JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 14th November 2012, 08:08 AM   #81
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,744
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Well, so much for "stealing" her home:

From: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...black_home.php
...Wells Fargo's Media Relations & Corporate Communications staffer Lisa Woolery wrote to the Weekly that, "Ms. Black has filed a total of two bankruptcies within one year. Because the second bankruptcy was filed within a year of the first one, the automatic stay against creditors Ms. Black received in the second case terminated by operation of law on the 30th day after she filed the second case." As for not showing up in court on a prior date to reaffirm that position? "In [Wells Fargo and Carrington Mortgage Services'] case," she says, "it was believed that arguments would not be necessary on a motion that itself was no longer necessary."
...
Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy...
...
From his bench, Judge Albert declared that his decision was that no sanctions, nor damages would be levied against Wells Fargo for the October 10 eviction unless it could be convincingly argued otherwise.


So, it looks like the judge has ruled that the eviction was legal. The judge did say that Wells-Fargo had "egg on their face", but it appears that he's referring to the bank's image rather than the legal tactics.

It looks like the lawyers representing her are going to continue the fight:
Towards the end of the hearing, Attorney Stephen R. Golden emphatically argued, "This loan is one that she did not sign!" while his office has deemed it predatory in nature with high starting interest rates and a large balloon payment built in. "

In my opinion.... Nico Black was a lying scumbag who managed to sucker a law firm into representing her. The lawyers are grasping at straws in an attempt to save face.

I certainly do question their ability to handle this situation, given how certain they were that "the eviction was illegal". Didn't they know about the multiple bankruptcies and how it would have affected her case? Either they're unfamiliar with the law, or they didn't do proper research.
Jesus Christ, that article was utter garbage, it is barely English.

As for whether the "case" was "dismissed," it is a bankruptcy case that she filed in an attempt to stave off the eviction proceeding and failed to do so.

her request for sanctions for violating the stay was denied because the stay was not in place.

Her lawyers might find themselves facing sanctions for arguing that the final State Court judgments are subject to collateral attack in Federal Court.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 08:23 AM   #82
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Jesus Christ, that article was utter garbage, it is barely English.
Really? What was the problem with it? It seem to cover a lot of the information that was missing from the case, and seemed to do so in a fairly straight forward manner... we know how the judge ruled, why he ruled the way he did, why he originally had concerns, why the eviction was legal, etc.

Unfortunately, it was one of the few references that seemed to be available at this time that covered yesterday's court case. There were a couple of other articles I found, but most of them were... well, even worse (engaging in the typical hysterics you might expect from such a case, linking Wells-Fargo and the police to the Nazis and such.)

If you have a better article I'd like to see it. (Keeping in mind that I'm not an expert in the American legal system.)

Quote:
Her lawyers might find themselves facing sanctions for arguing that the final State Court judgments are subject to collateral attack in Federal Court.
I have to admit, this went right over my head... could you dumb it down a little for me?
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 08:51 AM   #83
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,744
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
What was the problem with it? ....

I have to admit, this went right over my head... could you dumb it down a little for me?
Thw riting was horrific: "Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy--a notion the bank also submitted to him in a manner convincing his judgement." It is like a bad google translator.

Very basically the US Supreme Court has stated that a Federal Court cannot review a state court's final order in a civil case.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 08:57 AM   #84
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Very basically the US Supreme Court has stated that a Federal Court cannot review a state court's final order in a civil case.
I'm still not following. (Again, my apologies... I'm from Canada, where we have slightly different rules, court jurisdictions, etc.)

I thought Bankruptcy courts were 'federal courts'.

And what exactly did the lawyers say that was suggestive/incorrect?

(I want to stress that I'm not doubting you.... its just my own ignorance over the situation.)
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:19 AM   #85
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,744
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I'm still not following. (Again, my apologies... I'm from Canada, where we have slightly different rules, court jurisdictions, etc.)

I thought Bankruptcy courts were 'federal courts'.

And what exactly did the lawyers say that was suggestive/incorrect?

(I want to stress that I'm not doubting you.... its just my own ignorance over the situation.)
The Bankruptcy court IS a Federal Court. What the lawyers were doing that was wrong was arguing in the Federal Court that the State Court judgment was wrong because "she didn't sign the loan."

Here is a good basic article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooker%...ldman_doctrine
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:55 AM   #86
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
The Bankruptcy court IS a Federal Court. What the lawyers were doing that was wrong was arguing in the Federal Court that the State Court judgment was wrong because "she didn't sign the loan."
Ah ok. I think I understand now.

I think part of the problem is that I wasn't aware that the "state court" had actually made any judgements. (I know her lawyers had made several claims and started proceedings that are probably handled by state court but I didn't think anything had been decided in those cases.)

Have to admit, I don't really have much sympathy for her lawyers. Like I said, it seems they really messed up in not recognizing the problem with her multiple bankruptcies.

