OCC, the Attorney General’s office and others. We were unsure where we needed to go for support or help in this matter. I started placing calls to the corporate offices of Bank of America in Charlotte, North Carolina. Finally on 5/10/2010, after making several calls; I was able to speak with a David Tidwell in the Executive Customer Relations department. He was courteous and attentive while assuring me he would dig into it right away. I explained to Mr. Tidwell, how we are on the brink of financial ruins because of this mistake, not including our mental stress, fatigue, embarrassment, and the continuing loss of financial stability. Within the same day David Tidwell called me back and said I was 100% correct, and there shouldn’t have been a foreclosure suit filed, and the mortgage had been satisfied months ago. He said they would immediately remove it from our credit report and stop the law suit. Mr. Tidwell advised us to get legal counsel, but in the meantime he would ensure the mistake would be corrected. The mistake remained unresolved and the credit reporting agencies continued reporting it as a mortgage debt seriously late and in foreclosure. On 5-19-2020 I located a fax number for The Feiwell and Hannoy attorney group and sent them a request for Validation. I also composed and sent a certified letter to Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, On May 19, 2010 explaining in detail our dilemma. Our letter was accepted By Bank of America on 5-21-2010. On 5-24-2010 we received and signed for a certified package from Marion County Clerk W-122 City County Building 200 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, Indiana. Enclosed in the package was an Alias Summons, filed on 5-19-2010, from the same collection attorneys, Feiwell and Hannoy P.C. Attorney at Law, continuing on their path of a law Suit. Upon receiving the Alias Summons I put a call into Mr. Tidwell from Bank of America. After explaining the package we received, he responded by saying: this should have been cleared up and he would check into it. I told him I expected and needed him to send documentation declaring this issue resolved. Mr. Tidwell said he would send us what we needed in order to get this mistake resolved. Mr. Tidwell did not send us documentation as requested instead, the lawsuit remained intact and the credit reporting agencies still reporting false information. In the meantime we received responses back from several of the Public servants we sent letters to during May 2010. All of the responses suggested we seek legal counsel, but in the interim they would investigate our complaint further. In the first week of June 2010 we were referred and guided to Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Offices of Robert E. Duff. On June-9-2010 we retained Robert Duff to represent us in our pursuit to stop the wrongful foreclosure law suit against us. Mr. Duff determined we had legitimate complaints against several parties and had us sign three separate Attorney representation and contingency fee agreements, spelling out the legal services he would provide for us. 1. Representation for violations of the FCRA by Equifax, Trans Union and Experian Credit reporting agencies. 2. Representation for violations of the FDCP by Feiwell and Hannoy P.C. Collection Agency. 3. Representation for violations of the FDCP, FCRA, by Bank of America (BAC). We bundled all of the information and documents related to the cases and sent them to Mr. Duff. As time progressed into late June 2010, we were informed through other sources than Mr. Duff that Bank of America had back dated and revised my wife’s credit report to reflect the BAC account paid, but still seriously late on payments for several months. I continued to keep Mr. Duff updated by faxing him information, such as updated credit reports, responses from letters I previously sent, and so on. After several weeks of not hearing from Mr. Duff or seeing anything being done on our case we became quite concerned. We realized Mr. Duff was not performing as we perceived. I asked Mr. Duff to respond to phone calls I was receiving from David Grossman, a Customer Advocate in the Office of the CEO and President of Bank of America. These requests went on for days and days. After finally reaching Mr. Duff, he explained he had medical issues and was unable to perform as we needed. Mr. Duff did not fulfill his duties as laid out in the Attorney representation and contingency fee agreements we signed. We felt we had no other choice, but seek new legal representation.
In early August 2010 we began searching the internet and yellow pages for a Law Firm capable of meeting our legal needs; our goal was to find a law firm willing to represent us in all of our legal matters associated with the wrongful foreclosure case. We interviewed several law firms before I interviewed the Phillips and Garcia law firm. On or about August 10, 2010 I interviewed Carlin Phillips of the Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. I explained our needs for a Law firm and informed Mr. Phillips I was interviewing other Law Firms as well. Mr. Phillips explained in detail what he could and would do for us if we decided to hire the Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. Mr. Phillips explained his firm’s fee structure, while leading us to believe his firm was more than capable of handling all of our legal needs. We based our decision to hire Phillips and Garcia Law Firm on several key factors. Below you will find several key factors associated with documents to substantiate what Phillips and Garcia Law Firm led us to believe.
We were led to believe via their web site, they were a large specialty Law Firm specializing in wrongful foreclosure law and consumer law. Mr. Phillips suggested we visit their associated web site (http://www.southcoastaccidentattorney.com/) in order to get a better understanding of Phillips and Garcia Law Firm capabilities and functions. After inspecting their web site we were impressed, and at the time felt their Law Firm was indeed a good match for our legal needs. My wife and I assumed we found a Law Firm large and specialized enough to go up against one of the largest banks in the world, Credit Bureaus, and The Feiwell and Hannoy Law Firm. We were led to believe Phillips and Garcia Law Firm had expert staff members eager to seek justice for us. Several weeks after hiring Phillips and Garcia Law Firm we were told we would have to hire our prior attorney (Mr. Robert Duff) in Indiana, in order to have sponsorship in Indiana Federal Court. We questioned the ethics in such a move and were told he was the best candidate because of his firsthand knowledge of the case. Mr. Phillips told us he had a Co-counsel with staff members as well. His name was Joseph DeMello. Later into the relationship we discovered Phillips and Garcia Law Firm was a very small Law Firm, virtually ran by one person, and Mr. DeMello was an Attorney working on his own and not even within the offices of Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. We were led to believe Mr. Phillips had a Partner and staff members. We’ve never been introduced to the Garcia side of the Law Firm. We are not even sure there is a Garcia in the Law Firm because we have never heard from him. We were deceived into thinking Phillips and Garcia Law Firm was a rather large law firm willing and capable of taking on one of the largest banks in the world. Had we’d known the truth about the size and stature of Phillips and Garcia Law Firm we would have seriously considered another Law Firm.
We were led to believe Phillips and Garcia law firm was financially secure enough to handle our affairs. During the interviewing process I asked Mr. Phillips about their financial stability and Mr. Phillips said they were financially sound. He said they would handle all expenses needed to bring the cases in, and we did not have to worry about upfront cost as we did with our prior attorney. As time passed we began noticing suits were not being filed in a timely fashion and the cases were not being given the attention they truly deserved. We asked Mr. Phillips and Mr. DeMello about our cases on several different occasions. We were brushed off and given incorrect information each time. We became highly suspicious after being harassed, bullied and threatened, stating we would have to pay for costs associated to the case if we did not adhere to what the defense counsel demanded. We then discovered that Phillips and Garcia Law firm was not as financially secure as Mr. Phillips led us to believe. Had we not been deceived from the onset of our attorney client relationship, our cases would hold more merit and value.
