October 3, 2010
Do you swear to tell the truth?
One man's "oops" is another man's lie. Having practiced law for most of my life, I have seen a lot of disturbing things. People under pressure often say or do strange things when they try to win a lawsuit or avoid conviction. Sometimes they stand, raise their right hands, and swear or affirm that they will "tell the truth...nothing but the truth...so help me god" and begin telling lies, despite the oath, as soon as they sit down.
It is disturbing when you know that a witness is lying or shading the truth. Bt that is why we have cross-examination.
Most people tell the truth in court because they had good parents and teachers. Some tell the truth because they worry they could be charged with perjury. Often, the "truth" is hard to find.
So, I ask you, what is the proper response when banks and other lenders, aided by lawyers, establish a pattern of lying to the courts? Read this in the NY Times: "Confronted with so many foreclosures, the lenders try to avoid the expense of a trial and they "try to process cases on a wholesale basis." Catch this: "The tool for doing this was the so-called robo-signers in which mid-level bank executives would sign thousands of affidavits a month attesting that they have personal knowledge of the facts of the case." (Oops!)
These sworn statements, presented to the judge, inform the court that eviction of people from their homes may go forward! Trust us! We have the documents!
The affidavits were prepared by lawyers who were paid a flat fee. When deposed, the robo-signers acknowledged that they could not possibly have knowledge of all the cases. They deliberately lied, under oath. Under oath. Ah, say the banksters, that is a technicality. You read it right: an intentional lie--thousands of them--is a technicality. Thousands of them. The volume was so great they could not ask the mid-level bankers to sign all of the false affidavits--let a machine do it! (I wonder if the robo-signer machine has First Amendment rights under the Citizens United decision. Should the machine do time?)
Who gets punished for this incredible nose-thumbing at the courts? Seems to me this is not an "oops!" This is perjury. And perjury is not a technicality.
post a letter about this blog »
Lawyers paid to lie for corporate clients? How shocking! Since DAs are too busy "sexting" or viewing porn, nobody will ever be prosecuted. The more one observes the American legal system, the harder it is to tell the criminals from the lawyers.
At least Gary George got his license back thus proving that no matter how many evil deeds a lawyer does the Wisconsin Supreme Court is ready to welcome them back with open arms. This is our ":conservative" court, bailing out a guy who plotted to overthrow the government of Laos using drugs to fund the purchase of weapons. Oh, he stole from the public too. Why do conservatives condone lawyers who lie, cheat and steal?
-Tobias | Richland Center, WI | October 3, 2010
Things like this are proof, if that is the term to use, that the Tea Party folks are little more than useful idiots for the big money boys. If the Tea Party was really about outrage and fighting injustice etc. they would be demonstrating on Wall Street and in front of the Justice Dept instead of going googoo over Beck.
As for Obama and the Dems and their lack of ambition in going after this kind of thing all I can say is this. People have asked me if I am disappointed in Obama and the Dems. I tell them no, they have lived up to my low expectations.
Face it folks. The game is rigged and the motto is never give a sucker an even break.
-Griebnotz Doerkpfester | Egg Harbor, WI. | October 3, 2010
I am no legal expert but commonsense tells me that someone in a position of power who fraudulently takes advantage of others with less power or knowledge deserve to be prosecuted.
History books have been written describing the predatory practices of lending institutions and corporations during the expansion period of the western United States and continuing up to the early 20th century. Apparently the only thing which was learned from these writings was how best to circumvent the laws which were written in defense of the common man.
I am troubled that at my age I continue to be so naive thinking there are members in Congress who believe in protecting the least among us.
It is troubling that the only two members of Congress who I might credit with adherence to a moral code are Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Denis Kucinich. Both of these individuals have been treated by the general news organizations as being interesting but irrelevant.
-Richard Kanak | Cherry Valley, Illinois | October 3, 2010