WELCOME TO LIVINGLIES — Since 2007

KEEP YOUR HOME!!! –

Over 17,000,000 Visitors

Most of the claims that use “securitization” as a foundation are FALSE!!

That means they have no right to administer, collect or enforce any debt, note, mortgage or deed of trust.

And THAT means you can successfully challenge foreclosures

AND pursue damages against those who make false claims.

ABOUT LIVINGLIES AND LENDINGLIES

HOW DO I GET HELP?

SUBMIT FREE REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITHOUT OBLIGATION

**************************

CLICK HERE TO

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

CLE WEBINAR SERIES: LIVE AND ON DEMAND

 2 HOUR CLE WEBINAR ON DEMAND 9/29/21 — EXAMINATION AND CHALLENGE OF ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE

Listen to The Neil Garfield Show

or prior episodes

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

*******************************

About Neil F Garfield

Schedule Private Consultation

Purchase Services

Submit Case Interview Form – Receive Customized Recommended Services

Q & A – What can you do for me?

Contact Information:

GTC Honors, Inc., approved CLE course provider

Phone: 954-451-1230

Email: neilfgarfield@hotmail.com

 

PRO BONO SERVICES include online chats, comments, and suggestions on the registration form, The Neil Garfield Show,

PAID Services include: Expert Consultation Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, Discovery , Motions, Pleadings, Complaints to AF and CFPB, Title and Encumbrance Analysis, and Case Analysis. We coach lawyers and pro se litigants. ALL 50 STATES.

MISSION STATEMENT: We want to convince homeowners to fight illegal foreclosures and win — not merely delay a negative outcome. And we want them to go further — to pursue those who make false claims for monetary damages. In fact, I want homeowners to clear their title — expunging or removing or canceling the mortgage lien. 

The LivingLies Blog is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with the tools needed to confront illegal foreclosures.

There are free forms, articles, and discussions of statutes, case precedent, and policy on this site.

On www.lendinglies.com we provide paid crucial analytic and presentation services that enable lawyers and homeowners to confront the lies in illegal foreclosures.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from www.lendinglies.com

When to act on your “mortgage transaction”

Why is “mortgage transaction” bracketed in quotes? Because the transaction is really a draft of homeowners into becoming issuers in a concealed securities scheme. The loan account, part of every traditional loan, is neither created nor transferred. All players are paid off through the sales of certificates that by law are not classified as securities and are not backed by any liens or collateral. So both the “mortgage transaction” and the “Mortgage-backed securities” carry a moniker that denotes the exact opposite of their true intention.

When to act in judicial states? Theoretically, the time to act is before you close, but that never happens because the players have already convinced you that you were applying for a mortgage loan and not signing up for an undisclosed securities scheme in which they take all the profit. You pay back the consideration for issuing the base documents of the securitization scheme with interest (only because they convinced you this was a “loan”).

In judicial states, the first practical time to act pro-actively or defensively is when you receive a statement or notice of default. Homeowners are tricked into believing the default because they stopped making payments.  But the payments they were making were never due to the parties receiving those payments. And the parties receiving those payments are unrelated to the name or business of the designated “servicer.”

The attack should be based on the existence, status, and ownership of the implied (but never stated) unpaid loan account. The answer is never the possession of the note.

In non-judicial states, the time to act is when the homeowner receives and usually ignores the Notice of Substitution of Trustee on the deed of trust. Homeowners ignore it because they think it doesn’t matter. But this is when a designated name is used to pretend that that name is the name of an organization that owns the implied (but never stated) unpaid loan account. They don’t. But if you ignore it, it will be legally cloaked in a presumption of validity.

If the party designated is not a qualified beneficiary under state law because it doesn’t own an unpaid loan account due from the homeowner, then they cannot be the source of any authority to change trustees on the deed of trust.

The attack should be based on the existence, status, and ownership of the implied (but never stated) unpaid loan account. The answer is never the possession of the note.

You cannot complete the challenge without using administrative and court procedures to get evidence of the inability or unwillingness of the designated “creditor” to answer the questions about the existence, status, and ownership of the implied (but never stated) unpaid loan account. Never accept such answers from anyone using the name of the designated servicer. Insist on an officer from the organization designated as “creditor,” e.g., U.S. Bank as trustee, etc.

That means sending a QWR and DVL followed by a follow-up QWR and DVL (when they don’t answer your questions). It means filing a complaint with the CFPB and State AG, both of whom should do something but don’t. Then when you file a lawsuit for breach of RESPA and FDCPA, you can confidently state you have exhausted all administrative remedies.

=============

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Emergency: Why the New Article 12 of the Uniform Commercial Code Should Be Rejected

The UCC is a uniform authority on laws governing all transactions. It is adopted by law in all U.S jurisdictions. Transactions with homeowners are governed by Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments) and Article 9 (Secured Transactions).

My attacks on the weakness of the argument for business records of the “servicer” have resulted in the proposed new Article 12, which appears to have been adopted in other states (other than Florida). The new article proposes a new classification that will supersede all common law and statutory law regarding business records.

The new article governs the transfer of property rights in a “controllable electronic record” (CER), which is defined as a record stored in an electronic medium that can be subjected to “control” (discussed below). By definition, a CER excludes any digital assets that are not subject to “control” as well as those that are already subject to other commercial laws such as E-SIGN, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or other articles of the UCC. Article 12 also does not address the regulation of any digital assets (e.g., how they are taxed, implications for banking regulations or the prevalent question in the Web3 space as to whether such assets constitute securities). Those involved in the Web3 space will note that the definition does not include any reference to blockchain or distributed ledger technology. This was to make the definition technology-neutral, although the clear intent of the new amendments was to address blockchain-based digital assets. [e.s.]

The introduction of the CER is a thinly disguised attempt to solidify the consensus that the designated “servicer” reports constitute business records and, therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule.

As pointed out on this blog, the Payment History report issued under the name of a company that is proffered as a “servicer” are not business records since they are not a record of any business conducted by that “servicer.”

The Payment History purports to be a record of payments received from the homeowner.  But since that function is not performed by the “Servicer” and is instead performed by financial technology companies (now designated as “servicers” by CFPB as of May, 2022), there is a complete lack of foundation to the introduction of such a report issued under the name of the “Servicer.” It is inadmissible under current rules of evidence.

By creating the new classification of CER, the door is opened to changing all common law and statutory law governing evidence — thus solidifying the death grip that investment banks have in foreclosures that are not filed for restitution of an unpaid debt but instead are filed for profit.

The new amendment also acknowledges but excludes “Controlled digital assets.” This is a disguised effort to legalize that which has been illegal. If the assets are  digital (virtual), they are not actual. The “digital assets” are merely representations of the actual. In foreclosures, the asset is always the unpaid loan account.

For nearly two decades, most courts have erroneously allowed the “Payment History” report issued under the name of the alleged “servicer” into evidence despite the fact that the company designated as “Servicer” never received or processed any payments from the homeowner.

This amendment is an attempt to create a grey area that the investment banks can exploit for profit by filing for foreclosures — through intermediaries — despite the fact that none of the players own any loan account (which was retired in the process of what Wall Street calls “Securitization”).

Ownership of the loan account is essential under the U.S. Constitution, which provides for court jurisdiction over any justiciable issue. A justiciable issue has been universally accepted as an issue in a dispute wherein one side has been injured, and the other side has caused the injury. In foreclosures, it is only a missed payment that causes devaluation of the loan account that is justiciable.

Write your state Senators and House representatives immediately.

Analysis of Fake Beneficiary Declaration

2460 FIFE 8-25-2016 BENEFICIARY DECLARATION QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WA

  1. Toon Hobbs does not say he is an officer of Deutsch Bank.
  2. He also does not say that Deutsche Bank warrants ownership over the alleged or implied unpaid loan account.
  3. As Document Control Officer, he is also NOT a records custodian and decidedly not a TRUST OFFICER.
    1. He does not describe the scope of his duties.
  4. He does not say that Deutsch Bank maintains a trust account on behalf of the obliquely named trust or on behalf of the unspecified holders of the unspecified certificates.
  5. More importantly he makes no reference to a trust agreement, much less attach it.
  6. More importantly he makes no reference to a servicing agreement, much less attach it.
  7. More importantly he makes no reference to an agreement giving Deutsch the right to represent the interests of the certificate holders, much less attach it.
  8. He doesn’t say DBNTC is a beneficiary. he says it is referenced as a beneficiary.
  9. If DBNTC is only a “holder of the promissory note” as stated then it is not a holder in due course, which legally can only mean they did not pay for it, or they received it in a transaction that was not in good faith or they and knowledge of the maker’s substantive defenses.
  10. It also means that they need to show physical delivery (unstated) PLUS authority to enforce it. Just because a note is endorsed does not mean that the authority to enforce is either actual or implied. If the endorsement is not forgery then you still need the endorser to be a party who owns the note or is an authorized representative of the endorser. Otherwise, the endorsement is a legal nullity.
  11. In summary, everything that happened before and after the declaration is a legal nullity.
PRACTICE HINT: This is yet another example of dumping snow on the ground and then blaming someone else for why you can’t see the ground. The ground is simple— it is and always will be an unpaid account receivable due from the homeowner. An account receivable for purposes of foreclosure must be an asset of the company or entity that has been designated as a creditor. In this case, the “Declarant” is presumptively NOT an officer of Deutsch nor anyone else who has the knowledge or competence to produce the loan account and swear under oath eh Deutsch owns it.
I have repeatedly won cases by objecting to the testimony of the witness as being without proper foundation. Someone from Deutsch would be required to bring the loan account with them and testify that Deutsch owns it and that the company designated as a “servicer” is, in fact, servicing the unpaid loan account for Deutsch — not merely that they are attempting to service or that their actions constitute servicing. If they are not the real agent for a real principal, then their testimony is irrelevant, and their documents, reports, and records are irrelevant.
========
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

PennyMac Financial Services: Dubious Accounting Games Won’t Solve Its Crisis

*at the heart of claims of securitization is a data point that cannot be confirmed or corroborated, to wit:  an unpaid loan account owed to as specifically identified creditor who makes decisions regarding collection, enforcement, and workouts. That account and that creditor does not exist in anyone’s world unless they are admitted in a court action.

