24 September 2011

KingCast/Mortgage Movies sees Attorney Paula Lee Chambers join Shawn Masterson in the liar's club in nasty Wells-Fargo case: Ingress v. AHMSI NH 2011-CV-373.


I make the natural inference that both of these lawyers are liars based on the following chain of events, starting with Attorney Masterson:


Fact: Shawn Masterson stated in Open Court in this KingCast/Mortgage Movie video that he and his client, Wells Fargo, were in possession of the original note and mortgage. This was in State Court where Diane Nicolosi heard objections to Masterson's representations because of the lack of any bank officer's presence (clearly hearsay testilying by Masterson) yet she did not care. Horace v. LaSalle, anyone? .... Wells Fargo v. Byrd, anyone?
I guess Judge Nicolosi didn't get the memo.

Fact: The original documents have never been produced despite Yours Truly offering up a Veuve Clicquot challenge to Attorney Masterson, what non-lying attorney could resist making me at once eat crow and drink my wine?


Fact: The NH Supreme Court summarily dismissed my Rule 3.3 Candor to the Tribunal complaint against Masterson because I am not an aggrieved party, and apparently they do not find any problem with this likely (mis)representation because they refused to investigate it themselves, despite the fact that there are "Linda Green" documents involved. Ms. Ingress has asked me for a copy of the Complaint such that she may file it herself to see what excuse the NH Supreme Court comes up with next to ignore the issue. "Oh, that's in litigation.... we won't get involved...." or some such bullshit.




Fact: In Federal Court with Ms. Ingress as Plaintiff, Attorney Paula-Lee Chambers pops up, not unlike a weasel (thanks 3rd Bass 1991 LOL) to claim that she conferred with Plaintiff over a now-pending Motion for Extension of Time. But Chambers continued to "confer" with Plaintiff to obtain assent after she filed her Motion on 21 September, click the thumbnails folks, whoops.....  You see, pursuant to local Rule 7.2 you have to explain what attempts you have made to obtain assent from opposing Counsel. In this case Ms. Ingress offerred conditional acceptances as she was contemplating doing Chambers a favor, yet Attorney Chambers refused to note any of it in her 7.2 Cert. More on this below but by the way folks, keep an eye on another Bad Faith mortgage case pending before this Court involving Paula Lee Chambers, Bedard v MERS, 2011-CV-1117, in which the Defendants are also sitting on a continuance to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.  At least in that case you can see that they stayed the foreclosure proceeding, unlike the Barracudas involved in Ms. Ingress' case.  Meanwhile former Hinshaw, Culbertson Partner Todd Duckson is facing SEC fraud charges. Now I need to call these folks for an update.
************
By way of comparison, I have made a good faith mistake Rule 7.2 mistake last week and am preparing a Notice of Errata because I used the wrong email chain when sending out my Request for Interlocutory Certification of an (yet another) unwritten Order (look between #122-123, below). My email never reached the intended parties. Anyway, the issue in question is an unwritten Order denying my Motion to Vacate Magistrate McCafferty's Report and Recommendation in my case after she eventually admitted that I was correct about her ties to McLane, Graf et al. in case no. 2010-CV-501. How does the Court Certify an unwritten Order you ask? Well first Judge Barbadoro would have to actually issue a written Order for starters....


Anyway back to this case, this does not appear to be a Good Faith mistake because Attorney Chambers knew goddamn well that she had already filed the Motion on 21 September to beat the deadline so there was no way in hell she could even possibly agree to the following language offered by Ms. Ingress as she spoke with her the next day, yet she continued to engage her in discourse to what end I wonder?
Dear Attorney Chambers:I will only accept your Motion if you promise me in writing that you can and will produce the original documents in this case, i.e. note, mortgage and assignments. Cut and paste this message......
This Rule 3.3 Candor to the Tribunal, failure to disclose material facts issue brings into question whether or not Attorney Chambers also was full of shit a few years back and misled the Court or opposing counsel or the Parties in any way when she "abrubtly" left the law office of Certulo & Capone during Chiulli & Sons v. Hanover, Hartford Superior 
CV-06-5002478-S
 so I will take it upon myself to notify Chiulli and Attorney Michael P. Barry about this new case so they can track her actions:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1507496.html


While the court believes that Barry sincerely believed that Chambers had the authority to settle......
......and that in fact she had agreed to settle which belief was led on by her telling him that she would recommend the settlement and Hanover usually accepted her recommendation and by the delay from June to September with exchanges of releases before Hanover denied the agreement, the court is forced to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to show by a preponderance of evidence that there was in fact such an agreement. The bulk of the evidence shows that Chambers did not have the authority to settle; that she recognized it; that she had turned the matter over to Hanover and that Hanover failed to approve the settlement. Accordingly, judgment may enter for Hanover on count one of the Chiulli's complaint.

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

Herein we see the beauty of effective due diligence and the power of online journalism:

Because of my visibility, and because I have been running courtroom video since 1996 in my own trials as lead counsel for various Civil Rights plaintiffs and defendants, Jeanne Ingress sought me out to make mortgage movies for her.

And because of that relationship she informed me of a problem she encountered so that I could read up on it and make an informed judgment.

My informed judgment is that Attorney Paula Lee Chambers:

1. Had no justifiable reason to continue to engage Ms. Ingress in discussion AFTER she filed her Motion;

2. Is seriously flirting with a Rule 3.3 violation in terms of candor to opposing counsel and to the Court and should have mentioned the responses of Ms. Ingress in her Rule 7.2 Certification.

3. Should receive a stern rebuke from the Court.

And further,

4. That the Defense Counsel in my case don't have a leg to stand on if they are trying to come after me for an inadvertent mistake vis a vis the intentional misrepresentation by silence witnessed by Attorney Chambers actions.

That is all.

For now.

-The KingCaster.