We were told we would have media coverage regarding our cases. During our initial interview Mr. Phillips specifically talked about extensive media coverage he would afford us if we chose Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to represent us. He said he had media contacts in Florida who would love to air our story. He explained how our story would constitute leverage in our case as did other wrongful foreclosure cases he represented. Mr. Phillips told us he wanted to control the media coverage and make sure we were not misrepresented or misquoted. His web site even promotes press and media coverage. We spent months upon months asking and pleading with Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to have our story heard by the media as promised. We were ultimately told that Media coverage was not the issue in the litigation and we were not going to receive media coverage. We were told our case was not media worthy and the Defense counsel was not concerned about the media, although every indication from the defense counsel suggested otherwise. We were again duped into thinking we would receive something viable to our cases; instead we were out and out lied to. One of our greatest deciding factors was due to the assurance Mr. Phillips gave us regarding media coverage. He said over and over how the media would add leverage and how invaluable it would be. He also said media coverage would go a long way in settling our case quicker. If we had known Phillips and Garcia Law Firm had no intentions of providing us media coverage as he promised we would have decided on a different Law Firm all together.
We were lured into Phillips and Garcia Law Firm based on lies. We were led to believe Phillips and Garcia Law Firm would file suits on all aspects of our cases, specifically all three Credit Bureaus (credit reporting agencies), Feiwell & Hannoy P.C., and BofA. During our initial interviewing process Mr. Phillips told us, Phillips and Garcia Law Firm would file suit on and litigate all three credit reporting agencies (Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax) for reporting false information. He further explained how Phillips and Garcia Law Firm were equipped to handle all of our cases under one roof, and how convenient it would be for us. Mr. Phillips explained how all of the cases tied into the initial wrongful foreclosure and the cases should be litigated separately/ together anyway. Upon Phillips and Garcia Law Firm hiring our prior attorney Robert Duff, Mr. Phillips stated how Mr. Duff’s skill set would be better qualified to handle the credits reporting agency complaints we had. After months of continuously asking Phillips and Garcia about the litigation process of the credit reporting agencies, we were told Phillips and Garcia Law Firm did not intend on filing suit on the 3 credit reporting agencies and it was beyond what they were hired to do. Phillips and Garcia were to file suit on Feiwell and Hannoy P.C. We recently found that Mr. Phillips had Mr. Duff file the suit with only one day remaining within the statutes of limitations, and when Mr. Duff filed the suit he omitted my name. We now find the statutes of limitations have expired and I am left out of any future claims against Feiwell and Hannoy. We based our decision to allow Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to represent us because Mr. Phillips said they could and would handle all of our cases under one roof. We were very adamant about having one Law Firm represent all of our legal affairs. Had we known Phillips and Garcia Law Firm had no intentions of following through with what Mr. Phillips agreed to in our initial interview; we would have elected to not have Phillips and Garcia Law Firm represent us.
We were led to believe Phillips and Garcia would front all expenses and time associated to all of our cases. We anticipated and were prepared to pay attorney fees associated to our cases, but Mr. Phillips explained how the Phillip and Garcia’s contingency fee structure worked. He convinced us we would be better off by working from a contingency fee structure in the long run. He pointed out that Phillips and Garcia would be able to (defer) front all associated costs and we would not have any out of pocket expenses to endure, until the cases were either settled or a judgment made, further stating; If we don’t get you anything, we eat the expenses and the time put in. We ultimately made our decision based on Mr. Phillip’s guided mindset of not having to be financially burdened by up front attorney fees and costs, thus giving us added comfort in our legal journey ahead. As time progressed in our client attorney relationship we were told we would have to pay costs associated to the Bank of America cases. We were bullied, and threatened regarding the notion that if we did not cooperate we would be out of pocket for expenses while causing us severe financial harm.
We were led to believe we would have the right to accept or reject a settlement depending on a disbursement sheet. Upon our initial interview with Mr. Phillips we questioned our rights to accept or reject a settlement offer. Mr. Phillips answered our concerns by stating how Phillips and Garcia Law Firm would provide an itemized breakdown (disbursement sheet), stating how this will allow us to make an educated decision on a settlement offer and we would have the final say whether we accept or reject an offer based on the disbursement sheet. Mr. Phillips made us feel comfortable in knowing we had the right of refusal or acceptance and we virtually had the last say. We were not afforded the right to review a full disbursement sheet even after we requested it on several occasions. The itemized breakdown (disbursement sheet) Mr. Phillips said we would receive has not been sent to us as promised. The issue keeps getting avoided even after a settlement offer was discussed. A settlement offer was placed on the table for negotiation. Part of our demands stated all Attorney Fees were to be paid by Bank of America. Mr. Phillips relayed our terms incorrectly by telling the defense counsel we agreed to settle for $2500.00 more than we originally negotiated, while omitting our demands to have Bank of America pay all attorney fees. The Defense counsel assumed all attorney fees were to be paid by their own perspective parties, and wrote the settlement agreement accordingly. We assumed attorney fees were to be paid by Bank of America. Phillips and Garcia Law Firm did not present us with an itemized breakdown (disbursement sheet). Mr. Phillips told the unsuspecting courts the case was settled. We were told we had to sign the false settlement agreement or be sued.
We were led to believe we would be provided with all associated documents per each case on a timely basis. Within our initial interview with Mr. Phillips I shared with him one of our pet peeves with our prior attorney Mr. Duff. I explained how my wife and I were detail oriented record keepers and we expected to receive documentation within a timely manner. Mr. Phillips assured me how his code of professionalism required him to get documents to us within a timely fashion. Documents of dire importance were withheld from us on numerous occasions and for several months. After asking several times for copies of our files, we felt it necessary to demand our case related documents. When we explained to Mr. Phillips our intentions and needs for our case related files Mr. Phillips commented on how he never had a client so detail oriented and willing to investigate their own case files before. Phillips and Garcia Law Firm and Mr. Duff withheld files and documents for months without sharing or looking at them. We even had to ask Mr. Joseph DeMello if he was familiar with our cases on numerous occasions. Mr. DeMello used threats and bully tactics, while not having sufficient knowledge of what he was talking about. Mr. Phillips stated several times that he did not have the time to investigate the files (discovery files) related to our case, further commenting how he had tons of caseloads surrounding his couch at home. Mr. Phillips sounded genuinely surprised when we told him the defense files (discovery files) were mostly duplicated documents, while a small percentage of the documents in the files held significant keys to our case. We explained how we sorted through all of the unorganized documents and were able to find inconsistencies, only to be disbelieved. In all essence we assumed he only guessed what were in those files. We know beyond a shadow of doubt, if the files and documents had been opened and thoroughly investigated our case would have been settled long ago.