See https://ffj-online.org/2022/12/06/pennymac-financial-services-dubious-accounting-games-wont-solve-its-crisis/

Excellent article that can be used as the foundation for many things. What the banks are betting on is that your eyes will glaze over as you start reading this. Just like your poor eyes did before when articles were published on how the investment banks created a false marketplace with false securities and false pretenses.

But the reason this is so important — and why banks keep steering clear of me —- is that at the heart of claims of securitization is a data point that cannot be confirmed or corroborated, to wit:  an unpaid loan account owed to as specifically identified creditor who makes decisions regarding collection, enforcement, and workouts. That account and that creditor does not exist in anyone’s world unless they are admitted in a court action.

The bottom line is that accounting rules have been so liberalized in favor of management that virtually any company that is not under investigation can say anything it wants about the crap they have sold or traded in the marketplace.

In the case of PennyMAc, the assumption that it is performing any of the servicing functions ascribed to them is at best dubious. It is and has always been a thinly capitalized entity that exists solely at the discretion (whim) of the major investment banks. And that is why adjustments on their balance sheet for “non-cash” transactions are an essential element of their income statements.

Courts May Not Use Discredited Document as Basis for Judgment

There is no appellate case in which the following proposition has been ruled upon according to my research: can the court continue reliance on legal presumptions arising from facially valid documents from a litigant who fails or refuses to provide reasonable corroboration of the truth of the matters asserted in said documents? 

*
I have obtained such rulings from the trial bench. But as a general rule, judges continue to use discredited documents (or at least undermined documents) to allow the foreclosure.
*
I completely understand that these issues could have been raised in the case before that failure to address them presents an easy res judicata argument. But the outcome of the case should have been a finding of no jurisdiction, which can be raised at any time. Courts may not confer jurisdiction upon themselves when there is no justifiable issue.
*
If the court entered judgment relying upon the documents presented to support foreclosure then it follows that when those documents may no longer be considered true (because of failure to provide corroboration of the truth of the matters asserted), the court must exclude such documents as irrelevant hearsay. Unless the lawyer promoting the foreclosure case has other evidence that survives scrutiny, the case is over. There is no claim and thus no justiciable controversy. 

*
The presumptions arising from documents fail (not just rebutted) when the proffer is from a litigant who cannot or will not provide corroboration. Most lawyers and homeowners are afraid to ask the question: Can you identify a loan account upon which you seek recovery of money? If they cannot or will not, they are not entitled to any presumption arising from a document that appears to be valid but. as we all know, is probably fabricated and forged.
*
The typical answer to that question will be a reference to the Payment History. Any accountant will tell you that is not the unpaid loan account. The Payment History, even if it is authentic and reliable, merely contains data from which the creditor computes and posts debits and credits to the loan account on the books of the named creditor.
*
If the answer is a reference to the Payment History, they are unable or unwilling to answer the question. Any legal presumption that causes facts or law to be applied from the face of the document that cannot be corroborated is therefore eliminated, meaning that the document might be subject to testimony that provides a foundation of admission into evidence. But a motion in limine or a motion for sanctions should remove the last vestige of any hope of using those documents to obtain a foreclosure.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: all of these cases sit on a three-legged stool. The first leg is the lawyer, who is acting on instructions from an undisclosed third party (usually a regional law firm hired by counsel for the originating investment bank).
*
The second leg is the actual creditor if there is one. The fact that the lawyer names some entity as a creditor does not mean that any officer of that entity will swear under oath that the entity is the owner of a loan account and that he or she is producing a loan account established at origination. This is the key. It is like asking for a copy of the check register and not the accounting done by some party other than the holder of the account.
*
The third leg is the company named as “servicer.” This is usually an entity that performs, no servicing functions relative to the receipt and distribution of money from homeowners. These functions are performed by undisclosed financial technology companies who are working in accordance with contractual duties owed to the originating investment bank, and not the servicer.
==================
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Everyone lies

The basis for most big business plans is to give the consumer the worst possible product or service while convincing the same consumer that the cost is inevitable and the product or service is excellent. This produces something that Alejandro Reyes of Deutsch Bank called a “counter-intuitive” system.
*
Let me give you a few examples:
  1. When I was a defense attorney for traveler’s insurance, I learned that insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping verdicts high. Even I  found this incomprehensible. But once explained, it was clear: higher verdict meant two things: higher demand for insurance and higher prices for premiums. The decision to let a case go to trial, knowing that it will result in a negative verdict of notable size, means that the press will carry it and scare the hell out of anyone in the line of that activity or work.
    1. The solution of course would be a return to the actual realities that were discovered and utilized by two Scotsmen for pension benefits in the early 1800’s.
    2. But we are way passed that because the government has been so unwilling or incapable of enforcing the basic rules of fairness in the marketplace.
    3. The current practice of paying off innovators to stay out of the marketplace is another example of the failure of government regulation to address anti-competitive strategies.
    4. And remember that anti-competitive strategies equals anti-consumer practices. In these issues, The European Union seems to be far ahead of the United States, although still not as effective as necessary to level the playing field to allow free market forces to do their work as the invisible hand governing the supply and demand.
  2. Both drug cartels and those who support law enforcement and prisons make a lot of money because of the illegality of the product. If we were to learn the lesson of prohibition, we would do far better by regulating the industry rather than “banning” it without effect.
    1. This is opposed by drug cartels because such action would drop the price of what are now illegal drugs to nearly zero. There would be no business to conduct.
    2. It is equally opposed by law enforcement who want to keep their jobs and vendors in the money. If nobody is arrested, the whole thing collapses.
    3. Meanwhile, the public would save hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives if the product was shifted from criminal to regulated.
    4. People could still be placed in prison for violating regulation, but the marketplace for illicit drugs would cease it exist. In turn, this fuels violence which in turn makes people flee for their lives in the form of migration and specifically immigration to the U.S.
  3. Everyone except consumers wants high drug prices in order for thousands of middlemen and insurance companies, to make fortunes on top of the revenue paid to the manufacturer and fee paid to the pharmacist for dispensing the product.
    1. Mark Cuban, a billionaire disrupter, is changing that and is having a partially beneficial effect. The price of CostPlus drugs is about 1/10th that at a pharmacy.
    2. People continue to die and go to the ER where the prices of services and health care are at a premium because they cannot afford the “retail” price of the drug. This is because of an inversion.
    3. The wholesale price now accounts for 65%-75% of the cost of every medication. Wholesale is more expensive than retail as Mark Cuban is demonstrating on a daily basis. But the response is that for those insured, the co-pay is around the same price that Cuban’s company will charge. You would think that the point of drug manufacturing was to get needed medication to people who require it. But the real business of drug manufacturing is the distribution with increasing layers of revenue and profit and jobs such that a $0.50 drug will cost $300 or $3000 or even $30,000.
  4. Lastly, just because I don’t want to make this article too long, is the fact that foreclosures are not seeking resolution for an unpaid debt.
    1. The original transaction and the ending foreclosure are both counterintuitive schemes. In foreclosures, nobody seeks to make a creditor “whole.”
    2. The entire purpose of foreclosures can be summed up like this: foreclosures stimulate and foster the myth that “loans” are being created and sold to bona fide purchasers for value.
    3. But in fact, foreclosures ONLY provide extra revenue to the magicians who made it look like a loan. If you look at the general ledger of any of the participants, there will be no evidence of a loan account — the key component of an unpaid loan.
    4. The government is once again complicit. By adopting the attitude that what is good for business is good for the country (i.e., the general welfare and consumer demographics), the government is expressly abandoning the general welfare, consumers and homeowners in particular.
    5. It is also undermining free markets, competition, and prices for everything that would be lower. In a free market, this could not happen. The fact that it does happen is a testament to the conclusion that no such free market is operating.
    6. Rather than being “capitalism,” this behavior is anti-capitalism.

