I assume that in any line of work, there are work activities which are preferred more than others. I like writing briefs and taking depositions much more than I like defending depositions. On Tuesday I had to defend a deposition of a client against three lawyers, one of whom I consider particularly loathsome. As you might expect he represents Mortgage Electronic Systems a/k/a MERS, which I believe is designed to facilitate the redistribution of the wealth of America’s middle class to already wealthy elites.
Now I want to make it clear that in this blog I am primarily stating my own observations and opinions pursuant to those rights I believe I have under the First Amendment.
So now let’s return back to what happened at the deposition. At some point counsel for MERS made a point of stating that I had never won a motion against him. I wondered what he was talking about because less than a couple of months ago my office, in a brief I participated in writing, had clearly prevailed against MERS with regard to a motion he had brought. A copy of that decision against MERS, in which he was lead counsel, can be found at: Knecht v Fidelity National Title Insurance Company.
After his strategic and dishonest attempt at an insult , I leaned back in my chair and looked hard at the MERS attorney questioning the witness. I do not recall having any animosity toward him as that is not a good trait for an advocate to have. Rather, I was observing the man across the table in my writer/poet mode, which involves a more philosophical and higher focus.
As the attorney asked questions (some objectionable and some not) I observed his hollow face, made even more homely than it already was when he smiled all his teeth and gums when he thought he got an answer which he could use against my client. I pondered whether his hollow face was indicative of his apparent soullessness.
This attorney mentioned above is not alone. I remember another attorney representing banks and servicers I met shortly after he got out of law school. Then he was a handsome, fit man. Two years later when we met again I noticed that he was bloated and dark.
I believe there is an ugliness which attaches to those people who chose to earn money working for those wealthy elites evicting people from their homes day after day based on untrustworthy, often fraudulent documents utilized by the MERS system. Even now when I argue against lawyers who are representing what I believe to be an obviously corrupt financial system, I gently suggest they think about changing sides. Few do. But I have no doubt that in time they will be held accountable, perhaps by God or even themselves, for the evil which they have helped perpetuate.
But enough of that. Let’s get back to the lawyers comment at the deposition that I had never won a motion against him. I went to both the Westlaw and Lexis legal databases and typed in a search for the federal court decision, which can be found in Google Scholar by clicking on the above link. The decision was not there. I was perplexed because it was an important decision, which could be used by other lawyers to illustrate what I believe are MERS’ abusive litigation tactics against homeowners. It seemed curious that it would not be reported by either of the two primary private legal publishers used by the courts.
So I called Westlaw, the legal database system to which our firm subscribes, and asked why the decision had not been reported by Westlaw. Further, I asked if the failure to report this particular decision was because of an intervention by MERS.
Stella, the tech, who answered my phone call indicated that she did not know why the case had not been reported, but doubted that MERS could have had anything to do with it.
Stella indicated she would file some sort of form to bring my concerns about possible manipulation of reporting federal court decisions to the attention of the “higher ups” at Westlaw. She anticipated the decision would be reported within the next two weeks. We’ll see…
It is a concern to me as a lawyer and a citizen that the Empire’s modern judicial industrial complex can so easily and arbitrarily affect the course of precedent based on the whims of private publishers. Perhaps allowing the free market to disseminate only those decisions which it prefers be published should be more closely watched; even eliminated.
This article, Supreme Court Justices Quietly Rewrite Opinions after they have been Published, evidences related concerns about the elasticity of modern jurisprudence.