- Quickdraw McLaw
- 64 Comments
- 172 Views
The Nevada Independent released results of polling it did earlier this month. You can see the results here. In the race for AG, Aaron Ford has a slight advantage over Wes Duncan. Both are virtual unknowns to voters. Duncan still has to beat Craig Mueller in a primary if he wants to be on the ballot in November. What are your thoughts on these candidates? Any other poll results you found interesting?
That is Dr Aaron Ford. No thanks.
Doctor Senator Aaron Ford……….
Has Doctor Senator Aaron Ford, JD, Esq. ever actually mad a court appearance or litigated a real case? There is a sense that he makes Eglet feel good about himself by keeping Ford around as window dressing.
Yes, he has. He was a litigation partner at Snell & Wilmer before going to Eglet's shop. He may not have been a top trial attorney, but he's no stranger to court.
Wait, you forgot his middle initial. You also forgot his screen name.
At EP Doctor Senator Aaron Ford, J.D., Esq. is strictly a politician.
Doctor Senator Aaron D. Ford, J.D., Esq. PLEASE!!!
None of these politicians get paid to practice law. They are a joke. When you are endorse by a bunch of politicians, that is even worse.
Ford is the property of Eglet.
Mueller practices law if that's your thing.
Yes, an attorney general should practice law. Ford does not. He is a mantle piece for Eglet.
Do not ask for opinions about judicial candidates or other political candidates and then when comments are posted, you criticize the comments posted. They are public officials. This is ridiculous.
Constructive rather than ad hominem comments are welcome and encouraged.
I’m on board with civility, but I didn’t see anything that crossed the line in yesterday’s comments. Would you mind pointing out one or two that you think were improper? Thanks for running the blog.
Cadish comments shut down the legal blog like the 405, sounds right.
Aaron Ford answers to one and only one constituent: Robert Eglet.
Modest suggestion:
First, I want to thank Mr. Dawg for the work he puts into this blog. Nobody should criticized somebody who gives their time for what I consider to be a great service.
That said, I wonder if the blog would work better if each of us had a named "avatar" identity on the blog. We would retain our anonymity, but we also would develop an identity and a reputation within the blog. For instance, we can find out if the Cadish basher(s), double kickstand guy, judges-should-apply-the-law guy, etc. etc. is one person or multiple people. It might make discussions more productive.
Plus, we could use a cool picture in our ID box. Just a thought.
I second the avatar idea.
Don't forget about the blog is dead guy (me)
Cadish drew four or five opponents, it is not humanely possible for the same person to posting the same comments over again. I am for anonymity.
I love the unintentional comedy of 10:52 AM.
Reddit would solve a lot of these problems as well. Everyone would have a username (could still maintain anonymity), posts and comments could be down voted and upvoted so the best content rises to the top, and the mods could ban those who are bent on abusing the rules. I was disappointed it didn't get off the ground the last time reddit was suggested here.
To be clear, I think law dawg does a mostly really good job here and I'm not advocating a new forum without his/her involvement. I just think a Vegas law subreddit would be better than this blog format. Also to be clear, I'm too lazy to be involved in setting up a subreddit so I guess I'm one of those who criticize without offering help to improve things. Accordingly, take my input with a heavy dose of skepticism or disinterest.
It is Victor Lee Miller time.
Keep it anonymous.
I did not see any ad hom attacks yesterday except for Cadish supporters telling people they were stupid.
There was a lot of discussion yesterday, and in past posts, about how pro-bank Caddish is in homeowner foreclosure cases.
I'm accepting that as fact and not debating it as I have no experience before her on that particular issue.
But the broader question is whether there is much any judge can do for the homeowner on many of these case. I believe that foreclosure mediation program(or whatever it was called) is no more.
And many of these cases don't really involve a clear predatory lending situation–such as cases where someone is approved who clearly should not have been, or fine print which triples the mortgage payment after 18 months.