Don’t use your own wording simply because it sounds good to you

What you are looking for is corroboration that the account exists and corroboration documents showing that consideration was paid and not just recited on the transfer document on paper. 
*
If you don’t demand the right thing or if your demand could be interpreted as asking for something other than what you are after, then you are creating a backdoor through which your opposition will always escape. They already have the script to do that.
*
If a loan account exists, then you lose. If it doesn’t, you can win, but only if you raise the right points in the right way and at the right time. In nearly ALL cases, I am 100% certain there is no loan account.
*
By that I mean that no company is claiming to be a creditor to whom the money is owed and who can corroborate such a claim by producing a copy of the loan account starting with its establishment and including all debris and credits up through the present. If that is to be found, it is on the accounting ledgers of the creditor and NOT the servicer.
*
Such claims are ALWAYS made by third parties without notice to the presumed creditor that they have named. They are doing the same as if I made a claim as your lawyer and named you as the claimant. But I don’t tell you anything about that it, and I give false information regarding the intermediaries and addresses where any money should go. I collect the money as if I am your lawyer, and you get nothing. If you get wind of the scheme I pay you some money to shut up.
*
Assuming it does not exist, then any document that says the account was transferred is issued under false pretenses. In order for a legal transfer to have occurred there must be consideration paid by the transferee/assignee to the transferor/assignor.
*
If no consideration is paid, the transfer on paper is considered a legal nullity in all U.S. jurisdictions. That means no transfer occurred for legal purposes and that any claim brought in the transferee’s name is false. This is why paragraph 4 of title insurance policies require an “assignor” to report the transfer and the actual amount of consideration for the transfer because the insurer only pays for losses, not notes or mortgages. In the absence of such information, there is no insurance coverage.
*
It is the same with the enforcement of “mortgage loans.” They are intended to be restitution for the amount of economic loss suffered by a creditor — not a guarantee of the payment of the full principal amount recited on the note. This is considered axiomatic in the courts, but it is rarely argued as it should be.
*
So if there is no loan account receivable held by any company who is claimed to be a creditor, then that company will neither demand nor receive any money for executing the assignment or endorsement — or allow someone else to execute such document” on behalf” of the company.
*
And please note that the company claimed to be a creditor never actually produces a document that either affirms representation by the lawyer claiming it is a client or that it is the owner of a loan account and that the claim made is on behalf of that company named as a creditor. In fact, if you try to settle the claim and demand that the “creditor” acknowledge the settlement, you will never receive it.
*
So this is a roundabout way of answering your question. There is no reason to pay consideration in the absence of something to pay for — i.e., a loan account. What you are looking for is corroboration that the account exists and corroboration documents showing that consideration was paid and not just recited on the transfer document on paper. 
============
Here is what one homeowner just wrote to me:
We wanted to share the outcome of our Oregon state mandated foreclosure conference.
Based upon your recommendations we focused solely on the lack of payment history on the alleged unpaid loan account. After two meetings and two Qualified Written Requests for the documents/ accounting ledger from the “lender”. They failed to provide a complete accounting as required by law and we submitted our findings to the Mediation manager.
The outcome was that No Certificate of Compliance would be issued. This is huge because the pretender lender can’t foreclose in Oregon without the certificate!
As far as I can tell there is no provision in the law for them to reapply for a certificate.
We appreciate your help and think you will enjoy this success.
Thank you very much.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Foreclosure Defense: What is in a word? EVERYTHING

The abuse of words is an essential ingredient in any scam. The reason is that the listener or reader has a complex idea of a specific word.

By knowing that idea is in the head of the victim, the scammer can extract money and services, and even products from him or her.

  • Madoff used the word “investment” and people assumed he was investing.
  • Wells Fargo used the word “account” when the customer neither knew nor requested it. Everyone assumed that it was opening accounts at customers’ request and charging them fees.
  • Goldman Sachs used the word “loan” when they were actually using homeowner transactions as an event starting the issuance of securities – not the establishment of a loan account.

The word “loan” is a device just as “cigarette” was a device for delivering nicotine in the most addictive way possible. It wasn’t just tobacco. The larger the “loan”, the bigger the rush felt by borrowers. In both cases, the consumers were sealing their own doom by using and consuming these devices.

So here are some other examples of trap door words that befuddle both pro se litigants and lawyers for homeowners:

“LOAN” for a homeowner means a transction in which money is advanced by the party named as “lender” whose name appears as “payee” on the note and mortgage. “Loan” is a word trap.

  • For the government it means a transaction that complies with lending statutes in which respopnsible lenders are liable for violations — and are available for the homeowner/borrower seeking communication. But compliance is only mandatory for lenders and there is no lender or even a pretender lender if there is no loan account.
  • For both the homeowner and the government it presupposes the establishment of a loan account on the books (ledgers) of the “lender” on which all credits and debits are posted for the life of the loan. This is opposite to the goal of investment banking orignations with homeowners.
  • For the originating investment bank whose name is never disclosed to the homeowner or the government, “loan” is device causing issuance of securities and does not result in any compliance with lending statutes nor the establishment of a loan account on the accounting ledger of the “Payee” who merely serves as fee-based seller of the financial scheme advanced by the securities brokerage firm that calls itself an “investment banker.”
  • The elimination of the loan account is the basis for avoiding liability as a lender for any of the companies and intermediaries involved.
  • When the lawyer claims representation of some remote entity and makes a claim for foreclosure, he or she uses the word “loan” thus perpetuating a false pretense that begain with the original transction. Ask an officer of the remote entity — and you will find that entity claims no such thing and it has not hired the lawyer. It neither receives nor distributes any money.
  • Hearing the word “loan” or even”account,” the homeowner or lawyer assumes there must be an account and they go on to con themselves into a foreclosure. Admitting the loan account dooms the homeowner not becasue such an account exists but becasue they admitted it exists.
  • The absence of any challenge or objection leaves the court no choice but to rule in favor of a foreclosure that results in pure revenue rather that restitution for a (nonexistent) loan account.

“Securitization” implies (nonexistent) government analysis and review. For a homeowner and the government means that a loan account has been sold. But since there is no loan account, there is no sale. Despite recitls of consideration, there is no payment due or received for the execution of endorsements or assignments.

For investment banks, “Securitization” is a word vehicle that is intended to recite events on paper that never happened in the real world. Documents purporting to transfer the loan account are regularly fabricated, without which they could not foreclose.

“Certificates” to homeowners and ocasionally in government mean ownership shares of the “loan,” which is to say the loan account, which does not exist. Investment banks regularly describe them as “Mortgage Backed Securities.”

  • The certificates are issued in the name of “trusts” that are only named becuase they are ficitious names under which the investment banks issues certificates, containing only a promise to pay.
  • That promise in neither secured by any mortgage (or any interest in a mortgage) nor backed by any other collateral — and is not a security under Federal law. The investment banks convinced the government to remove them as securities that could be regulated in 1998.
  • Hence the entire statement is a lie, but both homeowners and their lawyers usually think otherwise because they do not think to question the use of the words “certificate” or “certificate holder.”
  • No filing is required for “certificates” since they are not securities. But Investment Banks usually use the forms and procedures of the SEC to file a prospectus or “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”. This is done so that enforcers of false foreclosure claims can download the same documents with an SEC header, thus creating the illusion of a government document that the SEC has not seen or reviewed.
  • Many times these documents are accepted as evidence under “judicial notice” as government documents — i.e., documents in which the issuer has no stake in the outcome of the case at bar.
    • But the issuer is an investment bank and the document is an unreviewed presentation of future “facts” that never occur.
    • The langauge of such documents always refers to future events.
    • However, lawyers presenting false foreclosure claims usually succeed is arguing their case relying upon such documents as though they speak to the truth of the matter they are asserting: that the trust exists, the trustee maintains a trust account, the trust account contains a loan account, and the “servicer” is empowered ot manage it.
    • None of that is true but because neither lawyers nor judges are investment bankers, they have no clue that the argument is totally false.
    • Saying nothing, the court is required to make it the facts and law of the case.

==========

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

 

Errors in Court (foreclosure cases): Foundation and Business Records

hat tip to summer chic

Ultimately, the claim made against the homeowner must make commmon sense.  But getting there requires litigation skills. But it is true that ANY lawyer that simply follows standard defense strategies can win these cases for homeowners. The key is always lack of foundation and hearsay objections.

But the standard error being made in court consists of (1) overlooking the requirement of foundation testimony and (2) acceptance of printed reports as business records.

I recently received a copy of the promotion from a large regional bank based in Cincinnati (i.e., 5th 3rd Bank). They were promoting their new “Wholesale Lockbox Network.” First, let me say that there is nothing illegal or immoral about a lockbox system. It is often a more efficient system of collecting payments than doing it in-house.

But in transactions with homeowners and the foreclosures that followed, there is a huge twist that virtually everyone is missing.

The places where these lockbox services operate are being called “Momentum places.” They give out an address. But here is where the problem starts. The address is frequently a forwarding place — like a website whose sole purpose is to forward the user to another website.

The sender is completely ignorant that their payments has not gone to the place that they sent it to. And as we shall see, it has not been deposited into the account of anyone with a right to receive any money from the homeowner. The sender is completely ignorant that their payments has not gone to the party whom they thought they were paying.

But because the sender/homeowner is ignorant of the real facts, they refer to the intended recipient as “the bank” or the “servicer.” Legally, by doing that, they are admitting the named party is a “bank,” implying “lender or successor lender or a “servicer,” implying that the named entity actually performs “servicing” functions relating to payments.

But just because the name of the entity named as creditor starts with US Bank as trustee does not mean that the bank is involved. This is a representation by the lawyer for which US Bank will claim plausible deniability if the scheme blows up.

By admitting the “bank,” the homeowner is implicitly admitting the ownership of the debt as shown on an accounting ledger of that bank as the unpaid “loan account” —  even though the account does not exist. The lawyer then does not need to produce that account since you have already admitted it —- even if you did not mean to do that.

By admitting the “servicer,” you are implicitly admitting the existence of the unpaid loan account on the named “bank” and the authority of the “servicer” to act for the bank in relation to the disposition of the unpaid loan account which you have never seen.