We were led to believe we would be kept up to date on all facets of our cases in a timely manner. Upon our initial interview with Mr. Phillips I discussed with him another pet peeve with our prior attorney Mr. Duff. I made it very clear we wanted to be updated and kept in the loop at least once a week, whether or not there was anything new to report or not. Mr. Phillips assured me he would keep a constant line of communication open with us. We constantly had to ask for updates, sometimes going for weeks at a time before we would get a response. On several occasions we were scheduled to have phone conferences, and to our dismay we were stood up. We would wait for days without contact from Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. We were kept in the dark regarding our cases for weeks, and even months at a time. When we questioned their tardiness we were made to feel as though we were not entitled to regular feedback, and even humiliated into apologizing for asking for updates. We asked Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to adhere to and respond to reasonable time constraints we placed on the defense counsel. We were told the time constraints were being honored all the way to the very end, only to find they were not. Had we known Phillips and Garcia Law Firm was not punctual in the line of communications we would have not hired them.
We were led to believe Phillips and Garcia would thoroughly investigate every aspect of our cases. One of the aspects Mr. Phillips offered was the ability to investigate the case load with the upmost knowledge. Mr. Phillips explained how his law firm specialized in wrongful foreclosure cases, consumer protection law, including several other law matters. Mr. Phillips explained how they would thoroughly investigate all avenues of our cases in order to add more merit to our cases. We asked Mr. Phillips and Mr. Duff numerous times about a particular rule put in place by the state of Indiana in 2009, entitled the (LR 49-TR 85 Rule 231) Mandatory Settlement Conferences in Mortgage Foreclosure Cases. None of the Attorneys would answer our questions about this rule. To this day our questions regarding this have not been answered. Phillips and Garcia Law Firm did not investigate our files. Most of the time we had to refresh them on what our cases was about. Mr. Phillips made comments on how he had never seen any past client investigate their own files as we did. Co-Counsel Joseph Demello jumped into our caseload without having any in-depth knowledge of our case what so ever. On several occasions we had to ask if he even knew anything about our case. As time passed we realized Phillips and Garcia Law Firm were not staffed with paralegals or legal investigators whatsoever. As far as we can tell Phillips and Garcia Law Firm have no staff members at all, we have never had contact with anyone other than Carlin Phillips, Joseph DeMello, Robert Duff. Had we not been deceived into thinking Phillips and Garcia Law Firm were staffed with legal experts, we would have not chosen Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to represent us.
We were led to believe Phillips and Garcia would be in our corner and represent us accordingly. Mr. Phillips commented and explained how aggressive Phillips and Garcia Law Firm would be once they received the files from our prior attorney Mr. Duff. As time progressed during our relationship with Phillips and Garcia Law Firm, we noticed inconsistencies formulating within our cases. We asked several questions from time to time only to receive inadequate or no answers at all. We never saw any indication of offensive aggression from Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. We were always forced to adhere to what the defense counsel demanded. We questioned the roll of our attorney on numerous occasions. The roll of the aggressor never was never present from Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. We were continuously bullied by Phillips and Garcia Law Firm, especially Joseph Demello. The same attorneys we hired to protect and respect us. We’ve been treated as though we were guilty of a crime and had no rights at all, when in fact we were always the innocent party. We asked to have our questions answered, (legal or otherwise) on numerous occasions, only to receive no answer, or at best incomplete arrogant answers. We still have unanswered legal questions, and we suspect we will never have them answered by Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. At this point we feel we would have been better off by not having an attorney. We were led to believe we would be given expert legal advice in order to protect us as clients. We asked for true legal advice on numerous occasions. We now understand some of the advice we were given was incomplete and not altogether true. We were duped into thinking Phillips & Garcia Law Firm would give us true legal advice throughout the course of our Client – Attorney relationship. While in the middle of a settlement negotiation Phillips & Garcia Law Firm told us, and the defense counsel that Phillips & Garcia Law Firm and Robert Duff was withdrawing. On August 12, 2011 Carlin Phillips told the Magistrate assigned to our case that he would not represent us and from that point forward he would only act as a conduit for information purposes. The Magistrate agreed with him and mandated Our Attorney of Record would only act as a conduit. From that point forward we had no legal counsel as mandated by the Magistrate. We were not given adequate or proper notice of withdraw. We were left unprotected and totally in the dark as to what we were to do next. Mr. Phillips went as far as to say he would testify against us if we did not sign a false settlement contract the defense counsel had generated. For weeks Phillips & Garcia Law Firm and Robert Duff had refused to give us legal advice. We recently asked Phillips & Garcia Law Firm and Robert Duff; who is the Attorney of record? We have no legal notice of withdraw from Phillips & Garcia Law Firm, or Robert Duff. Had we known the deceitfulness of Phillips & Garcia Law Firm and Robert Duff we would have steered completely clear from them. We never asked to be treated in this manner; we only asked to be protected by wards of the justice system.
We were led to believe Phillips & Garcia Law Firm would be our primary Attorney of record. From the onset of the relationship between Phillips & Garcia Law Firm and us we assumed they were our primary attorney of record. We now find we had been deceived into thinking Phillips & Garcia Law Firm was handling all of our affairs. We now realize Phillips & Garcia Law Firm is not licensed in the state of Indiana. We were told Mr. Duff was brought in as sponsorship into the Federal court in Indiana. We were not afforded the opportunity to be represented by an Indiana licensed attorney. We were taken advantage of from the onset of our relationship with Phillips & Garcia Law Firm. Mr. Robert Duff has never stepped up to the plate to give us legal advice throughout our relationship with Phillips and Garcia Law Firm. We have asked him questions and he continues to stay silent, even though he is one of the attorneys of record. We have been taken unfair advantage of and the whole masquerade of Phillips and Garcia Law Firm has tainted our trust in the judicial system.