They were probably trying to make a name for themselves ("hey! lets latch on to this popular case!") and stepped in a pile of dog poop. I'd probably get a perverse sense of pleasure to see them sanctioned by the courts.
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:42 PM   #87
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 20,966
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
They were probably trying to make a name for themselves ("hey! lets latch on to this popular case!") and stepped in a pile of dog poop.
Yep, pretty much. They were looking to make a name for themselves as advocates for the poor, oppressed and downtrodden, and picked this woman's case as one that looked ripe for some easy PR points. On the face of it, it had all the right ingredients; sympathetic cancer-stricken victim, evil giant monster mega-bank, and fascist Nazi sheriff's office doing the bidding of aforementioned eeeeeevil GMMB. Unfortunately for Golden and Associates, the "victim" proved to be a serial manipulator, liar and freeloader. They're spinning like dervishes, but the damage has been done to their case and the media will now move on to the next poor, oppressed and downtrodden victim.
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:47 PM   #88
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Now they have to fear the smite of Lesbian Death Squa......
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 06:33 PM   #89
Metullus
Forum -Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Waldo's Pond
Posts: 4,287
So, scumbag Wells-Fargo is not stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own in direct violation of a Federal Court Order?

Do I still need to sign a petition?

Is Wells-Fargo still a scumbag?

So many questions...
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

Last edited by Metullus; 14th November 2012 at 06:34 PM.
Metullus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 02:18 PM   #90
Steve
Graduate Poster
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Surrey BC
Posts: 1,602
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
So, scumbag Wells-Fargo is not stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own in direct violation of a Federal Court Order?

Do I still need to sign a petition?

Is Wells-Fargo still a scumbag?

So many questions...
Muldur should be along shortly to answer these questions for you.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 02:20 PM   #91
Metullus
Forum -Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Waldo's Pond
Posts: 4,287
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Muldur should be along shortly to answer these questions for you.
Of that I have no doubt...
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 04:10 PM   #92
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 20,966
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
Now they have to fear the smite of Lesbian Death Squa......
Watch what you say.. they could be anywh
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:48 PM   #93
stevea
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,347
Well if the HuffPost and some blog say it's true - then it must be

This story is so full of distortion that it stinks from the first paragraph. I says the woman (named after a flying monkey btw) OWNs the house. I doubt that it passes my definition of "owns" or a court's. You generally can't take a primary residence in a bancrupcy proceeding UNLESS it;s liste collateral that the woman agreed to.


Again we see the ignorance of economics practiced on the Left. Anti-biz, anti-bank, anti-rationality. *IF* WF had did have a mortgage and legitimately foreclosed via the sheriff on the poor woman - HOW does that make WF guilty of anything ? WHy is this partiicular bank responsible for bailing her out ? Would you prefer that WF forgive every sad-sack with an excuse and then tell their depositors that the $10000 they deposited cannot be returned ? That IS the alternative you know. Banks don't have a magic printing press in the back room.

Emotional thinking can't really be part of this. If YOU want to bailout this woman, then YOU investigate and send her a check, or write YOUR representive. Expecting her creditors, that she promised to repay, have magically deep pockets filled with free money is looney.

It's a social decision if this woman needs a public bailout - it has ZERO to do with WellsFargo.

Last edited by stevea; 21st November 2012 at 07:00 PM.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:41 PM   #94
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Banks don't have a magic printing press in the back room.
I'm tempted to say, "actually they do".

Mind you, I know what you are getting at. The more M1 money the banks create (when making loans), the more liability they get. If the security they got for the loan is not up to the task then that liability becomes a pure loss.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 06:56 AM   #95
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 6,737
Ok, here's yet more information about the 'innocent' Nico Black getting evicted by the evil fascist thugs of Wells-Fargo and the police:

From: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...sident/163641/
... Black refinanced roughly five times, and was $14,751 behind in her payments when the first default notice was filed in 2009. At the time of the foreclosure, in 2011, Black owed $549,275. Black filed a federal bankruptcy petition in April 2012. That would normally stay any eviction process but the case was dismissed automatically by the court because Black failed to file the required information about her debts and assets within 72 hours... Black’s then-attorney signed a stipulation in Superior Court...agreeing that she would vacate her home by July 15, 2012. But she didn’t leave.

So, despite this woman claiming fraud by the banks, and "I never signed any loan papers", she still agreed to leave in court, but didn't.

So, where is Muldur? He started this thread to highlight the "poor sick woman who had her home stolen". He have any thoughts now that we actually have, you know, facts?
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 10:14 AM   #96
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Ok, here's yet more information about the 'innocent' Nico Black getting evicted by the evil fascist thugs of Wells-Fargo and the police:

From: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...sident/163641/
The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 11:46 AM   #97
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 20,966
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.
While WF wasn't without shame in this whole affair, Ms. Black clearly was not the innocent victim she was painted to be. That was Segnosaur's point, and it is entirely valid.
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 10:51 AM   #98
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.
What information do you think I overlooked from the article that showed Wells-Fargo was the "bad guy", or in any way to blame?

Only real thing that I could see from the article was Wells-Fargo not showing up for the one court case, but that's already been discussed in this thread.
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 11:33 AM   #99
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,744
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
The article itself was much more balanced than your cherry pickings.
It is traditional to explain how the parts of the article that were omitted were significant.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 11:42 AM   #100
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
It is traditional to explain how the parts of the article that were omitted were significant.
will there be dancing and story songs?
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.