You are also admitting to the fact that the transaction was originally a loan and that it was sold to whoever is named as the creditor. In short, you are admitting to facts about which you know absolutely nothing unless you are educated, trained, and experienced in investment banking.

Here is why all this is so important. And this is why I have won so many cases, and so can any lawyer who follows standard protocol for litigation defense.

By testing and challenging every move made by the opposing lawyer, you will start approaching the truth of the matter asserted: that the named creditor has suffered a financial injury for which it is entitled to restitution. If that is not true, there is no case — i.e., the court has no power even to hear it.

Keep in mind that the opposing lawyer most likely has had no contact or instructions from the named creditor. The named creditor is most likely not the lawyer’s or his firm’s client. The lawyer knows nothing about the case except what has been received by electronic transmission from an unknown source. The pleadings and exhibits have already been prepared by a third party unknown source.

The exhibits are either valid or invalid. If they are valid, that means there really is an unpaid loan account, just like you thought. This is true about 0.01% of the time. If it isn’t true, there is no case, and that is why a lot of litigation has centered around the issue of “standing” but rarely presented cogently. Standing is a principle in use for millennia. It is a legal requirement that only someone with a justifiable issue can ask the court for a remedy.

That proposition is not true if the named creditor does not assert the claim presented by the lawyer. So you want an officer or employee of the “bank” (not the “servicer”) to testify that his employer is the owner of an unpaid account receivable due from the homeowner because they loaned money or purchased the account. This will never happen because nobody wants to go to prison for perjury. There is no such account.

BUT if someone from the “Servicer” or the lawyer’s office says it, then the bank can claim plausible deniability. The truth is the bank knows nothing about the case.

Let’s look at the so-called business records which are essential for the introduction of evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is always a “Payment History” and never a copy of the unpaid loan account on the ledger of the creditor. This fundamental requirement has been dropped from all foreclosure litigation and has resulted in moral hazard. It spawned decades of fabricated documents, forged, backdated, and falsely presented.

When caught red-handed (see 50-state settlement for $25 billion) the players promised not to do it again, but the millions of fake documents that had been used to foreclose on millions of properties fraudulently were left standing. And, of course, they did not stop. Nobody was asking why they were using fake documents. The reason is simple: there is no claim because there is no loan account.

Back to Lockbox technology and the rules of evidence:

The introduction of any report by a robowitness can only be accepted as evdience if it is a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. The exception to the hearsay rule that is commonly used is the “business records” exception.

The business records exception rule basically provides that any record of business conducted by the company that generates the report is generally allowed into evidence, if it is supported by foundation from the witness that he or she is familiar with the record keeping of his or her employer and that it is a record of business done by the company.

Absent from all testimony in any foreclosure is testimony that these records represent business conducted by the employer with the homeowner. That is because the employer did not conduct any business with the homeowner and did nothing on behalf of the named creditor. Failure to reveal that gap is one of the key errors in foreclosure litigation.

Virtually all payments that are labeled as “mortgage payments” are collected through central facilities (lockbox) and then processed, deposited and reported by the lockbox operator. The records of the lockbox operator are admissible as business record, not the party to whom it owes a contractual duty. But I can find no case in wihch a wintess from the lockbox operator has ever been offered.

The reason is simple. When asked who their employer works for they would be requried to testify that the party to whom their employer is contractually bound is yet another undisclsoed party and that they have no idea whether the undisclosed party (i.e., an investment bank) owns any right, title or interest in the payments, debt,, note or mortgage of the homeowner.

They would also be reuired to testify that their employer deposits the payments received from hoemowners into a bank account controlled by the udnsclosed party and ot to the named “servicer” or “Bank” in the pending legal proceeding. In short the claim for foreclosure would collapse for insufficiency of evidence.

That is because the business records exception ONLY covers the business conducted by the entity named as producing the report. If it is not a report of business conducted by that company it remains hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

The fact that the “report” is in the hands of the “servicer” is irrelevant, since the “servicer” could have altered anything  for unknown reasons or instructions received from third parties. By law, the court only want to hear from the party who did business with the homeowner — not some party who has heard about business with the homeowner and has interpreted what they heard (Hearsay).

In May, 2022 the CFPB recategorized financial technolgy companies as “servicers” since they were the parties who performed those functions. But the lawyers keep coming to court with reports supposedly generated by a “servicer” who has not done any business with the homeowner. Generally this can only be revealed through objections or cross examination (and sometimes on voir dire).

Further, the “Payment History” report, if admitted by accident or otherwise, is only proof of the matters asserted in the report — i.e. the payments made by the homeowner.  It is not proof of the existence of the unpaid account — something that can ONLY be attested by the named creditor.

That means that introduction of the Payment History report is only admissible AFTER the foundation has been laid. Someone employed by the named creditor must testify from personal knowledge that the creditor owns an unpaid account due from the homeowner and produce the unpaid account in court. Therefore, the objection should be lack of foundation in addition to hearsay. The Payment History is irrelevant if the unpaid account has not been established by the owner.

Of course if the homeowner fails to raise objections in a timely and proper fashion it is treated as a stipulation and all of these issues go away.

All of this is based on one premise: securitization, as practiced in relation to transactions with homeowners, pays off the debt contemporaneusly with creating the appearance of a debt. There is no unpaid account, there is no owner, and there can be no servicer. But payments are being made anyway unde the BIG LIE: That payments are due from homeowners even if there is no longer any debt.

Courts have dropped the centuries old requirement that if a claim was to be recognized, the creditors had to come to court, and that they must produce a copy of the unpaid loan account together with testimony from an officer or employee of the creditor as to the existence and authenticity of the creditor’s records.

In doing so, they opened the door to extreme moral hazard that devastated the lives, property and wealth of hoemowners, and virtually everyone else when the system had a hiccup in 2008 resulting in a sustained economic crash.

The remedy is simply: “show me the loan account.” (Not the payment history)

================

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

 

 

 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT RESURFACES AFTER SUBMISSION IN 2010: WHY ARE STATE SUPREME COURT IGNORING THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS?

In 2005, reports started surfacing about fabricated documents, forged documents, and back-dated documents being used to promote “foreclosure” remedies. This one w as issued and submitted to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 2010.

Like Florida and dozens of other states, the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts continued to ignore the most obvious conclusion: presumptions arising from such documents must be scrutinized and rejected if tested by the homeowner.

Despite the universal consensus about the use of fake documents that resulted in the 50-state settlement and dozens of other settlements, the best homeowners ever received was a promise not to do it again. That was a promise that was never kept nor even intended to be kept.

The one question that nobody asked was why fake documents became custom and practice. That only happens when there are fake claims. And indeed, all of the work I have performed since 2006, using my knowledge of investment banking as well as legal requirements under the UCC have essentially proven (in and out of courtrooms) that no claim exists at all.

Therefore there can be no claimant, plaintiff or beneficiary. The reliance on the apparent “holder” status relative to the note is irrelevant in the absence of a creditor who could authorize enforcement because it owns the implied unpaid account receivable. And just because homeowners think they owe money does not mean that there is in fact any obligation.

LSNJReport

========

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

New York State is approaching critical mass in eliminating illegal foreclosures

the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (A7737B), recently signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul, is transformative legislation which may cause the dismissal of thousands of pending foreclosures with prejudice

To the delight of court administrators, the changes will cause the permanent dismissal of thousands of foreclosures which have congested the civil docket over the past decade.

An article was recently published for the benefit of banks and their lawyers, who have been panicking over the New York State law aimed at eliminating illegal foreclosures. The writer is attempting to calm the panic that started when New York passed this law. It is entitled “A discussion of what next steps lenders should take in response to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act.”

The important thing about the new law is that it established the glide path for homeowners to recover their property and prevent foreclosure when the critical steps required for foreclosure are missing. Despite all of the public relations efforts by the banks to characterize transactions with homeowners as “mortgage loans,” add to characterize their efforts to invoke alleged rights to enforce or foreclose, s.more and more people are finally getting the message: it is entirely possible that the homeowners do not owe any money to the lawyers or the servicers that are claiming it. It is further entirely possible that no legal creditor exists

see https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/03/02/foreclosure-abuse-protection-act-requires-new-approach/

Here is the article by Robert M. Link, a partner at David A Gallo & Associates.

