AN OPEN LETTER REQUEST TO SANCTION VARIOUS NEW JERSEY ATTORNEYS - -
DIRECTED TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
April 17, 2014
Honorable Stuart Rabner,
The Supreme Court of New Jersey
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street
P.O. Box 023
Trenton, NJ 08625-0023
Certified # 7010 0290 0002 8294 1500
RE: Attorney Sanctions In Connection With –
Wells Fargo Bank v Carolyn Bailey Superior Court of New Jersey,
Essex County Chancery Division Docket # F-11202-06 and
Phelan Hallinan Wells Fargo/US Bank File No. 0147865802 (2014)
Dear Chief Justice Rabner:
This letter is a request that the New Jersey Supreme Court sanction the New Jersey attorneys whose names appear at the close of this letter.
On April 4, 2014, I requested that Judges Paul Innes and Margaret Mary McVeigh schedule a hearing on the Objection I filed with the New Jersey Superior Court on January 17, 2014. (Copies of that letter and Objection are attached.)
And now the plot thickens.
On April 12, 2014 I received a package from Vladimir Palma, Esq. of Phelan Hallinan which included a copy of my mortgage with Columbia Home Loans, LLC along with a copy of Wells Fargo Bank’s “Ta-Da” Corrective Assignment to “US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., HEAT 2006-1”. (Copies of the contents of that package are attached.) What is most striking is what was not included.:
1) NO explanation of why the above referenced case was not included in the Exhibits furnished by Wells Fargo Bank/US Bank/Zucker Goldberg related to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2010 examination of lending institutions within the State. (The below links are related to the Courts’ Order.)
It is highly unlikely that my property is the only one in the shadows and “inadvertently” omitted. Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2010-2013 examination needs to be re-opened.
2) NOprintout of ahistory of my purported accounts with Wells Fargo and US Bank showing the amounts due and a break-out of various purported expenses.
What the “Ta-Da” Corrective Assignment does highlight is the fatal flaw and missing link in Wells Fargo’s fragmented chain of title. Below is that excerpt:
This corrective assignment of mortgage is intended to correct the assignment of mortgage recorded in Essex County on 10/22/2009 as Document No. 9091043, Book 12223 and Page 5080 as it relates to the name of the assignee and also replaces the assignment of mortgage recorded in Essex County on 05/29/2007 as Document No. 7069776, Book 12058 and Page 8263 AS THAT ASSIGNMENT IS INVALID DUE TO COLUMBIA HOME LOANS NOT HAVING STANDING TO ASSIGN IT per document No. 7063512, Book 12054 and Page 8583. [Emphasis added.]
* * * * * * * * *
You can’t make this stuff up !
The various below named attorneys at Zucker Goldberg and Phelan Hallinan owe the Court a straight forward explanation of just how Wells Fargo Bank purportedly gained good title to “Deep-6” to US Bank when clearly Wells Fargo’s own “Ta-Da” Corrective Assignment admits that Columbia Home Loans’ various purported Assignments were INVALID.
The continuing efforts of the below named legal representatives of Wells Fargo Bank and US Bank to ram through this obviously flawed case are despicable, reprehensible, and deserving of sanction. I therefore strongly urge the Court to address this matter and sanction these seven attorneys and any others who participated in this outrage:
During the December 3, 2013 swearing in of new attorneys, New Jersey Supreme Court Justice
Anne Patterson shared some good advice that the above named attorneys may well heed.
Patterson counseled them to always "stay on the right side of every ethical line" and to be nice to colleagues and adversaries because "what goes around really does come around."
"New Jersey has more than 80,000 lawyers — that’s a lot of lawyers on paper," Patterson said. "But you will find that in your world, your county courthouse, your practice area, your city, your town, the legal community in our bustling state is very small."
Bending the rules, she warned, can quickly become a slippery slope that ends in disbarment.
"They are often ordinary men and women who started out with good intentions but crossed a little line here and a little line there, initially unnoticed, in order to get or keep a client, or to win a hopeless case or to try to resolve a personal or financial crisis," Patterson said. "If you are candid with everyone you deal with, you never have to worry about remembering what you said, you never have to worry about covering your tracks because you don’t have any tracks to cover, and you’ll never be disappointed in yourself."
The full Star Ledger article by Salvador Rizzo is available at –