Judge Robert Mulvey grants adjournments to parties who sold their interest in litigation - as long as his ruling is against clients of an attorney who sued him and turned him in

There is bias and bias.

Judge Robert Mulvey has some bias against me that spills over into retaliation against my clients.

I represent a client in a residential foreclosure case brought by a bank.

At the beginning of October this year, when Judge Mulvey knew full well that I was located in the middle of a catastrophic flood in South Carolina, Judge Mulvey "so-ordered" a very interesting letter from the attorney for the bank that initiated the foreclosure proceeding.

It is important to note the flooding because I was unable to get to the post office, my e-mail address was well known to the court and to the opposing counsel, the letter by the opposing counsel was not duplicated by e-mail, but was sent only by mail, I was unable to get to the postoffice due to flooding, and Judge Mulvey whose office is usually very courteous to OTHER attorneys and calls them to verify whether they agree to adjournments, never called me nor sent me an e-mail verifying whether I received that letter or not or whether I consent to any adjournments or not.

But what is the most astounding thing is WHY the adjournment was requested by the bank's attorney.

The bank's attorney asked the court to adjourn the deadline to file the motion for a summary judgment in the foreclosure action because the ownership of the mortgage has changed - but the attorney did not know who is the new owner of the mortgage.

In her letter to the judge, the attorney for the bank clearly stated that her client (the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action) WAS the owner of the mortgage, not IS the owner of the mortgage.

When such a letter comes before the judge, the judge (if he is competent and unbiased) must STAY proceedings and order disclosure who is the owner of the mortgage.

Most definitely an adjournment for the now FORMER owner of the mortgage cannot be granted for any reason, because the FORMER owner of the mortgage has no rights left to prosecute the action, and its attorney is no longer attorney of record.

What Judge Mulvey granted to the FORMER owner of the mortgage is a right to prepare, until December of this year, a motion for a SUMMARY JUDGMENT in an action where the FORMER owner no longer had ANY interest.

Talking about incompetence of the judge here...

But, the circus continued even further.

After I received this extraordinary "so-ordered" letter from Judge Mulvey's chambers, I called the attorney who requested the adjournment - for her client who already sold his interest in the case.

When I called the attorney who has sent the letter to Judge Mulvey about her client being the FORMER owner of the mortgage, the attorney already left the firm - that is, the judge "so-ordered" the letter on a Friday - the attorney left the firm on the following Monday, within 2 days, with a lightning speed.  A coincidence.  Right.

My further conversations with other attorneys in the same law firm revealed that attorneys for the bank are unaware as to who is the new owner of the mortgage, but they are belligerent that they are still attorneys of record in a case where their client no longer owns the mortgage (which is, of course, a frivolous position).

An attorney for the bank explained to me that she has "just got the file" and, for that reason, could not tell me who is the new owner of the mortgage.

I've sent to that attorney an e-mail requesting an urgent disclosure more than a week ago, and I am still waiting for her response.  A week is more than enough time to figure out who you client sold its interest to, isn't it - and that is AFTER the bank's attorneys submitted to the court a letter saying that their client DID sell its interest, but they do not know to whom. 

Had I filed such a letter, I would have been sanctioned by now, because the minimum duty of due diligence and candor to the tribunal requires an attorney to instantly verify with the client who is the new owner the client has sold its interest to - and report it to the court and the opponent, as well as the fact that Plaintiff can no longer proceed with the residential foreclosure action.

For a judge to grant an adjournment to an attorney who is NO LONGER AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD (since it represents a client who has sold its interest in the mortgage and/or the note) - and without consulting the only remaining legitimate attorney of record - is quite incredible and shows an extraordinary level of bias.

Of course, I am turning Mulvey into the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct.

When a judge cannot control his bias against an attorney (who sued him in the past and turned him in in the past) to the point that he grants for the asking ANYBODY's request for ANYTHING, including the request for adjournment from an attorney who is no longer an attorney of record in the case by operation of law - keeping such a judge on the bench presents a serious jeopardy to public safety.