We were led to believe Phillips & Garcia Law Firm could represent us no matter what State we were from. The web site of Phillips & Garcia Law Firm indicates they will represent clients no matter what state they are from. This is in itself deceitful when in fact they have no clue what the law requires from state to state. We never had an opportunity for honest representation from an Indiana licensed attorney. Instead a conflict of interest existed between us and Attorney Robert Duff. We severed ties with Robert Duff several months prior. Phillips & Garcia Law Firm hired him back, knowing very well why we severed ties with him. We were made to think Mr. Duff would represent us with good intentions, when in fact all indications related he was angry with us for letting him go. If we had known Phillips and Garcia Law Firm was relying on our previous attorney for a sponsorship in the Indiana Federal Courts we would have not chosen Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to represent us.
We were led to believe we had a secure case against Feiwell & Hannoy P.C. Mr. Phillips told us Feiwell & Hannoy P.C.(attorney group who initially filed a wrongful foreclosure suit on us in April 2010) was seeking to settle as per a prior email. The email dated July 12, 2011 stated; (Feiwell & Hannoy is seeking a demand to settle the second case. Damages in the two cases cannot overlap (i.e. you are not allowed to double dip and ask for the damages twice). Settling both cases at the same time would appear to be advantageous. The second case is valued at $5,000. We are seeking permission to make a demand of around $15,000 to $20,000 in that case to see what the defendant comes back with.) We gave Mr. Phillips our permission to proceed @ $30,000. We never heard anything further regarding the Feiwell & Hannoy settlement. We later assumed this to be a lure, only to get us to settle with Bank of America. We have questioned our standings with the Feiwell & Hannoy case on numerous occasions. We received an email from Carlin Phillips dated September 27, 2011 stating this case now has limited value. And the Attorney of record Robert Duff is seeking to withdraw. This whole masquerade has caused us added stress and grief beyond imaginable belief. Mr. Phillips made empty promises not only verbally, but also in writing. We’ve asked Phillips and Garcia Law Firm to submit settlement offers on numerous occasions and he has not, he has refused to submit our offers. Now we find Phillips and Garcia Law Firm, Robert Duff, and Joseph DeMello has submitted a withdrawal, directly from the advice of the Magistrate, and to be effective by October 28, 2011. We’ve received letters from the court/Magistrate stating Phillips and Duff no longer represent us, but the defense counsel said they are still the attorney of Record. We are very confused and bewildered.
This whole case has been botched from the very start by misrepresentation. We put our trust into the legal system and were never afforded the opportunity to be heard and respected as the innocent parties. This malpractice has affected our lives in ways that are unimaginable. We’ve constantly, day after day been forced to endure an emotional roller coaster ride, our financial stability has been shaken to the point of no return, our emotional stability has been totally wrecked, our physical and mental stability has been misused and weakened, and our marriage has been tested in ways that are unacceptable. A day does not go by without a conversation about this travesty; it has virtually taken over our lives. We have lost social acquaintances because of this. These are but a few of the reactions from the unorthodox and unethical actions the legal system has forced us to endure.
We have reported these unethical attorneys to the appropriate overseers and were told had given the overseers too much documentation and they were not going to investigate the misconduct because it was too labor intensive. Their bold and arrogant statement was “We only investigate the easy cases” I have to ask, why are there so many cases in the first place??
We know this may sound as if we are fabricating and exaggerating a story, but we can assure you we have been truthful and can substantiate every detail associated to our complaint.
The Justice system has managed to strip us of our rights as an innocent party. “WE ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN THE GUILTY PARTY “We will not allow our lives to be dismantled any more than it has been. Since the judiciary system permitted our attorneys to withdraw based on an attorney’s lies, we’ve been unable to secure new legal representation. We feel we have been black balled from the legal sectors of Indiana. The attorneys that Magistrate Denise K. LaRue granted a motion for withdraw, committed perjury and legal misconduct on so many levels. Those same attorneys continued to withhold our files after being asked to return them on numerous occasions, those same attorneys who finally sent our files back to us, comingled another client’s personal files with our personal files and sent them to us, all along pointing their fingers and blaming each other for their mistakes, while leaving us in the middle to fend for ourselves. Because we have someone else’s personal files and information we are left to wonder “who could possibly have our personal files now”?. Those same attorneys have certainly managed to cause great harm to others along their path of misconduct. They have missed deadlines and important filings for us, while allowing statutes of limitations to expire. The unfortunate thing about all of this is that we tried to pre-warn Magistrate Denise K. LaRue of KNOWN misconduct these attorneys were committing in July 2011, but she turned a blind eye to our complaints, showing complete biased prejudice toward us. The judiciary system has managed to virtually destroy our lives, causing us immeasurable harm over and over again. My wife’s employment has been affected by this continued abuse. This whole ordeal has shaken the core of what we’ve believed in. The judiciary system has eroded the confidence we had for the Justice system of the United States. The Judiciary system failed to uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary system and failed miserably to avoid impropriety. Magistrate Denise K. LaRue demonstrated biased performances on more than one occasion; we were simply not given the opportunity to be treated fairly, instead we’ve been portrayed as crybabies. We have documented proof of our accusations, and will supply them as needed.