Foreclosure Abuse Protection Act Requires New Approach

*
A discussion of what next steps lenders should take in response to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act.
*
On one hand, the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (A7737B), recently signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul, is transformative legislation which may cause the dismissal of thousands of pending foreclosures with prejudice over technicalities such as a failure to send a proper default notice. On the other hand, at least prospectively, the fever-pitched panic from mortgage lenders, while understandable, may be premature.
*
The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) amends six current laws [CPLR §203, CPLR §205, CPLR §213, CPLR §3217, RPAPL §1301, and GOL §17-105] and adds CPLR §205-a. To the delight of court administrators, the changes will cause the permanent dismissal of thousands of foreclosures which have congested the civil docket over the past decade.
*
These cases are generally fraught with evidentiary problems related to mortgage servicer transfers (See, e.g., HSCBC Mortg. Services, Inc. v. Royal, 142 A.D.3d 952 (2d Dept. 2016) (reversal where the affidavit from “the loan servicer for the plaintiff’s successor in interest” included inadmissible hearsay); failure to promptly move for default judgment (See, e.g., HSBC Mortgage Corporation v. Hasan, 186 A.D.3d 1495 (2d Dept. 2020) (reversal to dismiss foreclosure pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) where “plaintiff’s purported order of reference bears…no notation of having ever been filed….” and thus, “failed to adequately establish that the plaintiff ever actually took proceedings within one year after the default”); or the inclusion of gratuitous consumer protection disclaimers in the footer of the RPAPL §1304 notice (See, e.g., Bank of America, N.A. v. Kessler, 202 A.D.3d 10 (2d Dept. 2021) (foreclosure dismissed because the RPAPL §1304 notice “included other information in two notices pertaining to the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy and in military service”), rev’d, 2023 WL 1972994 (N.Y. 2023).
*
The foreclosure statute of limitation triggers legal consternation among practitioners because mortgages are generally installment loans with payments due monthly. As such, the entire debt only becomes time-barred six years after the final installment payment is due, possibly decades in the future. However, when the lender “accelerates” the mortgage debt at the commencement of the foreclosure lawsuit (meaning the entirety of the balance is made due and owing at once), the plaintiff faces a second, and more sobering, deadline for statute of limitations purposes.
*
Should counsel discover an insurmountable defect too late in the case, plaintiff may find itself in the unenviable position of prosecuting a foreclosure likely to be dismissed. FAPA creates an anomaly in the law that otherwise holds the discontinuance revokes the complaint and anything which occurred in the lawsuit. See, e.g., Newman v. Newman, 25 A.D.2d 353 (2d Dept. 2007) (“it is as if it had never been; everything done in the action is annulled and all . . . order[s] in the case are nullified”). FAPA’s amendments to CPLR §203 and CPLR §3217 provide, once the mortgage is accelerated, “no party may, in form or effect, unilaterally waive, postpone, cancel, toll, revive, or reset the accrual thereof, or otherwise purport to effect a unilateral extension of the limitations period prescribed by law…”
*
The most significant provision of FAPA removes foreclosures from “savings statute” protections otherwise afforded to civil cases and enacts a narrow substitute. The new CPLR §205-a permits the unsuccessful mortgage lender a second, but never a third, bite at the apple. Moreover, the new statute imposes a zero-tolerance policy for the lender’s delay, including for a single non-appearance at a calendar call (See, e.g., Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme and County Courts §202.27(b). Also, CPLR §205-a does not permit a recommencement by the mortgagee’s assignee (See, CPLR §205-a (1)).
*
The result, fair or not, is the foreclosure defendant (not infrequently, a real estate investor who pried the deed away from the homeowner) may be awarded a free house. See, e.g., Sharova v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29001 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2019) (mortgagor’s motion for declaratory judgment discharging the mortgage granted notwithstanding allegations “that plaintiff seeks a ““windfall in the form of a free house.” This may be true, but it is not for this court to create the law, but only to follow it.”)
*
The doomsday scenario for lenders may be avoided by accelerating the loan balance at judgment instead of at commencement. This option may not be available where the mortgage does not include a broad acceleration clause (e.g., “the whole of said principal sum and interest shall become due at the option of the mortgagee after default in the payment of any installment…”). Considering FAPA’s consequences, lenders would be prudent to revisit their mortgage template to grant broad discretion to accelerate the debt with the entry of judgment.
*
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Goldman v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC., reaffirmed longstanding precedent that commencement of the foreclosure does not accelerate the mortgage absent unequivocal language making the election. See, Goldman, 205 A.D.3d 1008 (2d Dept. 2022) (The complaint in the foreclosure action, filed more than four months after the date of the purported modification agreement, neither acknowledged the purported modification agreement nor alleged to accelerate the modified loan, “which had materially distinct terms”) [Emphasis Added], citing Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Engel, 37 N.Y.3d 1 (2021).
*
The lender’s failure to accelerate in Goldman contrasts with the facts in Bank of New York Mellon v. Dieudonne. See Id, 171 A.D.3d 34 (2d Dept. 2019). In Dieudonne, Plaintiff fatally alleged in its complaint that it accelerated the mortgage. Plaintiff subsequently changed course, out of convenience and in response to a statute of limitations defense. Plaintiff then argued it “lacked the authority” to accelerate with the complaint because same mortgage permitted the borrower to cure the default by tendering past due payments (as opposed to paying the full accelerated balance). [Emphasis added] See, Id.
Dieudonne stands for the narrow holding that a mortgage reinstatement provision does not preclude the lender from accelerating the mortgage with the complaint. The Second Department did not hold a foreclosing lender must accelerate the balance of the loan with the complaint. The lender may make its election as the contract authorizes or even consider a partial foreclosure for the instalment payments. See, e.g., Duetsche Bank Trust v. Crimi, 184 A.D.3d 707 (2d Dept. 2022) (“compliance with the conditions of acceleration contained in paragraph 22 of the subject mortgage [was] not a condition precedent to commencing [so much of this] foreclosure action [seeking recovery of] unpaid amounts that have already become due under the terms of the note and mortgage.”).
*
In fact, courts have consistently held “some affirmative action must be taken evidencing the holder’s election to take advantage of the accelerating provision, and until such action has been taken the provision has no operation[.]” [Emphasis added], See, Dieudonne, citing Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 4.02.
*
The Second Department’s holding in Dieudonne could have been reached solely on estoppel grounds. It is broadly accepted that “policies underlying preclusion of inconsistent positions are general considerations of the orderly administration of justice and regard for the dignity of judicial proceedings[.]” J & JT Holding Corp. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 173 A.D.3d 704 (2d Dept. 2019) citing Piedra v. Vanover, 174 A.D.2d at 197, (2d Dept. 1992).
*
In sum, the lender must unequivocally announce its intention, one way or another, to declare the accelerated balance due and owing upon the occurrence of a specific event. See, e.g., Engel, 37 N.Y.3d at 19 (2021) (“a noteholder must effect an “unequivocal act” to accomplish such a substantial change in the parties’ contractual relationship.”).
*
Given New York’s extensive foreclosure timeline, and the likelihood for fiercely contested litigation, the lender should consider postponing its election to accelerate until the entry of judgment. This is the most prudent course of action considering the stakes; but also, appropriately respects the borrower’s customary right to cure by tendering past due installment payments during the foreclosure.
Robert M. Link is a partner at David A Gallo & Associates.
*

Why Homeowners Are Blocked From Access to the Courts Through Effective Counsel

Good trial lawyers will easily understand that they don’t need to prove fraud because it is not their client who is making a claim.
*
They only need to test the evidence to show that there is insufficient evidence to support the inferences and presumptions raised by the current mountain of fabricated, forged, backdated, and robosigned documents (mostly by computers and machines).
*
They win by revealing the inability to corroborate those presumptions, not by proving anything nefarious.
*
Of all the final judgments ever rendered in favor of homeowners (thousands of them that have been buried  — i.e. scrubbed from court records) I have not seen one that was not based on insufficiency of evdience.
*
When homeowners or lawyers ask “How do I prove that?” they are asking the wrong question. They should be asking “How do I defend that?”
*
A recent inquiry to me gave rise to the following answer. The writer was a lawyer who was drilling down into the essence of current foreclosure claims. One of the sticking points for this lawyer was using “loan account numbers.” Like everything else in the securitization game, every reference point is a lie.
*
The key question is whether the “specific loan number” corresponds to a loan account on the books of the beneficiary or plaintiff. I can tell you with 100% confidence that there is no such correspondence or link because no such account exists. 
*
This counterintuitive fact, confirmed by dozens of sources, stops most lawyers from mounting a successful defense — like the criminal defense lawyer who believes his client is a serial murderer.
*
While the lawyer could go through the motions of exhausting due process, it is hard to get passionate about his client’s right to a not-guilty verdict when the lawyer believes the client will likely kill again. But the lawyer will try anyway, accepting the fact that he is probably going to lose.
*
If there is a not-guilty verdict, it doesn’t mean that the client is innocent. It just means that the prosecution failed to convince the jury members that there was sufficient evidence to convict behind a reasonable doubt. American jurisprudence makes a big deal about the difference between “not guilty” and “actual innocence.”
*
In civil cases, lawyers don’t like to do that because they erroneously think it represents a losing streak that will affect their reputation as lawyers and their credibility with judges. It also poses potential issues with clients who are disappointed with the results that the lawyer thinks are inevitable.
*
But what if the lawyer knew that his client was actually innocent? Suppose for a moment that the lawyer was physically present in a location where the defendant was present, far away from the crime scene. He or she would defend with great vigor, knowing that the evidence would not be sufficient to place the defendant at the scene — if the evidence was put to the test.
*
Taking it a step downward, suppose the lawyer strongly suspected that his client was telling the truth and that the defendant was not at the scene but had no direct way of knowing whether that was true.
*
I believe the defense lawyer would pursue every avenue possible to show that the allegations and the evidence presented may have created certain inferences or even presumptions of guilt but that the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny — especially if the lawyer had some confidential source telling him that the defendant was being framed.
*
This is where we are in foreclosure litigation. Lawyers refuse to take these cases primarily because they think that the transaction was a loan, their prospective client failed to pay, and the result is inevitable. They believe they will lose every time. They believe that success on behalf of their client would cheat a creditor out of money owed. Lawyers are also intimidated, for good reason, by the deep bench of lawyers opposing them. 
*
So when lawyers hear “theories” that sound like wishful thinking from desperate homeowners seeking to retain their home and when they read blogs like mine that say that there is no windfall to homeowners even if they win and that the windfall goes to the foreclosure payers, they are not just skeptical. They are frequently contemptuous.
*
The result is that they fail to test the claim, and the homeowner either goes without any representation in court or simply loses because the most common defensive techniques were never applied. The lawyer moves on to the next case confident in his or her superior ability to practice law in a courtroom, despite failing to take effective steps to test the claim.
*
Meanwhile, millions of homeowners have lost their homes to players who never intended and never did credit any unpaid account owed to them or anyone they represented. And that is why I call it the largest economic crime in human history. But it wasn’t just an economic crime. Of the millions who lost their homes, thousands died by suicide or illness brought on by stress, marriages collapsed, and children were raised in a more uncertain world than ever.
*
I frequently say that my mission is to save homeowners from losing their homes and that I usually succeed. But really, I am seeking to recruit lawyers willing to consider the possibility that their clients might be right and that the people making claims are not only wrong but committing criminal fraud.
*
Good trial lawyers will easily understand that they don’t need to prove fraud because it is not their client who is making a claim. They only need to test the evidence to show that there is insufficient evidence to support the inferences and presumptions raised by the current mountain of fabricated, forged, backdated, and robosigned documents (mostly by machines). They win by revealing the inability to corroborate those presumptions, not by proving anything nefarious.
=============
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How Bullshit Becomes Law: Circular logic in the courtroom snags homeowners almost every time.