Instead, a lot of situations involve someone who had no trouble paying for 10 or 20 years, and then loses their job, gets injured, or some other major life event. In these instances, the banks are not required to significantly modify the arrangement. They can pretty much, with some limitations, be heartless bastards and insist that the contract be honored or foreclosure will occur. These banks and lending institutions will no longer approve any mortgages if the contracts can be voided by someone merely representing(or even proving) that they can no longer pay. Are the banks required to let people remain there and pay just a fraction of the monthly mortgage payment, or none at all?
I really hate arguing on behalf of banks, but continually attacking an isolated judge for granting foreclosures seems fruitless. Can you identify anything she is refusing to do in favor of the owners/borrowers that she has the clear power to do? What precise protections are the "good" judges applying, in the type of situation I mention above, that Cadish is refusing to apply?
Prediction: Your request for specifics will elicit crickets.
Prediction: your request will garner a response, but it will be labeled as a comment by the same person when it isn't.
It still irritates me to no end when people knee-jerk bash the banks in the foreclosure issues. Unless the bank perpetrated a fraud in granting or servicing the loan in question, what did they do wrong… believing the borrower's promise to repay the loan as promised?
I do not believe that it is the bank's responsibility to make judgment calls (other than to the extent of determining if it wants to put it's assets at risk) on whether the borrower is making a wise financial decision in purchasing that particular property/requesting that particular loan. It is in my humble opinion for the borrower to decide how they want to spend their own money. Some may value owning a home greater than buying new cars, vacations, toys, expensive restaurants, having cable TV, whatever. If the borrower is not committing more than 100% of their disposable income to the necessities of life plus the loan payment, it is not the lender's job to control how a borrower decides to spend their money.
If the lender doesn't feel comfortable with the budget that the borrower is proposing to live under with the loan being granted, simply decline to grant the loan. If they grant the loan, both sides should be held to the terms of the contract.
If as happened, the borrowers default, the sole and exclusive remedy for the lender should be to foreclose on the security interest (the home). If the home's value is less than the loan amount, that is a loss the lender should be required to eat which is passed onto the actual investors that provided the funds for the loan. The bank is simply the middleman in these transactions. It obtains funds from investors (bank profits, direct investors or purchasers of collateralized securities) and uses those funds to lend to borrowers. It simply makes a small fee for it's services as the middleman.
Once the loan is issued, the lender either keeps it in-house as a portfolio loan that it owns, or more commonly sells the loan (normally within days of the closing of the loan) on the secondary market to either an entity such as Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac or to individual/entity investors. The purchaser(s) of the loan then contract with the bank or another entity to act as the loan servicer (agent to collect payments, do accountings, handle paperwork e.g. [demands, payoffs, collections/defaults, etc]) on their behalf.
Rather than allowing the market to correct itself and holding both sides to the benefits and burdens of their bargain, the state changed the rules post-lending. What was created was a system that even in the absence of fraud, the homeowner got to have a hamburger today without even the promise to pay for it next Tuesday.
Many people repeatedly claimed that the lender was obligated to reduce the principal balance (and waive accrued interest) because the value of the home dropped to a level that the home was worth less than the debt. Why should the lender eat the loss when they simply gave the borrower the money the borrower asked for on the borrow's promise to repay it as agreed. If the home's value had increased rather than decreased, should the lender have been allowed to demand that the borrower increase the debt under a theory that they should get to share in the profit? Without the lender giving the money, the borrower couldn't have purchased the home thus wouldn't have benefited from the increase in value…
Of course, if fraud was involved, the victim of the fraud (lender or borrower) should have the tort action to address that issue with all of the associated remedies thereto.
People are staying years in their homes for free, because the bank does not have the paper work. Judges like Cadish are okay with the banks robosigning.
12:51, US Bank could use a few good attorneys.