On July 28, 2011 we faxed a letter with 12 pages of detailed documentation of misconduct conducted by our attorneys, to the chambers of Magistrate Denise K. LaRue, demonstrating how our Attorney of Record Phillips and Garcia and Robert Duff had misrepresented us in our settlement negotiations with the defense counsel. In the middle of our negotiations with the defense counsel Carlin Phillips emailed us stating he was withdrawing from us and leaving for vacation, stating and he was no longer going to represent us. His excuse was based on an out and out fabrication of the truth. He gave no valid reason for his threat of withdraw. He contacted the defense counsel in writing and informed them of the same, stating he was no longer representing us and gave no valid or justified reason, also indicating he was leaving for vacation. We were devastated and left with pure fear of not knowing what to do next, other than contact the Magistrate Judge assigned to our case. Magistrate Denise K. LaRue initiated an emergency Telephonic Status Conference on or around late July or early August 2011. We were not invited to attend that particular Telephonic Status Conference. We were informed that during the Telephonic Status Conference Magistrate LaRue scheduled another Telephonic Status Conference for August 12, 2011, and instructed my wife and I to attend. Upon beginning the Telephonic Status Conference on the August 12, 2011 Magistrate LaRue told us we had committed an Ex-Parte Communication violation, and proceeded to scold, humiliate, and frightened us to the point my wife was in tears. From that moment on we were made to feel as though we were the guilty parties and had no right to speak. Magistrate LaRue demonstrated bias prejudice while continuing on her path of harassment, leaving us thinking we had no choice but do as Magistrate LaRue instructed. We tried to explain our frustrations we had with our legal counsels’ misconduct and misrepresentation, she simply would not listen and continued with her biased actions. I finally spoke up and asked the Magistrate if she had read the documents we faxed to her chambers on July 28, 2011. The Magistrate said she did not thoroughly investigate nor thoroughly review the documents we had sent to her on July 28, 2011, she further commented on how they were not going to be reviewed because of the Ex-Parte action. The documents I faxed clearly revealed the misconduct and misrepresentation our attorney had caused. We were never given a draft in relationship to the settlement negotiations. We again tried to explain our position of how and why we did not agree with the Settlement Agreement the defense counsel had generated and tried to shove down our throats. We asked several times why our attorneys did not generate the settlement agreement in the first place, the Magistrate would not answer. The Magistrate proceeded by telling us that she felt we had agreed to the settlement agreement the defense had generated and, if we did not sign the settlement agreement the defense counsel would compel us to sign the Settlement Agreement, and furthermore our Attorney Carlin Phillips would testify against us, while the defense counsel would be allowed additional attorney fees to be taken from our proceeds. We were made to feel as though we had no other alternative but sign an agreement we did not agree to throughout the Telephonic Status Conference call. Near the end of the Telephonic Status Conference our Attorney Carlin Phillips boldly told the Magistrate that; from that moment on, he would only act as a conduit. The Magistrate agreed with Carlin Phillips and instructed him to act only as a conduit of information from that point forward. Upon ending the Telephonic Status Conference the Magistrate requested counsels provide her with the draft of the settlement agreement along with the settlement agreement. The Magistrate mandated the defense counsel had until August 30, 2011 to revise the Settlement Agreement to reflect what Magistrate LaRue felt were our demands. On August 29, 2011 (only hours from the deadline) the defense counsel had not completed the revision and asked for an extension of time to finish the revision. The Magistrate agreed and allowed them until the 8th of September 2011 to finish the revisions. Per Magistrate LaRue, allowing Carlin Phillips to act only as a conduit he would not oppose their request for an extension of time. We were left with yet another biased action by Magistrate LaRue. September 8th 2011 had come and gone, and we still did not have a completed Settlement Agreement for our approval and signatures. Between August 12, 2011 and October 14, 2011 our Attorney of Record refused to answer our questions or give us legal advice while not representing our interests whatsoever. Our Attorney of Record kept stating his only duties were to act as a conduit of information as per the Magistrate’s instructions. Documents, emails and information of dire importance regarding the draft revisions were not sent to us in a timely fashion. One item in particular was a partial revision dated Sept. 9, 2011 from the defense counsel; it was not passed on to us until Sept. 14, 2011. Carlin Phillips couldn’t even act as a conduit of information correctly. When a revision was relayed to us for our review, new language was mysteriously added by the defense counsel, again we had no legal representation as per the Magistrate’s instructions to advise and protect us. After asking numerous unanswered questions and waiting for almost a month beyond the court granted extension for a completed revised Settlement Agreement we took it on ourselves to revise the settlement agreement. On October 7, 2011 we revised the Settlement Agreement as to reflect what we felt was an acceptable settlement agreement, we signed and notarized our version of a revised Settlement Agreement along with W-9’s the defense counsel had requested, and sent them to Carlin Phillips /Conduit, and the defense counsel, via electronically (EMAIL) and U.S.P.S. certified mail
In the meantime we received word the defense counsel requested a Telephonic Status Conference. The Magistrate granted and scheduled a Telephonic Status Conference for October 14, 2011. The moment I received the notification for the Telephonic Status Conference, I immediately sent an email out to all parties including the Magistrates chambers, explaining in detail that my wife would be out of town per her employment duties and would be unable to attend the Telephonic Status Conference. I also explained that we did not have legal representation, due to Magistrate LaRue allowing Mr. Phillips to act only as a conduit, and that Mr. Phillips would not answer our questions. I sent another follow up email to all parties including the Magistrate on October 12, 2011, outlining the problems we’ve had with Mr. Phillips the Conduit /Attorney of Record. Once again we tried to explain while supplying the Magistrate with several detailed documents reflecting the abuse of the Rules of Professional Conduct Mr. Phillips had committed. Magistrate LaRue still refused to listen. Ruth Olive of Magistrates LaRue’s chambers initiated a phone call to me (only me without my wife) on October 14, 2011 @ 3:06 pm. She did not afford me the due respect of my request to include my wife and true legal representation, Ruth Olive proceeded to patch me into the conference after I repeatedly told her my wife was unavailable and that I was uncomfortable attending without my wife or appropriate legal representation. Ruth suggested I tell Magistrate LaRue of my concerns of not having my wife or legal counsel present. I repeatedly told Magistrate LaRue my wife was unable to attend and we had no legal representation. Magistrate LaRue ordered me to sit in and hear her out anyway, so out of fear and the upmost respect for the judicial system, I remained on the call. Throughout the call Magistrate LaRue taunted me and tried several harassing tactics to coerce me into answering questions without my wife or legal representation present. Magistrate LaRue once again used biased remarks commenting “I guess Mr. LeForge is going to remain Quiet” Knowing full well I was not comfortable speaking without my wife or legal representation present. Toward the end of the Telephonic Status Conference call I asked the Magistrate whether or not the Telephonic Status Conference was being recorded, and the Magistrate said “no and told me I needed to keep notes”. Throughout the Telephonic Status Conference I told all parties including the Magistrate I was in protest to the fact Magistrate LaRue ordered me to sit in the Telephonic Status Conference without my wife being in attendance and not allowing us true legal representation. The Magistrate stated on 2 separate occasions during the Oct, 14, 2011 Telephonic Status Conference that she had made a mistake regarding our attorney of record’s role as a conduit and stated she would take full responsibility. The Magistrate then suggested our attorney of record withdraw from us, he agreed and stated he would right away.
Immediately following the Telephonic Status Conference, I constructed detailed minutes of the Friday’s October 14th 2011 Telephonic Status Conference from the notes I played back and heard over and over again. On Monday October 17th, 2011 I sent the detailed minutes of the October 14, 2011 Telephonic Status Conference to the Magistrate’s chambers while carbon copying all parties that were in attendance. Later in the day of October 17, 2011 I received an email from the Magistrate’s chambers stating: Mr. LeForge:
Magistrate Judge LaRue is preparing to issue an Entry in part memorializing the status conference held on October 14, 2011 and will be sending a copy to you and your wife as well as the attorneys in the case. I don’t find your current home address in the file. Could you send your current mailing address to me as soon as possible?