If you don’t know the rules, you can’t win the game. And remember, to the foreclosure mills and faux “servicers” and faux “trustees”, this is all a game for which we pay every day as owners, taxpayers and consumers.

*

One of the interesting things about this is how much they get away with by NOT saying something. The affiant says something got mailed, but he doesn’t say that his employer mailed it, and therefore, he could not be relying upon ‘business records.”

*

But he MUST be relying on business records if the testimony for affidavit is to be accepted under the rules (laws) of evidence. Bank of N.Y. v. Morga, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 27107 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017). So is he testifying about something he knows or suspects, or just reading from a piece of paper, the origin of which is a complete mystery to him? The inquiry leads to victory. Silence leads to defeat. 

*
In addition, this underscores the problem with the way people and lawyers contest these false claims. By failing to contest the issues that rely on implied facts, homeowners admit them and make real (for legal purposes) that which is unreal. The goal is to stop the foreclosure — not put the opposition in prison.
*
This is why the QWR, DVL, and Complaint to the CFPB are so very important before filing anything in a legal proceeding. In the same way that the foreclosing conspiracists send false correspondence,s statements and notices to create a false facts scenario, the use of QWR, DVL, and complaints create the predicate for the legal challenge.
People ignore these tools because they don’t get an answer. But that is the point. If you sue someone based on a document and you can’t provide corroboration of the claim, including receipts, agreements, and correspondence, there is a high likelihood you will lose even if you are right. But if nobody challenges your allegations or the implied allegations, then there is a high likelihood you will win, even if you are wrong.
*
The people who sign these documents and testify in court are employees or independent contractors for a registered name that is a business entity. That entity performs no servicing functions as anyone would reasonably expect but are included in the label “servicer” (Reg X) because they are involved in the collection process — even though the collection process is the pursuit of a false claim.
*
The witness cannot testify that his employer sent anything because it didn’t, and he doesn’t know. But MORE important is that the employer is not a “Servicer” as it is usually assumed in court. It does not receive, deposit, process, or distribute payments from homeowners.
*
That said, the APPARENT “servicer” cannot produce a business record of transactions with the homeowner because it never did any business with the homeowner. This was all performed by independent third-party financial technology companies who did everything, including correspondence, statements, and notices.
*
But none of this will be a possibility until you ask. And once it becomes a possibility, the odds of getting increasingly better rulings from the court improve dramatically. 
*
So while the witness was relying upon the reports in front of him neither he or his company could attest to the facts about them or in them. His company is there as the focal point for spewing out false claims that they can say they didn’t know were false.
*
Hence the ability to rely on “business records” is not a proper foundation for the witness to testify or swear to in any affidavit. But it is used in the courts because the witness has the right to rely on “familiarity” with the “business” records and thus testify to establish the foundation for introducing those same records.
*
But the Payment History report is not a business record of the witness’s employer and, therefore would normally be ruled as inadmissible evidence. And most of the time, that is exactly what judges do, even if they are biased toward granting the claim for foreclosure.
*
It is a perfect example of circular logic that defeats everything about legal procedure designed to ferret out the truth of the matter asserted.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A “WRONG WITNESS.” THE ONLY WITNESS YOU SHOULD ACCEPT IS AN EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER OF THE DESIGNATED CLAIMANT, NOT THE “SERVICER.”
*
No such person exists because nobody is willing to commit perjury. Nobody from Wells Fargo, Deutsch, bank of New York Mellon, US Bank et al will come to court saying they are an employee or officer of the bank and that the bank maintains a trust account in which there is a loan due from the homeowner. NOBODY!
*
The difference between homeowners who win and lose is their willingness to believe that everything presented might have been subterfuge.
=============
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATENeil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Homeowners’ Rules of Engagement by Garfield

Just to reiterate the strategy I wish to promote (because it has been 65%-80% successful), the rules of engagement are as follows:
  1. Attack as soon as possible — even as early as post closing.
  2. Demand the identity of a creditor who has created an unpaid loan account memorializing a “loan” transaction. (FDCPA-DVL and RESPA-QWR)
  3. If procedurally late, consider bankruptcy chapter 13 with an adversary lawsuit.
  4. Relentlessly pursue corroboration that the designated claimant is in fact making a claim by seeking a sworn statement from an officer or employee of the claimant (not the servicer).
  5. Relentlessly pursue discovery
    1. Interrogatories
    2. Requests for production: copy of unpaid loan account receivable on the books of the designated creditor.
    3. Requests for admission
    4. Motion to compel better answers
    5. Hearing on objections
    6. Motion for evidentiary sanctions
    7. Motion for economic sanctions
    8. Motion to strike pleadings
    9. Motion in limine
    10. Prep for objections at trial and follow-up motions to strike documentary evidence and testimony.
    11. Rule of thumb: when you reframe the case as court vs counsel for the designated claimant, you have most likely won.
    12. Settlement: the first offers are always designed to undermine the lawyer’s and the homeowner’s confidence. Wait until the third final offer before you start negotiating.
=========
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Anonymous Tipster Points Out Resource Info in Support of My Articles

Without compromising my journalist credentials, I will simply say that the source is 100% reliable and the information is 100% confirmable. The person is well versed in the accounting and auditing of securitization transactions — and as far back as January 2006, the accounting profession was deeply aware of the inherent problems in the way that securitization was claimed to occur. BUT the accounting profession also saw the opportunity to collect exorbitant fees.

In a seminar produced by Deloitte, the following presentation was made to inform practitioners of the great dangers that were being presented — not by the theory of securitization and not even the way the securitization documents were drafted, but more the way that it was conducted in practice.

The accountants in early 2006 knew that the October 2008 crash was coming, and they wanted to retain the bank business while not being held accountable for the misrepresentations by management to investors and to homeowners.

You have heard me say that “attributes” of the transaction were parceled off and sold by reference instead of being sold, and you probably didn’t know what I was talking about.

The primary thrust of the Deloitte presentation was to distinguish between an accounting sale and a legal sale of assets that could be considered securitized.

The clear and undisputed assumption was that in order for an asset (e.g., a loan account) to be securitized it had to meet a single condition precedent — sale of the asset. And sale of the asset meant someone paid for it, and the receiver of payment sold the asset because they owned it.

My investigation revealed in 2006 what the accountants already knew. No sale had ever occurred. And THAT meant that all the paperwork that was generated after the “closing” of the “loan transaction” was fabricated, containing false recitals, and forged.

I tested this hypothesis in late 2006 when I did a survey by sending out about 100 requests for information under RESPA and FDCPA for homeowners that were considered “current” (assuming the loan account existed. Contemporaneously I sent out about 100 requests for such information for homeowners who were threatened with or already in a “foreclosure process.”

The result was exactly what I had feared. Nobody could give me endorsements, notes, or assignments of mortgage liens for any homeowners who were considered “Current,” as reflected on statements produced on behalf of companies posing as servicers. All requests for homeowners in distress resulted in the transmittal of copies of documents purporting to transfer the note, to transfer the mortgage but not transferring the underlying obligation.

I arrived at several conclusions after interviews with friends and contacts on Wall Street. First, no such documents existed until the homeowner received a notice of default. This was crazy because in my decades of law practice, if you asked for a copy of the loan account, you got it—  if for no other reason than that they had to produce it in court to get a foreclosure judgment or justify a nonjudicial sale. These “servicers” could not produce even a copy of the promissory note.

I later learned that the note could not be produced because it was destroyed as part of the transaction cycle so that the data attributes of the transaction could be misrepresented and used as reference indexes for the sale of securities that did not convey any right, title or interest to any payment, note, debt, obligation, or mortgage issued by the homeowner — which obviously as signed under false pretenses.

In a loan transaction, the homeowner is establishing a loan account into which the “lender” deposits money that is then distributed to the homeowner or on behalf of the homeowner. If the transaction is securitized, that means, by definition, that the loan account was sold for value to a bona fide purchaser for value. The note and mortgage lien are transferred as an incident to that sale of the loan account, also known as the underlying obligation or debt.

If no such sale occurred, then the paperwork is void, also known as a legal nullity. And all the paperwork in the world, fabricated or not, won’t change the fact that no sale occurred. But Wall Street banks have bamboozled homeowners, lawyers and judges with fabricated documents in multiple layers of faux transactions, in which nothing ever really occurred.

