In catch up mode….
A few weeks ago, we discussed a motion Lender Processing Services agains Nick Wooten, an attorney who has sued LPS in several jurisdictions for impermissible legal fee sharing. We not only indicated that the suit was spurious, but we also questioned why Housing Wire was trumpeting a desperate and not likely to succeed effort by its largest advertiser. That goes beyond being credibly comprehensive in coverage to being simply crass.
The judge dispatched the LPS gambit in short order:
May 11, 2011 Order Denying LPS Motion for Sanctions
One thing that struck me as odd: LPS asked for the transcript of the hearing on the sanctions motion to be sealed. What is THAT about? Something smells a bit rotten in Denmark.
Banksters and other corporate litigants might as well ask for everything to be sealed except what they specifically want to be publicized. They’re bound to find lots of acquiescent judges, and it would be a logical extension of the federal government’s secrecy regime.
Of course, I say that at risk of being called a “transparency fundamentalist” by Obama cultists. At least that’s what they call Wikileaks supporters. So I guess we should ask them about a sealing motion like this. They’re bound to understand and support it. After all, they support pro-BP secrecy in the Gulf of Mexico.
in re Thorne has its next hearing in MS on 6/17. weird point about the transcript.
on a tangent, since i didn;t see it up here: http://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/consumerprotection/a_foreclosure_crisis.pdf
sounds like the solution to the state laws/real property transactions/trust formation issues is brewing. doesn’t sound pretty. although you have to “appreciate” the way the authors put “quotes” around everything, including the “title”.
it will make it easier to call them “laws” later. note the absence of “investors” in the list of interested parties at the bottom of p3