Perry R. Secrest
Law Clerk to Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
direct: (317) 229-3623
chambers: (317) 229-3930)
I responded immediately with our mailing address. On October 18, 2011 I received an email from the court reflecting the entry Magistrate LaRue constructed. There were several items not included in her entry. The Magistrate did not reflect the complete outcome of the October 14, 2011 Telephonic Status Conference. The Magistrate also noted we would be given until Nov.14, 2011 and during that time we would be free to consult with any attorney of our choosing, but only concerning the language in paragraph 7 of the revised settlement agreement. I tried to explain to Magistrate LaRue we needed more time, and that we needed our files returned to us from the very attorneys she let go. Again she would not listen, and stated we shouldn’t need our files for the review of the only issue she felt was at hand, namely paragraph 7. (keep in mind this was all done without my wife present).
Shortly after the Oct. 18, 2011 Magistrates entry, we received letters from the courts, and Carlin Phillips stating Phillips and Garcia/Carlin Phillips, Robert Duff, and Joseph Demello’s services shall be terminated by October 28, 2011.
On October 24, 2011, I sent an email to all parties including the Magistrate/s chambers, outlining what had transpired throughout Magistrate Denise K. LaRue’s involvement in our case.
We have since spoken with several different attorneys; the attorneys have virtually said the same thing regarding our case. They would not be willing to look at just one paragraph of the settlement agreement without a broad view of the case and they would not feel the case warranted the time needed to undo the mess our prior counsel and judicial system has caused. Out of all of the attorneys we spoke with, only one attorney said he would be willing to help us work through paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement. This particular attorney demanded 1/3 of the settlement before he would finalize the revision language of paragraph 7, while not willing to do anything further with our cases. Now that our attorneys were permitted to withdraw without true cause, we are forced to ride another financial and emotional roller coaster, through no fault of our own.
On or around November 3, 2011 we were told our prior attorney of record Mr. Phillips is still listed as the attorney of record. We’ve requested our files back on numerous occasions, only to be ignored. We have been told our prior attorney (Robert Duff) is still holding on as the attorney of record in another case we had filed, after being told he had withdrawn.
On or around November 10, 2011 we mailed the courts a request for an extension of time, in order to continue our search for new legal counsel. We have since contacted numerous attorneys only to be told the same thing. No one will take our case simply because of the mess the Magistrate and our prior legal counsel has caused.
On December 6, 2011, I sent the following email to Magistrate LaRue’s chambers via Ruth Olive.
“We have not heard from anyone for quite some time. We’ve requested an extension of time through the courts and we are still waiting for a response.
It has been several weeks since we requested our files back from our prior attorney. We still do not have them. After we learned that Robert Duff was still the attorney of record on the Feiwell and Hannoy case, we sent an email to Robert Duff requesting him to submit and offer for settlement to the Feiwell and Hannoy Group. Here’s his email response sent on 11-8-2011 (Mr. LeForge,
You have accused Mr. Phillips and I of professional misconduct and malpractice. Obviously, the attorney-client relationship between us has broken down. It would not be appropriate for me to continue to represent you in the Feiwell and Hannoy case. It was my understanding that you were attempting to obtain substitute counsel for this case also. Please let me know if you have obtained substitute counsel. I intend to request leave to withdraw from the Feiwell and Hannoy case tomorrow.
Robert E. Duff)
Why Mr. Duff is still the attorney of record is beyond us, we did not directly hire him in the first place. He was hired by Phillips and Garcia. We have no idea where we are with the Feiwell and Hannoy case.
We’ve contacted several attorneys to represent us in our cases and we continue to get the same response. Each Attorney has stated that they do not wish to get involved in the mess our prior attorney and Magistrate LaRue have caused. We are presently speaking with the Indiana, Massachusetts, and Florida Attorney Generals offices, regarding our cases. Our complaints against our prior Attorney’s misconduct are being sent to the Office of the Bar Counsel of the Board of Overseer of the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
We are requesting that all documents the courts have on our case be sent to us electronically and certified mail. We are also asking that Magistrate LaRue be dismissed from our case”.
We did not receive a response back from anyone within the court system. On December 8, 2011, I sent the same letter via a fax to the chambers of Magistrate LaRue. On December 13, 2011, after not hearing from anyone, I called the federal courts to get answers about our cases, the phone attendant suggested I join PACER, and explained its purpose. While the phone attendant reviewed our case numbers the attendant explained that an order was sent to us via USPS, allowing for the extension we had requested and scheduled a Telephonic Status Conference for December 20, 2011. I told her we did not receive that order, and she said she would send it out in the mail right away, but suggested I join PACER in the meantime. I took her advice and joined PACER and was able to review our cases and their activities. While reviewing PACER, I found our second case (case number 1:11-cv-0526-RLY-TAB) associated to case number 1:10-cv-0859-TWP-DKL and started an investigation. We found out the attorney (Robert Duff) we previously let go was the only attorney of record. Needless to say we are very confused and bewildered. We’ve questioned Carlin Phillips as to a conflict of interest upon hiring Mr. Duff in the first place. (See attached full case explanation letter) We questioned the entire judicial system regarding Mr. Duff’s involvement on numerous occasions via letters and emails. In early Dec. 2011 my wife received a letter from Robert Duff, regarding case # 1:11-cv-0526-RLY-TAB (Keep in mind we heard nothing from Mr. Duff prior to this letter) stating he had made an error in requesting permission from the courts to withdraw his appearance, and stating the courts had denied his request for withdraw; he further stated he would again move to withdraw his appearance by Dec. 15, 2011. In closing the letter stated my wife was responsible for costs and attorney fees. (Let me repeat myself again, Mr. Duff did not work for us). We couldn’t understand why he was just now addressing my wife and not including me as well. We soon found out why. Our prior attorney Phillips and Garcia did not bother to include me or himself in the case # 1:11-cv-0526-RLY-TAB filed against Feiwell and Hannoy PC. We now understand statutes of limitations have expired and I am no longer permitted to seek legal action against Feiwell and Hannoy PC.