@12:54 People are staying for years for free in their houses because litigation ties everything up and banks are slow to proceed. Its not because the banks don't have the paperwork. That is a tired and, for the most part, untrue contention. The "show me the note" arguments have been rejected at every level. I do not know who came up with that argument, but they sure convinced a whole hell of a lot of homeowners that they had been defrauded somehow (they still took the money and bought a house with it, although they'll never own up to that).
Most of the lender related litigation these days is of the HOA foreclosure variety. People were up in arms across the state when the banks were foreclosing in 2008, but the public doesn't give a shit when the HOAs foreclose over $500 in assessments, although the result is the same – the homeowners are out on their asses.
Based on all this, and as discussed by 11:40 and 12:51,and without taking up for Caish or defending her in any way, precisely what relief can she provide the homeowners that she should provide, but that she is refusing to provide? And, if any such relief is identified, are there any judges who habitually provide such relief for the home owners?
We are still waiting for answers, but have received none even though people post day-after-day about how she is screwing homeowners. Perhaps she is. I have no idea because no one will answer these basic questions.
That all said, 12:54 is an entry wherein at least something specific is finally identified–that of robbosigning. But this concept of robbosigning is becoming very common–such as CPAs robbosigning for their clients, etc.
So, the questions I pose are:
1. Is robbosigning illegal, or at least highly improper, in such real estate matters?
2. Do all the other judges reject robbosigning by the bank?
3. And(and this is by far the more important question)If Cadish rejected robbosigning, and insisted on live ink signatures by a bank representative, would it make a damn bit of difference for the homeowner being foreclosed on? I suppose it might delay matters for a few hours, or in some cases perhaps even a few days, to get the live signatures, but the delay would be minimal. Foreclosure would still take place. So if Cadish decides to reject robbosigning, what real good does that do the foreclosed homeowner? The answer, of course, seems to be no real difference.
So, for like the 400th time, why is she so bad on these cases, and what do other judges do for consumers and homeowners that she refuses to do? Please provide rational, specific answers and I'll agree to jump on the bandwagon and declare that she sucks.
Robosigning? Are we still talking about robosigning? 2011 is calling @ 12:54 and 1:19.
Seriously. Robosigning is not illegal unless someone is forging a name, and in that case it doesn't matter if they do it 1000 times or once. If a bank has the right to foreclose in 1000 cases and an employee of the trustee on the deed of trust goes through a stack of notices of default stamping his signature on all of them, that's totally legit. Nothing wrong with the "robo" part of "robosigning." It's forgery that isn't allowed, "roboforgery" or not, but that has rarely been shown. Also, even in cases where there is actual, no-sh*t forgery, it usually ends up not mattering, because there's no question about the validity of the debt and the default. The trust company just had multiple people sign the named agent's name. That's a stupid, self-inflicted wound, to be sure, but it doesn't destroy the entitlement to foreclose, it just delays it while they go back and do it right.
Seriously, Robosigning is illegal. Must work for Akermann.
Does anyone have an official definition of "Robosigning"? Are we talking the act of an authorized agent/employee attaching the signature of the principal through the use of a mechanical reproduction device (e.g. rubber-stamp, electronic reproduction, etc.), the authorized agent/employee signing live the signature of the principal without disclosure that it is signed by an agent (e.g. power of attorney), or an unauthorized third party signing the document holding it out as signed by the named party?
I don't see how the first instance is problematic as the District Court itself does it. The clerk's office and the judge's JEA has a signature stamp for the judge which they regularly use to affix the signature to orders. The conforming stamp used by the court has an electronic representation of Steve Grierson's signature on every document filed. Additionally, many orders that are computer generated now contain the electronic signature of the judicial officer (e.g. TPO's, child support, reports and recommendations, etc.)
If we are talking simply about affixing an authorized reproduction of the signer's signature to the document in place of a live ink signature, it appears to be a fictitious issue. The mechanical reproduction of the signature is adequate for the court's use, why is the same act a problem when done in the private sector?
