The National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) is under a national microscope today. From all corners of the Mortgage Field Services Industry, the confirmation of Patricia E McTaggart’s Do Not Use list is being made known. It is nothing more glamorous than blacklisting and goes to the heart of the racially motivated attacks by Altisource and NAMFS upon innocent Minority Females and Labor. In fact, we now are able to confirm that at Birdsey Group, Laudan Properties, and other firms whom are part of the Altisource Fraud Order Mill network. We further confirmed that when Minority Females and Labor challenge any firm participating with Altisource, they must utilize the Altisource Complaint System. When they do this they are added to the Do Not Use list in many cases and regardless are generally bankrupted.
Neither Eric Miller nor the all white NAMFS Board of Directors have ever publicly disavowed Do Not Use lists employed by their Membership. Knowing that lists like the one which Patricia E McTaggart utilizes; knowing that Laudan Properties and Birdsey Group, at minimum, are utilizing the same Do Not Use list, one has to wonder whether or not Eric Miller will eventually see prison time.
Are you curious how you know whether or not Eric Miller or Patricia E McTaggart are lying? Their mouths are open. There is no other way to describe this racist, financial terrorism war against Minority Females and Labor. Whether or not Eric Miller and Patricia E McTaggart derive some type of perverse pleasure in committing crimes against Minority Females or not, what is a fact is that Altisource is committing tortious interference and both Altisource and NAMFS, by allowing such to continue, are guilty.
There are typically four primary elements in the blacklisting context: (1) the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the business relationship or expectancy; (3) the defendant’s intentional and wrongful interference with the business relationship or expectancy; and (4) damages to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s interference.
In the case of Jay Goscinski, owner of Michigan Realty Solutions (MRS), and hundreds of others, Altisource committed tortious interference. And while each state separately deals with blacklisting in their own way, we will focus on California as their federal courts have twice already stated that Independent Contractors are actually Employees.
California Labor Code §1050-1053 specifies the following acts as blacklisting:
- Preventing or attempting to prevent former employee from getting work through misrepresentation.
- Knowingly permitting or failing to take reasonable steps to prevent blacklisting.
- In a statement about why an employee was discharged or left employment, implying something other than what is explicitly said, or providing information that was not requested. Furnishing information without a special request is prima facie evidence of a violation.
In the words of Iago, “Who steals my purse steals trash…, but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” The California Supreme Court addressed the importance of reputation and the damaging effects, stating,
Good character, or reputation, consists of the general opinion of people respecting one. It is built up by a lifetime of conduct. It is probably the dearest possession that a man has, and once lost is almost impossible to regain. The possession of a good reputation is conducive to happiness in life and contentment. The loss of it, . . . brings shame, misery, and heartache. Society’s interest in redressing the harm done to one’s reputation is strong… Moreover, “[t]he harm done to one’s reputation can never be fully undone.
That Patricia E McTaggart and Altisource have put together a Do Not Use list, there is no question. That this blacklisting of US Citizens impacts their ability to work throughout the Mortgage Field Services Industry, there is no question. That Eric Miller personally supports the blacklisting of non NAMFS Members, there is no doubt by and through his silence on the matter. What financial institutions like Wells Fargo and others including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) need to understand is that their continued financing of Altisource and NAMFS will ultimately ensure regulatory investigations.
The reality is that Patricia E McTaggart is an Uncle Tom in the most literal sense. And it makes sense why she has an ally in Eric Miller and his all white NAMFS Board of Directors. In fact, Keith O’Donnell, whom is seated on the all white Board, has apparently implemented the Altisource Blacklist as has Matt Pratt, the Laudan Properties Contractor Liaison. Pratt, a former Safeguard Properties asshole. Pratt’s tattoos are self evident of his racism making one wonder precisely what is going on at Laudan Properties whom recently lost the ServiceLink contract.
There is no mistaking the Human Rights implications involved in Eric Miller’s support of Patricia E McTaggart’s Do Not Use list maintained by Altisource. In fact, the National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) may be fairly labeled as aiding, abetting, harboring, and protecting those committing Human Atrocities. Eric Miller’s actions are an affront to humanity. Moreover, if NAMFS does actually investigate these crimes, now documented across the United States, it should ensure that NO ONE whom has a vested financial interest with Altisource be allowed to participate in the hearing. What many folks are beginning to wonder is whether or not the Altisource Do Not Use list is beginning to make its way into the Aspen Grove Solutions databases as well as the AllyConnect which Eric Miller has been heavily supporting.
Blacklisting has also been addressed by the courts through common law claims such as defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defamation and slander typically involve the publication to a third party of false and defamatory information. See, e.g., Brummett v. Taylor, 569 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2009). Truth of the published information is usually an absolute defense. See, e.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 516 (1991). Employers may also be able to assert a qualified privilege when sharing information with other employers for legitimate business purposes, requiring a showing of malice for the defamation claim to succeed. See, e.g., Mawaldi v. St. Elizabeth Health Ctr., 381 F.Supp.2d 675, 688-89 (N.D.Ohio 2005).
An interesting variation on the common law defamation claim in this context is a claim against a government employer for deprivation of the plaintiff’s liberty interest in pursuing the occupation of his choice. Some public employees have argued “that dismissal to the accompaniment of serious public charges of misconduct may prevent the employee from obtaining other employment of comparable responsibility – may, in a word, operate to blacklist him from such employment, thereby depriving him of his occupational liberty.” Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255, 266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Jungels v. Pierce, 825 F.2d 1127, 1131 (7th Cir. 1987). “However, the stigmatizing statements must rise to the level that makes it ‘virtually impossible’ for the employee to obtain employment in his chosen field.” Zellner v. Herrick, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8123, *57 (E.D.Wis. 2009). Another common law tort under which the conduct of blacklisting sometimes falls is that of invasion of privacy. Similar to a defamation claim, invasion of privacy involves the publication of false information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person or the publication of true information involving highly personal details, such as disclosure regarding an employee’s personal relationships, financial condition, or medical condition.
There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the plaintiff and a serious invasion of the privacy by the defendant’s actions. See, e.g., Landon v. Northwest Airlines, 72 F.3d 620, 626 (8th Cir. 1995); Chapman v. Journal Concepts, Inc., 528 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1099 (D.Haw. 2007). Finally, blacklisting conduct can also be opposed through the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The standard for this claim is typically quite high; conduct underlying such a claim typically must be “egregious,” such as disclosure of false information that is well beyond the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior, or, as one court described it: conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” McNemar v. Disney Store, 91 F.3d 610, 622- 23 (3rd Cir. 1996).
The hyperventilating National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) has proven, time and again, to be an echo chamber for racial bias and discrimination in the Mortgage Field Services Industry. Catch up with Foreclosurepedia, tomorrow, as we begin to dig deeply into Patricia E McTaggart’s personal life in an attempt to understand her hatred of Minority Females and Labor by and through the application of the Altisource Do Not Use list.
