Not a member? Sign up now
Entire firm of foreclosure lawyers mocked the homeless for Halloween
By Virginia SmithOctober 30th, 2011, 10:00 pmComments (33)
A series of new photos has proved what many of us already suspected or assumed to be true: lawyers at a "foreclosure mill" firm are terrible, terrible people.
New York Times columnist Joe Nocera posted pictures this weekend sent to him by a former employee of Steven J. Baum, a firm widely known in New York as a "foreclosure mill" for its work helping banks and mortgage companies foreclose on and evict homeowners. The snapshots are from last year's company-wide Halloween party, and, well, they're horrifying.
Multiple pictures show Baum employees in costume as homeless people, like the above shot in which one woman holds a sign reading, "3rd party squatter. I lost my home and I was never served!!" Other pictures, which you can see over at Nocera's column, show the office decorated with "foreclosed homes" and a sign that reads "Baum estates," as well as a "Rest in Peace. Crazy Susie" sign with a photo of Susan Chana Lask, a lawyer who filed a class-action suit against the company for its questionable legal practices.
The source that sent in the pictures says they're typical of the "cavalier attitude" taken by much of the company, even as they're working to throw people out of their homes. Naturally, when asked for comment, a Steven J. Baum representative denied any and all wrongdoing, saying, "It has been suggested that some employees dress in ... attire that mocks or attempts to belittle the plight of those who have lost their homes. Nothing could be further from the truth." The spokesman also referred to Nocera's article as "another attempt by the New York Times to attack our firm and our work."
Because really, how else can you possibly respond when you've already committed to being absolutely and unabashedly despicable?
Commentarium (33 Comments)
I thought it was a picture of OWS.
Other people's suffering is delicious, like candy!
I think comma is pretty "sick" with his "obsession" of hating us.
Don't worry, guys, comma doesn't hate everyone. In fact, they must just be getting in from their weekend's work at the soup kitchen.. in't that right, sweetpea?
I do help there from time to time, sugar. That's the difference between me and OWS; I'm actually doing something that matters and helps. But I guess I should quit doing that and instead go pitch a tent in front of City Hall, wear a Vendetta mask, and hold up a cheap sign because that is going to help.
Dress like a gimp, I'll be the domme and we can label you with a sign that says "99%". It'll be far more visceral.
I thought that you didn't care for labels as part of your "screw the status quo" mantra? I'm part of the 1% so I guess I'll have to pass on the gimp role. I actually did something today that made a difference. What about you? Maybe you waved a stupid sign around? Impressive.e.
I just wanted to flog ya, comma.
Are you truly part of the 1% or are you just playing "Keeping up with the Kardashians", hmmmm? Generally internet parodies don't gross more than 200K, tops.
Bonaparte fide 1%.
Did you get the foreign reference, Dee? Tres.
So they're terrible people because they have poor taste in Halloween costumes? How many OWS protesters will dress as some form of mockery of the 1% this year, and how is that any different?
Nowhere is there any mention of actual legal/ethical wrongdoing on the part of anyone at this company. Yeah, their business model deals in making people unhappy, the same as repo men, collection agencies, etc., but that doesn't mean that they kick puppies and eat kittens.
I love Nerve, but taking something so trivial and blowing it into "these people are the scum of the earth" is no different than what enrages me about Fox news (e.g. two potheads idiots are at a protest = the cause has no merit). Demonizing people for silly reasons makes us all look bad.
The difference between "Tee hee, that's kind of offensive!" types of costumes and "I kind of think you might be an asshole" types of costumes is the power imbalance. People who have well-paid jobs taking homes from people have power far beyond those people who have just lost their homes. Therefore, it is offensive to dress up in mockery of their situation.
Similarly, dressing up as a starving child from some tiny tribe in Africa is grotesque in a way that dressing up as Donald Trump's comb-over isn't. I really don't think that this is a difficult concept to grasp, to be frank. Basically, if you can trod on someone, don't make it worse by making mockery of them. If someone can trod on you, go ahead and make your sad life slightly better by having a laugh at your situation.