If we are calling the use of an electronic signature, what about the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (Public Law 106-229; 15 USC 7001 [2000]). In that Act, Congress specifically authorized the use of electronic signatures and made such signatures legally enforceable.
I do, however, agree that a purported signature which was forged and/or unauthorized is of no legal significance and should not be accorded any effect.
I had a chance to meet Wes at an event when we was still in Laxalt's shop and running to replace Laxalt wasn't even a thing yet. Dude struck me as totally competent, thoughtful, likely possessing political views that are different from mine but (in a moment when we wasn't seeking my support) totally open to hearing my perspective. I am not affiliated with either party and the only reason I'm not donating to Wes's campaign is that I don't want to get stuck on some party list forever (and then harassed). Hopefully Ford is a good guy too, and Nevada wins either way. But I am voting for Wes – I found him a very different guy from my perception of Laxalt (about whom I'm not a fan)
You are correct that these days in Nevada, if you donate in an election involving a state-wide constitutional office, you will be on "the list" forever and will be relentlessly hounded with phone calls, emails and letters for the rest of your natural life, and beyond.
To:11:40, 12:51 and 1:19: Agreed that it can be hard to identify specifics. However, certain judges, in certain types of cases, just seem to exhibit a certain attitude and seem to generally favor a certain classification of litigant vs. another classification of litigant. For example, there are many judges who are classified as Pro-Plaintiff or Pro-Defendant in personal injury cases, even when it is sometimes difficult to find a lot of compelling, specific examples of blatant favoritism in certain cases.
But, if you practice long enough, you know it when you see it and sense it. It could be an attitude, a condescending demeanor, facial expression, a sarcastic belittling remark, or something else that does not specifically show up in the box score.
As an esteemed justice once said, "I know it when I see it."(although that concerned pornography, but whatever).
So…nothing about not "applying the law."
The only "people" who get pissed about the not applying the law comments are judges. Not applying law is an appropriate statement in analyzing judges. Sorry, you are so sensitive about it, because I would be, too, if I was an idiot who did not do their job.
No, lawyers like to come here to catch up on what's happening in the local legal world and maybe catch a little gossip. I hate having to sift through the hack complaints of a handful of people who repeatedly lob the same vague complaints like "judges not applying the law" without anything to back it up. Call me cynical, but it reeks of someone with an agenda who's negative campaigning. Blog is hijacked.
The Blog is hijacked guy is back. I hope your paying Letizia well.
It's good to be back.
All the legal pros I know are voting for Tao.
Seriously, why is Judge Cadish trying to get Adelson money? If that is true, that reversed my vote.
RIP andrew rempfer. God speed
I'm gonna go with Craig Mueller in the AG race. It's true, he's abrasive, frequently rude and certainly full of himself. But he's the first AG candidate since the god damn McKinley Administration to not harp on about criminal law which is really not the most significant part of what the AG does in Nevada. Wes Duncan and Aaron Ford will both run the place pretty much as it has been, which seems a waste of my vote. I think Mueller will actually be a lawyer in office. Although I don't know why he has such a hard on for Joe Lombardo; he could drop that song from his playlist. So on balance, I'm voting for Craig.
No Aaron Ford for me. He cannot even handle administrative tasks, and he does not practice law. You have your work cut out for you, Dave Thomas.
I have to go count my money right now, because some assholes think I don't have it, when I do. Plus, they are trying to fuck me over. Laughing my way to a big pay day.
Fuck, the IQ level of postings is really taking a nosedive.
Want some? Right, you have low IQ, no appendix, and you smell like crayon.
Poor people count… I stack
You in, Blanca?
You smell like a crayon. That is funny.
What the hell is happening here?
And to 1:14, if they are trying to fuck you over, why does that necessitate you counting your money?
We are just playing in a puddle.
Farting in the bathtub.
I brought the duck, dive right in.
To remind me how so money I am.
Daaaaaaamn, GINA!!
What happened to Gina Bongiovi?