On December 20, 2011 my wife and I attended the Telephonic Status Conference in reference to case # 1:10-cv-0859-TWP-DKL, along with the defense counsel Neal Bailen and Douglas Bates, held by Magistrate LaRue. By this time my wife had all but given up, she just wanted it finished and was willing to accept anything just to ensure this nightmare would be over. We entered into a verbal settlement agreement on December 20, 2011 based on timelines. On December 22, 2011 we signed the settlement agreement instituted by Mr. Bailen as agreed and returned the settlement agreement with our signatures (via electronically as agreed, requesting an acknowledgment of receipt). No receipt was given. We also sent the signed originals via USPS within the same day. We waited and waited well beyond the allotted time for the articles of the settlement agreement to be consummated. There should be no denying the intent and reasoning needed for the allowance of such timelines, because defense counsel had notably abused timelines in the past. We once again held up our end of the agreement as spelled out in the December 20, 2011 Telephonic Status Conference. My wife and I adjusted our busy schedules to accommodate the defense counsel; our calendars were left open from December 20, 2011 to January 24, 2011. My wife’s had to gain permission from her employer to clear her busy calendar as a Process/Compliance Auditor, ultimately forcing her employer to endure the brunt end of her not being able to schedule offsite audits for over 30 calendar days during a time that is so critical to her employer. Her next offsite audit was scheduled and she was to fly out of town on January 24, 2012. Mr. Bailen did not bother nor care to contact us until late in the afternoon/evening of Friday, January 20, 2012, (Refer to Mr. Bailen’s Exibit A.) stipulating “Your check will be in the mail” he further commented how he needed our address to ensure that it gets to us. Mr. Bailen used a lame excuse in needing our address and had no reason as to question our address. We notably confirmed our address in the Dec. 20, 2011 Telephonic Status Conference. Mr. Bailen used yet another baseless tactic to excuse them from their delay in getting the settlement package delivered to us within the time line. On January 23, 2012 I emailed Mr. Bailen (as per Mr. Bailen’s Exibit B) explaining that my wife would be out of town, and how we had left our schedules open prior to his contact. Mr. Bailen conveniently left out an email from a response he gave regarding my statement of the fact he was beyond the timeline allotted. At 11:04 am on January 23, 2011; Mr. Bailen states “I disagree with your assessment. Nonetheless, if you would like to conclude this matter, please send me your address. I can have the check and agreement sent via overnight mail.” Clearly showing he has not sent the package and biding for more time, Mr. Bailen chooses to include only the documents and statements that best fits his needs at the time. Hours following that statement Mr. Bailen emailed stating how he was going to send our agreement and check out via UPS overnight. Mr. Bailen failed to understand or acknowledge the fact our lives continue beyond him or his clients and we could not be around the house to accept the package. On January 24, 2012 (as per Mr. Bailen’s Exhibit C & D).Mr. Bailen emailed an attachment regarding the contents of the settlement package he said he had sent via UPS. (Why wasn’t the description of the contents revealed before Jan. 24, 2012 as he said on the Jan. 23, 2012 email?) The attachment clearly defines an incomplete settlement package. We emailed Mr. Bailen (as per Mr. Bailen’s Exhibit E) and explained, the contents of the attachments were not consistent to the settlement agreement we agreed to on December 20, 2011 and that he needed to familiarize himself with the settlement agreement. It was very evident what Mr. Bailen was doing to us again. Mr. Bailen chose not to answer our concerns instead he chooses to manipulate and mislead the court system into thinking we were and are in the wrong as he has done in the past. Timelines were discussed in great detail and made very clear in the December 20, 2011 Telephonic Status Conference (please refer to the December 20, 2011 telephonic status conference court recording); we gave the defense counsel 30 calendar days to have the items within the settlement agreement delivered and in our possession. Mr. Bailen is now using tactics in stating; the execution date is undefined, virtually using any excuse he wants, without regard to the Magistrate/Courts and us. We made it very clear as to the consequences of their failure to adhere to the time line we gave. We have bent over backwards to accommodate the court system and the defense. We feel as though we are back to square one when the initial wrongful foreclosure was filed on us in April 2010. No one listened to us then, until we contacted public officials. It has been made very apparent to us the Justice system is just a playground for the lawyers, while causing harm to the innocent people around them. The defense has delayed and delayed, but still they are allowed to use the very justice system that was put in place to safeguard the innocent party’s rights.
On or around December 27, 2011 we received a letter from the Courts regarding a previous letter we sent on Dec. 6/8, 2011. The letter stated our previous letter would be filed and docketed while the practice was improper and should no longer be employed by the plaintiffs or defendants. This Entry/letter was signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
On or around the latter part of Dec. 2011 we requested a Telephonic Status Conference to be held regarding our case # 1:11- CV-00526-RLY-DKL. On or around Jan. 3, 2012 my wife received a letter from the courts regarding an Order Setting Hearing on Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Robert Duff, set for Jan. 10, 2011. On Jan. 10, 2012 via a Telephonic Status Conference, Ruth Olive pre-warned me and my wife that I was not permitted to speak during the proceedings, and patched us into the call. Magistrate Denise K. LaRue started by stating no recordings were allowed. Magistrate LaRue proceeded to explain the procedure for any motion to withdraw would be recorded by the court. We were very confused by her statement because to our understanding no recordings were made during the motion to withdraw of Phillips and Garcia, Carlin Phillips, Robert Duff, and Joseph Demello in October 2011. If so we would love to hear them. Magistrate LaRue asked Mr. Duff why he filed the motion to withdraw and Mr. Duff literally placed the blame on Carlin Phillips by stating he was under direct orders from Carlin Phillips and felt he was only acting as per what Carlin Phillips had ordered. Magistrate LaRue then put my wife on the spot by asking whether she wanted Robert Duff to represent her. With considerable confusion my wife reluctantly said no, and with a questioning tone said that we did not hire him in the first place. Magistrate LaRue granted Robert Duff permission to withdraw. Mr. Duff further stated he was owed monies from us. My wife tried to explain to the Magistrate we did not hire Mr. Duff and he should be paid by Mr. Phillips. The Magistrate spoke up and said that someone had to pay for the filing of the case and other associated fees. Once again Magistrate LaRue used biased remarks in favor of the lawyer. As far as we know the Magistrate did not know the particulars of the fee agreement we had with Phillips and Garcia P.C. My wife asked about our original case files, and asked to have our files returned to us in order to allow us an opportunity to seek other legal counsel with our original files. The Magistrate asked Mr. Duff when he could have the files to us, and Mr. Duff stated he could get them to us within a few days. The Magistrate and my wife reviewed their calendars and the Magistrate decided my wife could have up to the second week in March 2012 to secure new counsel. To this point my wife was left wondering whether she could legally ask questions about the case due to not having legal representation. My wife elected not to ask important questions about the status of the case because she was bewildered and unsure whether she was allowed to ask questions regarding the details during the Telephonic Status Conference. I was not permitted to speak throughout the conference. Some of the questions we had were due to the numerous uncontested extensions the Magistrate granted to the Defendants (Feiwell and Hannoy P.C.), even though Attorney Robert Duff never made us privy to any of the request for the extensions throughout the case. The complaint was filed on April 19, 2011, and we found the last extension request was granted by Magistrate LaRue up to and including November 10, 2011. The Telephonic Status Conference took place on Jan. 10, 2012. Two months had lapsed before we became aware of the deadline abuse. Mr. Duff did nothing to hold the defense counsel accountable for not adhering to the extension of time given by Magistrate LaRue. We also found that Feiwell and Hanny submitted their answers to our initial complaint on December 29th 2011. The November 10, 2011 deadline for the defense to answer the complaint was exceeded by well over a month. The Magistrate made no reference to the apparent lapse in time per the extension she granted during the Jan. 10, 2012 call. Now we are left with no legal counsel to ask why. From April 19, 2011 to December 13, 2011 we were not made privy to any actions relating to case # 1:11- CV-00526-RLY-DKL. Phillips and Garcia PC, Carlin Phillips, Joseph Demello and Robert Duff lied to us and kept us in the dark regarding this case.