Or tl;dr: If it takes you more than two paragraphs to explain why something is funny rather than offensive, it probably isn't.
@Jess - It just took you two paragraphs to explain why it is offensive instead of funny. Is there a difference? I think it is safe to say that you are offended but you are not the arbiter of what is offensive and what is humorous.
I am the arbiter of what is merely the expression of opinion and what is an attempt to arbitrate beyond authority. Respect mah authoritah!
Wwell I can explain why it isn't funny in one sentence: Pick on someone your own size.
Nicely put.
You're missing the point of my comment completely - I explicitly said that I agree that it's a costume in poor taste. And yeah, maybe that's reason to suspect that someone is "kind of an asshole." But the language of the article wasn't "hey, maybe this was a douchey thing to do", it was literally that these people are "committed to being absolutely and unabashedly despicable". Overreaction? I think so.
And you make it sound like these people traffic in human misery the way sex traffickers do, and that's ridiculous in and of itself. Yeah, it's not nice to remove someone who doesn't pay his bills from his home (or turn off his water/electricity/etc.), but that's actually an important part of the loan concept.
@ridic: "Nowhere is there any mention of actual legal/ethical wrongdoing on the part of anyone at this company." Legality is not the basis for ethics; it is simply the bare minimum. Thus, something that can be legal may be unethical. Despite the article not making a distinction, some would find it quite unethical to engage in a largely displeasing business, then use company money to sponsor laughing at those harmed by it. Let me guess, you're attending the BP "Dress up like an oil covered Louisiana fisherman" company party this year?
Ha ha it's funny to laugh at people who have NOTHING.
Right? And it's totally just the same as making fun of people who have everything, because rich douchebags have hearts too. They just don't lay them out on the street.
God bless America.
That's just fucking despicable.
Word.
Ringing Bros. Has had clowns made up like hobos for years. Where has the outrage been? All these people did was kick people out of homes that they shouldn't have purchased in the first place. If you'll notice, they are dressed as squatters: illegal tenants and bums. Fuk them all.
I'm assuming since you cannot even spell FUCK correctly that you are in fact an idiot. And obviously an asshole to boot. Troll.
Ooh, nasty! Fuck fuck fuck you.
I'm really comma, the conservatroll!
@Observer Actually, no, it took me one sentence to explain why it was offensive rather than funny. It took me a further paragraph and a half to finish venting my spleen. There is a difference between a thesis and supporting information.
@ridic If I missed your point--as it should be clear I'm at least clever enough to string together some basic English--then perhaps your point is not easy enough to make even with your lengthy comment. I don't believe I made any sort of link--even if only emotionally--between these people and "sex traffickers". I made it rather clear that I believe that if there is a power imbalance, then it is offensive to mock those who have less power. That is not a value judgement on what other behaviour constitutes assholery. Just a simple statement of fact: If your current position gives you more power than someone else, don't fucking make fun of them for it.
I'm not a sex trafficker. I'm not even a lowly drug dealer or a common litter bug. Yet still, as a person who is able to be self-sufficient, if I dressed up as someone with Downs Syndrome you could freely call me an asshole. It's a rather simple equation, really.
So you would be offended if any employed person dressed as an out-of-work banker, or something to that end, given that there is a clear power imbalance? And everyone who dresses as a criminal or as a homeless person is an asshole, by virtue of the fact that they have the freedom and disposable income required to buy a costume?
I do my best to miss the point completely.
@Jess It really doesn't do to debate rationally with most of these goons. Like that headless chicken, only their brain stem is functioning so they can do things like have these wild dreams (REM functions based on the brain stem, you see) but not much else.
Spoken like a goon's goon.
Aw, that was sweet. And here I hoped that Nerve forums were a place where folks were above name-calling.
@Jess - people mock others with less power routinely, and while that may not be nice, I don't think it makes the former the scum of the Earth. I would prefer to judge people by the meaningful actions that they take rather than by Halloween costumes.