Lenore’s Claim That She Saved 1000 Houses from Foreclosure Appears to be False


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

Lenore Albert at the appellate hearing where she lost her elections case against my client.  As it turns out, it gets far worse from there.

Lenore Albert’s self-proclaimed claim to fame is that she saved 1000 houses from foreclosure in the case of Eddie Yau v Deutche Bank National Trust Company. before Central District of California Judge Selna.  (Case number 8:11-cv-00006, for those who want to look it up.)  She’s been tossing this in my face, and using it to build a cult of personality around it, for years.  Recently, as part of her campaign for California Democratic Party Chair, she goaded me into researching it.  Now I have.

What I found reinforced three suspicions that I have had for a long time:

  1.  Lenore was (probably) well-intentioned at this time.
  2.  Lenore was fairly (though not especially) competent at this time.
  3. At some point, Lenore simply got in over her head, started flailing, and her problems stem from that.

But it also confirmed a growing suspicion that I’ve had over the course of the past year, after spending years of accepting her story about the case: Her claim is not even remotely true.

Here’s what would have to be true for her claim about the Yau case to be true:

  1. She would have had to either represent 1,000 individual clients or to have a certified class action with a class of no less than 1,000 members.
  2. Those 1,000 class members would have had to be subject to foreclosure on their homes
  3. Those 1,000 homes would have to have been spared foreclosure.
  4. That result would have to have come about due to her actions in that case.

Here are the problems with Lenore’s claim:

  1. The case was never certified as a class action, and Lenore did not represent such a huge number of Plaintiffs.  She requested that it be certified as a class action, but the judge never complied, and she tried to withdraw the motion at one point.  (I don’t find any indication that Lenore has ever had a class action certified; maybe she can provide a citation to one.)
  2. The court never issued an order stopping the sale of 1,000 homes.
  3. The “1,000 homes” claim seems to be Lenore’s estimate of how many homes belonged to the proffered class.  But there’s no indication that most people ever knew the case even existed.  (Having once clicked to receive information from her website doesn’t count as notice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)  They took no part in the case; they were not made parties involuntarily by class certification, as no class certification ever occurred.
  4. The court did grant some Temporary Restraining Orders that delayed foreclosures of a few homes belonging to Lenore’s named and personally represented clients, as well as one Temporary Restraining Order that applies — in all but a very few cases, for only a few days — to all members of the putative (that is, proposed, rather than certified or accepted) class.  But no permanent injunction followed any TRO; no homes were “saved” due to this proceeding.
  5. Some of Lenore’s plaintiffs in the case lost their homes while the case was pending. (Joanne Anderson — who I believes still defends Lenore despite this, which is an impressive con job — was one such client.)
  6. Lenore sought and received the right to amend her initial complaint five times, to keep it afloat.  In response to a motion by Defendants, Judge Selna eventually dismissed the last of these, the Fifth Amended Complaint, as lacking merit.
  7. Lenore, in other words, lost the case wholly and fully.  It did not put a permanent stop to any foreclosures.  It paused a few of them for a few days.  Her claim is tantamount to a fire company that went out to 1,000 houses and trained a fire hose on each of them for a few minutes — shortly before they each burned to the ground — had “saved” those houses.  That’s not what “saving” them means.
  8. I should say that I can’t rule out that some of her clients may have received settlements from some of the defendants — although if so it’s still not clear that it would have come from her work on this case — and that this may be found somewhere else in Lenore’s characteristic “paper terrorism” barrage of supporting documents..  This seems highly unlikely, however, because if so Lenore never presented it in the time and place where she would have been expected to do so.  In her response to the State Bar when it investigated her, she offered this same assertion discussed here that her action before Judge Selma had saved 1000 homes.  She directs the Bar to an “Attachment C.”  Attachment C, which appears below, is a stipulation between parties to a one month delay in this case.  It is not evidence, or even within the reach of a Lucky Number 7.0 earthquake’s tremors of evidence — of her having “saved 1000 homes.”  If Lenore actually has such evidence, she should make copies of it available through a document or docket entry that any attorney could look up on the PACER system.

This is Lenore’s answer to State Bar charges, to which Exhibit C below is attached as evidence that she saved 10000 homes from foreclosure in the Yau case.

 

LENORE’S “ATTACHMENT C TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM IN HER STATE BAR FILING THAT SHE SAVED 1000 HOUSES IN ONE CASE.  Note: A month’s delay in a hearing date does not prove that one saved 1000 houses — despite what Lenore seems to believe.

You may note that Lenore claims that she was counsel in the Nonth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s opinion in Yau.  You can read that opinion at this link — and wow, is it a doozy.  It turns out that Lenore procedurally defaulted the chance to include Yau in this appeal, and that the court upheld most of the decision, referring it back to the trial court to reconsider whether a claim for negligence should have been allowed due to a new appellate decision that would not have been available to the trial court at that time.  (In other words, not because the trial court had actually been wrong.)  The most amazing thing is the conclusion of Judge Mary Murguia’s partial dissent — especially its footnote:

Editor’s Note: I probably would never have seen this quote had Lenore not piqued my interest in the Yau case by refusing to give me its citation.

It’s not clear whether Lenore is gravely deluded about what happened in this case of hers — or ia brazenly misrepresenting it.  Either, though, disqualifies her from serious consideration as Chair — and even as a fair, cogent, honest, and trustworthy critic of other candidate for Chair — and suggests that those who have been sucked into her cult of personality might want to consider some prompt and comprehensive deprogramming.

It may be impossible to ignore her, but her factual representations about things should clearly be ignored.


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 (in violation of Roberts Rules) when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Expelled from DPOC in October 2018 (in violation of Roberts Rules) for having endorsed Spitzer over Rackauckas -- which needed to be done. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. One of his daughters co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)