”I think I heard the same excuse at Nuremburg. The difference was that in Germany you might get shot for disobeying orders. Not so here. Did anyone make an effort to “recommend” or “suggest” that the bank simply push back the turnover date in the Judgment of Restitution? There was little or no risk in doing so.  What I think I’m hearing is that as amoral as the bank’s refusal may have been, neither you, the firm, nor apparently anyone else, tried to do the right thing. And since you’re just a small cog in the Big Bank Machinery, you don’t believe your conduct was equally reprehensible; you were just following orders.  Is that about right?”


Foreclosure Mill Morality

Slam! Bang!

HER:  “Honey, is that you? You’re home early from the firm. Usually, on Fridays, you go over to Lucifer’s Lounge with the other attorneys for shots of Devil’s Springs Vodka, and regale each other with stories of the families you foreclosed during the week. Honey?  Honey? What’s wrong?”

HIM:  “I think I screwed up….”

HER: “Was it a little, itsy, bitsy, ‘No one will ever know,’ mistake – or one of those ‘Where’s my passport’ mistakes?”

HIM:  “Where is my passport, by the way?”

HER: “Uh Oh. I’ll crack out a fresh bottle of Devil’s Springs Vodka and we can talk. As your wife, I can’t be compelled to testify, and you’ve got the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. Tell me about it.”

HIM: “Well, this goes back to a trust deed foreclosure that we started early in 2012.  This was before the Niday case that said MERS cannot act as a ‘beneficiary’ under a trust deed.  At that time, the Oregon Court of Appeals hadn’t spoken, so there was no clear state law saying that if MERS was involved in a completed foreclosure, it was void. The Oregon federal court judges were not in agreement. There was a split of opinion….”

Check out the rest of the story here…