With all those documents of “transfer” and all those company names involved, the natural inference is that they just have been dealing with some asset. The only asset was the expectation of receiving a fee for the use of their names.

Here is a quote from the Deloitte website providing the text of FAS 140 as it existed in the mortgage meltdown  period:

This Statement replaces FASB Statement No. 125,Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of FinancialAssets and Extinguishments of Liabilities. It revises the standards for accounting for securitizations and othertransfers of financial assets and collateral and requires certain disclosures, but it carries over most of State-ment 125’s provisions without reconsideration.This Statement provides accounting and reporting standards for transfers and servicing of financial assetsand extinguishments of liabilities.

Those standards are based on consistent application of a financial-components approach that focuses on control. [e.s.]

Under that approach, after a transfer of financial assets, an entity recognizes the financial and servicing assets it controls and the liabilities it has incurred, derecognizes financial assets when control has been surrendered, and derecognizes liabilities when extinguished.

This Statement provides consistent standards for distinguishing transfers of financial assets that are sales from transfers that are secured borrowings.

A transfer of financial assets in which the transferor surrenders control over those assets is accounted for as a sale to the extent that consideration other than beneficial interests in the transferred assets is received in exchange. [e.s.]

The transferor has surrendered control over transferred assets if and only if all of the following conditions are met:

a. The transferred assets have been isolated from the transferor—put presumptively beyond the reach of thetransferor and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or other receivership.

b. Each transferee (or, if the transferee is a qualifying special-purpose entity (SPE), each holder of its beneficial interests) has the right to pledge or exchange the assets (or beneficial interests) it received, and no con-dition both constrains the transferee (or holder) from taking advantage of its right to pledge or exchange and provides more than a trivial benefit to the transferor. [e.s.]

c. The transferor does not maintain effective control over the transferred assets through either (1) an agreement that both entitles and obligates the transferor to repurchase or redeem them before their maturity or(2) the ability to unilaterally cause the holder to return specific assets, other than through a cleanup call

See Securitization Accounting Sec 101_Ann Kenyon 1pm

See 1FAS140AccountingforTransfersandServicingofFinancialAssetsandExtinguishmentsofLiabilities

=============

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

The Reason Why Wall Street Opposes Cram-downs for Personal Bankruptcies Might Surprise You

Recently Forbes published an article by John  Wake entitled “Congress Could Have Prevented 500,000 Foreclosures During The Great Recession But Chickened Out.” Echoing what Elizabeth Warren and Katie Porter have been advocating for years, it points out that cramdowns best preserve real loans in which both sides take a hit, but neither side gets a windfall.

*

To be clear, cram-down is the process by which the debt that the petitioner must pay in the bankruptcy plan is reduced to the value of the property. Business entities do it every day, often with full cooperation of lenders. Lenders benefit when there is a market downturn by preserving the loan account, albeit at a reduced balance due, but still earning interest. The equation usually balances out such that the lender comes out almost even.

*

Cramdown is a method of dividing the risk and loss from a negative economic event — like a crash in real estate prices where re al estate is collateral for loans.

In the context of transctions with homeowners, if it really is  a loan, then the onus of an accurate appraisal of the value of the collateral (homestead) is on the lender, not the borrower who is not expected to know all the nuances of a market in which the “lender” has performed thousands of transctions. That responsibility and ther esponsibility for viability of the “loan” is clearly spelled out in the Federal law governing lending (TILA).

I would argue that since that provision is in TILA, the clear implication is that in a bankrutpcy filed by the homeowner with a plan for repayment, the right to cramdown is implied — or else the provision would in most cases have no effect. Usually it is years past the short limitations period for TILA actions that the homeowner realizes the appraisal was inaccurate.

This highlights the main point about these false claims that the loan accounts were created and then securitized.

The compnies that were named as “lender” had no interest or stake in the fulfillment of the promise elecited from the homeowner to make payments. They were being paid fees either away. The larger the deal the more they got paid. So they were incentivizied to make sure the appraisail came in at the highest possible number.

And this is why I have rerpeatedly alluded to the fact that this is a RICO scheme. Except for the vitim homeowner, everyone benefited from violating the laws and rules governing lending. Everyone also beenfited from the fabrication of documents that contained false recitals of transctions that had never occurred.

An assignment that siad that $10 dollars and other valuable consideration was paid was merely advancing a lie to create the illusion of an enforcable liability against homeowners.

Wall Street does not oppose cramdowns for businesses. It opposes it for homeowners. A loan is a loan, and the economics are the same regardless of whether the borrower is a person or a business. And under Citizens United, business entities are persons too. So why the opposition?

*

Clearly, the epic wave of foreclosures drove prices down even further making it even more unlikely that “borrowers” would or could pay for an asset that was worth a fraction of the amount “borrowed.” Lenders were surely being foolish by destroying the value of their collateral. There is no other way to look at it — unless Wall Street is hiding something.

*

Cramdown works first by a motion to value the property and second by the claim’s value. It’s not the claimed amount it is the value of the claim —  i.e., the balance due in the unpaid loan account as shown by the production of that account as represented on the accounting ledger of the claimant.

*

So there you have it. Cramdown procedures would reveal the absence of any legally recognized claim. Unless there is a human being who can testify that they have personal knowledge of the transaction by which his/her employer acquired the implied (but never stated) unpaid loan account, there is no foundation for the introduction of any “payment History” or “Statement” or Notice.”

*

Wall Street doesn’t want cramdown available to homeowners because cramdown eliminates the liability entirely. And nobody wants that, right? We want the Wall Street players and their sham intermediaries to generate as much revenue as possible in both (a) the issuance of certificates and (b) the enforcement of the liens, even if they have no risk of loss, they have been paid off completely and they have no unpaid loan account.

*

It wasn’t just Congress that screwed this up by listening to Wall Street threats of armageddon, it was four successive presidential administrations evenly divided between Republican and Democratic.

*

I would add that W. Bush’s first reaction was entirely correct and would have led the way to an entirely different result than the 2008 recession. He thought that the banks did it, and if they are in trouble, let them fail. Had he not been persuaded by his treasury secretary Hank Paulson Former Goldman Sachs CEO) we would have all learned the truth — that there was no loss suffered by Wall Street because they were operating with “other people’s money” (OPM).

*

The ensuing absence of foreclosures would have allowed the economy to rebound far easier and faster than what happened. Look at Iceland which recovered in 3 months versus 15 years alter, we are still dealing with the meltdown.

*

As it turned out in the history of TARP, there was no loss suffered by the investment banks. They have been illegally acting like commercial banks and were seeking extra profits and revenues that they called “bailout” despite the absence of any losses.

*

Ignorance of the real facts at the highest levels of Federal and state governments showed its ugly face as Obama Secretary Geithner scrambled to protect his former employers and “land the plane.”

*

Troubled assets evolved, as information was received, from “losses” due to homeowner defaults to losses from the devaluation of certificates, and finally to the truth: hedge instruments wherein the counterparty needed a bailout to protect the profits of the like of Goldman Sachs. Even the hedge product was fraudulent and should never have been paid.

*

The proposal for cramdown was both reasonable and appropriate. It would have allowed for reforming the agreements such that some entity would be responsible as though it was really a successor lender, maintaining home values, and reducing the amount due from homeowners.

*

To be sure, everyone would have taken a hit, but there would have been a division of risk instead of forcing the homeowners to absorb an insurmountable loss.

*

PRACTICE NOTE: I THINK IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THE SAME ANALYSIS APPLIES TO AUTO LOANS.

see Congress Could Have Prevented 500,000 Foreclosures During The Great Recession But Chickened Out

================

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

“Declarations:” that say nothing: Failure to challenge surrenders all of your rights to defend.

The declaration is a document that no bank would accept because of all that is missing.

it is no technical objection when the homeowner owes nothing to the declared claimant, Plaintiff, or beneficiary. 

*

In many cases, some “declaration” or “certification” is issued to support the attempt to achieve a successful result in foreclosure remedies. In none of those cases do the documents actually say anything, but if they are unchallenged, they will be accepted by the courts, admitted in evidence, and the case is effectively over.

*

Once the declaration is accepted into evidence, it can be used for nearly any purpose, including all references and recitals contained in the document.

*

The declaration is a document that no bank would accept because of all that is missing.