While researching and interviewing attorneys for new counsel, we were told our prior counsel Phillips and Garcia P.C. and Robert Duff had not included me on the initial case # 1:11- CV-00526-RLY-DKL. We were also told they had missed deadlines to file a new complaint for me. We now understand my wife’s name was the only name that appeared on the complaint case # 1:11- CV-00526-RLY-DKL filed against Feiwell and Hannoy and the Statutes of limitations were exceeded for me to be allowed to file a complaint against Feiwell and Hannoy. We were under the understanding my name was included on the initial case # 1:11- CV-00526-RLY-DKL. It had been made clear from the onset of the initial complaint against feiwell and Hannoy that both my wife and I were to be included as per the associated case # 1:10-cv-0859-TWP-DKL. Magistrate LaRue should have been able to see this for herself on numerous occasions, simply because she was the Magistrate on each case, we brought our concerns of misconduct in the Feiwell and Hanny case # 1:11- CV-00526-RLY-DKL to her attention within the Dec 20, 2011 Teleconference, and she again refused to listen, while showing biased favoritism to the lawyers.
This whole thing has been botched from the very start by misconduct and misrepresentation. We put our trust and confidence into the legal system and were never afforded the opportunity to be heard and respected as the innocent parties. This malpractice has affected our lives in ways that are unimaginable. We’ve been forced to endure a constant sadistic emotional roller coaster ride, our financial stability has been shaken to the very core, our emotional stability has been totally wrecked, our physical and mental stability has been misused and weakened, and our marriage has been tested in ways that are unacceptable. A day does not go by without a conversation about this travesty; it has virtually taken over our lives. These are but a few of the reactions from the unorthodox and unethical actions the legal system has forced us to endure.
We have always been the innocent party, and all parties including the Justice system has treated us as though we’ve been the guilty party. From the onset of this mess, we clearly proved we were the innocent party of the wrongful foreclosure suit filed against us. We tried and tried to get the involved parties to stop the wrongful suit, but no one would adhere to our cry for help, We finally had to turn to public officials and were told by several public officials to secure legal representation or we would surely lose thousands of dollars through default regarding the wrongful foreclosure suit Feiwell and Hannoy PC had filed on my wife and I. The only source of protection was to secure legal representation and trust the Justice system; we were given no choice in the matter. We are close to retirement age and have owned several homes in our past and have never had anything remotely close to this happen. We have now been forced into renting a home because of the poor credit rating this has caused. We can no longer hold our heads high as proud American homeowners. We’ve worked all of our lives to leave a legacy of honesty. Now the very Justice system we’ve had to call upon has let us down. We know this may sound as if we are fabricating and exaggerating a story, but we can assure you we have been truthful and can substantiate every detail associated to our complaint.
For a judicial system to allow any counsel to manipulate, mislead, and literally thumb its nose up at the court system is quite disgusting. It further substantiates and justifies President Obama’s State of the Union Address regarding the importance of allowing for a level playing field. Marion County Indiana Federal Court Judge (Magistrate) Denise K. LaRue not only failed miserably, but refused to hold the lawyers responsible for compliance with the code of conduct, while refusing to allow any complaints in her court. When notified that such misconduct was being committed, the Magistrate and court clerk refused to perform their statutory duties to investigate (in violation of state laws) and demonstrated apparent prejudice and bias in favor of these lawyers. The Indiana Southern District Court with Magistrate Denise K. LaRue failed and simply refused to address the matter on technical procedural grounds, the facts of the case notwithstanding. The Indiana Federal Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt stood by and refused to recognize and enforce the federal law by deciding NOT to address the matter upon technical procedural grounds as well. The District Court, Southern District of Indiana was asked to step in and provide the protections spelled out in the rules of professional judicial conduct, but (Magistrate) Denise K. LaRue ignored those rules, when irrefutable documented evidence was presented proving perjury. Judge Denise K. LaRue was asked repeatedly to protect us as ordinary and common [unsophisticated] post Indiana citizens. She left us to speculate that Indiana Citizens are NOT entitled to the protections of federal laws by refusing to acknowledge two civil/constitutional rights and complaints resulting from firsthand knowledge of misconduct by the lawyers. It is different in other federal courts where unsophisticated consumers are protected from such behavior by lawyers. Case in Point Miami-Dade County, Judge Maxine Cohen Lando dressed down unethical lawyers in court. Of course, the major question precipitated by these judges’ decisions to NOT recognize nor enforce the federal statutes in Indiana is outrageous. “Are these the people we should allow to hold the position of judge?” Should people who refuse to comply with statute law hold such positions of responsibility, especially when the job requires interpretation and application of statute? It is outrageous that Indiana citizens are NOT afforded protection of federal law by the courts and judges of Indiana. If not afforded the rights, benefits and protections of law, should they be encumbered by the burdens, requirements and responsibilities of the same laws? (If the good stuff doesn’t apply, then the onerous stuff shouldn’t either!) It is very outrageous that Indiana Courts allow their fellow lawyers to commit perjury and misconduct with no regard to the ordinary common [unsophisticated] citizen, when such errors could easily be avoided simply by holding the lawyers accountable for perjury and misconduct in Indiana.
Numerous public officials will be notified of this situation and will be requested to provide assistance. WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WON’T TAKE IT ANY MORE. Meanwhile, should Indiana citizens (post or present) be burdened with injustice while their lives are forced into turmoil, for being a non-attorney?