  1. The signature is a scribble signature that is the “Signature” of the practice of robosigning.
  2. The signatory is NOT saying that he has personal knowledge of anything — just that he is authorized to sign the declaration. Any attempt to “recognize” that as implying personal knowledge is an attempt to read into the document words that are not there and were never intended.
  3. The signatory is NOT saying that he has received authorization from (for example) DBNTC or even that he works for DBNTC. If sued, DBNTC would say we never signed and never authorized that. Another example of plausible deniability.
  4. In fact, he says he works (for example) for SPS, which implies that he does not work for DBNTC. Hence the inference or one could argue the presumption is that this is not a declaration from the beneficiary.
  5. This provides a fruitful opportunity for a motion to strike that will either be granted (leaving the foreclosure mill lawyer with no legally enforceable claim) or, more likely, the withdrawal of the declaration and the submission of a “corrective” declaration — like we have seen with endorsements and assignments. All of them say nothing except that they are offered in support of the claim for foreclosure. 
  6. The declaration does not assert that DBNTC is a beneficiary. It only asserts that for purposes of the document, it is “hereby” the beneficiary. Being a beneficiary is not an operation of a contract or documents. It is a status conferred by law. If one is seized with ownership of the underlying obligation, then that person or entity is a potential beneficiary. This declaration does not state that.
  7. The burden is on the claimant. Saying something does not make it true (ask any 3-year-old). Failure to state that makes the document facially invalid and inadmissible as evidence IF and only IF a timely and proper objection is raised and a concurrent motion to strike the offending document or testimony or affidavit is made. Don’t expect the judge to practice law for you.
  8. The source of his authority is neither stated nor referenced. The reader cannot independently confirm the truth of the matters asserted — a key factor in due diligence practiced by the banks.
  9. The proffering of this document is a violation of custom and practice in the banking community that has existed for hundreds of years. It is also misrepresentation.
  10. You don’t borrow on the lease because you have produced a lease. You borrow on a lease because that tenant has been contacted, verified the lease, and has passed the underwriting requirements for credit.
  11. The document itself is worthless unless the matters asserted are verified and independently corroborated by outside parties with no interest in common with the intended borrower — all of that is how the law works, but it does not work automatically. You must do something to object to the document and prevent the judge from legally using it.
  12. As I have stated before, the assertion is that DBNTC does not appear on its behalf but rather as a trustee. But no trust is identified because, as I have previously stated, there is no trust, and even if there was a trust, it could not possibly include a trust account on the books of the designated trustee in which the receivable due from the homeowner is due to DBNTC. 
  13. But the key words are that DBNTC is appearing on behalf of the holders of certificates.
  14. The clear implication is that the purchasers of certificates are beneficiaries. Hence the implied status of trustee is created by the illusion of a trust, but the representation attributed to DBNTC is that it represents certificate holders which is a lie — unless some certificates were issued to the underwriting investment bank.
  15. Certificate holders are creditors, not equity holders in any company nor the holders of any right, title or interest to an unpaid loan account nor the intended recipient of any payment allegedly due from the hoemowner.
  16. Missing is any reference to any source document that grants authority to SPS to do anything, much less in the name of Deutsch. Such a source document must be identified with specificity for the Declaration to have facial validity, which it does not, in my opinion, and is, therefore, subject to a portion to strike.
  17. Missing is any referenced person who works for DBNTC or any document executed by DBNTC. This is not just important because it is a necessary link. Such a document would contain warranties that DBNTC is the beneficiary, owns the unpaid account, and is the rightful owner of the note and mortgage.
  18. If you successfully force an officer of DBNTC to appear for deposition testimony, they will give you a regurgitation of carefully scripted and memorized lines that say nothing.
  19. For example, if you ask them whether DBNTC possesses a claim to be paid by the subject homeowner, you will not get a straight answer. The answer will be that the claim is on behalf of …, and then he will recite the entire style of the case rather than referring to DBNTC. So the answer will be something like, “No, not DBNTC. It is DBNTC as trustee for the XYZ Asset Acquisition Trust certificate holders series 2007-AIC.”
  20. If you ask whether DBNTC as trustee for the XYZ Asset Acquisition Trust certificate holders series 2007-AIC has ever received any money from the subject homeowner or ever expects to receive any money from the subject homeowner, the witness will refer you to a company that is falsely labeled as a servicer.
  21. The problem is that people, lawyers, and judges get worn out, and their minds get tired of figuring out what is happening (see my last post on Friday). They give up thinking that the inquiry is merely searching for some technical objection. But it is no technical objection when the homeowner owes nothing to the declared claimant, Plaitniff, or beneficiary.

As with other cases I won as lead counsel, this document is one of the elements that can be attacked leaving a judge with no choice but to find that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that DBNTC is owed money from the homeowner because they purchased the liability.

*

As any accounting auditor will tell you, the evidence is insufficient to support the claim of a transaction unless it can be independently verified with receipts and the prospect of contacting the counterpart to the transaction.

*
I have found in my journalistic reporting that people who try to prove that the claim was fraudulent typically fail, although only sometimes. Most homeowner victories are predicated on insufficient evidence.
*========
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

New Law, New Doctrine and Voir Dire of Judges in Bench Trials

It all comes down to this: ASSUME NOTHING, CHALLENGE EVERYTHING. THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU DON’T KNOW ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION IN WHICH YOU EXECUTED “LOAN DOCUMENTS” AND YOU DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE “LOAN DOCUMENTS”. YOU ONLY KNOW THEY HAD A LABEL ON THEM AND YOU WERE EXPECTING A LOAN. THEY WERE LYING THEN AND THEY ARE LYING NOW. 

“society exists for the benefit of its members and not they for its benefit.” Herbert Spencer

Spencer also fell into the trap that Karl Marx had correctly diagnosed: He applied and even invented the term of “social darwinism” to societies, arriving at the conclusion that eventually the fittest would run things  and that was best.

In contrast, Karl Marx correctly identified management of business enterprise as inherently autocratic and thus based on the goodof the automcrats, rather than employees or consumers of their products and services.

The truth obviously lies in between. We live in a democoratic republic that is fueled by a form of capitalism that consistently favors those who generate and invest capital even if it means sacrificing the lives and property of millions. Government does not act to enfore guardrails even whent he need is the most obvious. But ti does attempt to provide social safety nets — the so called “entitlement Programs” that everyone pays for but nobody gets as intended.

In his vain attempt to remedy the obviious opportunities for moral hazard and exploitation, Marx limiited his options to one bteween military dictatorship and a “free society.” His mistake, was in his premise that free societies exist without government intervention.

Such societies have never existed and never will exist as long as humans maintain their current basic nature. Without correction and even punishment from government, societies run wild. Spencer and Adam Smith assumed that everything would be fine if we just got out of the way and let it run its course. All of human history amounts to a total refutation of that assumption. Things were never fine and nobody just let things run their course in a fair and objective way.

U.S. history has shown quite the reverse. Despite the clear pronouncements in the Declaration of Independence (unalienable rights) and U. S. Constitution (general welfare) history shows that government has had to work doubletime to keep society free. Leaving it to business and “free market forces” amounted to putting tigers on the outside of cages in which the rest of us inhabited. And, like clockwork, the “surprise” of a giant depression or recession occurred throwing people out of thieir lives, their homes, their jobs, and their families.

And the ultimate power of the people who consent to be governed must be exercised from time to time in order to maintain government’s guard rails to improve the attribtues of a free society that is promoted for all its members instead of a privileged few.

So the people are often drawn kicking and screaming into a fight that they never wanted to think about. So it is with the current epic increase in what is genereally labeled as “credit” transactions with consumers and homeowners.

Instead of carrying a Treasury Secretary’s warning that “this transction is mostly likely to cause you difficulties with your future retirement, vacation plans and healthcare access,” the government has become complicit in innumerable schemes that are plainly derived from autocratic edicts put into effect by private interests who have captured government oversight and regulation.

The proof is in the pudding. Extreme inequality is not the product of any person or company being more fit for the society, but rather the ability of such persons or companies to hijack the system, derail the attempts to fairly tax income, and defeat the forces of freedom including the delusional “free market.”

The obvious effects of autocratic edicts within a democratic republic and delusions of the free market (without governemnt guardrails and enforcement) is far from “free” and very far from enhancing the general welfare. The general public is comprised of individuals, none of whom has the sources, knowledge, training or licensing to understand, much less contest the attempts to oppress them.

But the best illicit plan is to let the “mark” con themselves. So the investment banks entered the lending marketpalce all dressed up like lenders (acting through intermediaries that were never disclosed) and consumers, lawyers, judges, regulators, and law enforcement all bought into the fraudulent representation of the “securitization” business plan.

Wall Street succeeded in the only business at hand — selling securities — while the rest of the world thought they were taking a risk in lending money for the “good of society.” It was never good and it was never real.

The consequence in this arena (so far) is that the entire burden of such regulation is left to individual consumers and homeowners by contesting claims in court that appear to be facially valid even though they are consistently substantively invalid.

If homeowners want to get the most out of their ivnestment in their homestead, they need to treat it in a business-like fashion, starting with protecting the asset against all claims, foreign and domestic.

The simple turth is that when confronted witht requriement to produce corroboration of the claim nobody can do it because the claim does not exist. But becuase the general consensus is opposite to what I write here you must employ whatever tactics and strategies are requried to encourage the judge to open up to the possibility that the opposition will not be able to prove their case agaisnt you — and that you should not need to prove anything. (It is their claim, not yours).

To do that, homeowners must acquire a working knowledge of legal and procedural law as practiced in federal courts and various state courts. Most lawyers are part of the erronrous consensus.

And they should employ all available adminstrative remedies, since that is the only way that the agencies will be politically embarassed enough to do something about the assymetric balance of power and assymetric results. The 2008 meltdown and the one currently underway produced extreme profits to the largest investment banks while everyone else went broke. The decision to make innocent homeowners pay for the crime was nothing short of bizarre, but it continues.

So in an effort to bridge the information gap I publish these articles that, while dry, they provide the background (foundation ) for a successful challenge to claims against them for payment of money and forced sale of the largest asset they will ever own. You, the hoemowner, have a duty to yourself your family and your society to stop people from making false claims of losses and the making innocent consumers and homeowners pay the price.

It all comes down to this: ASSUME NOTHING, CHALLENGE EVERYTHING. THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU DON’T KNOW ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION IN WHICH YOU EXECUTED “LOAN DOCUMENTS” AND YOU DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE “LOAN DOCUMENTS”. YOU ONLY KNOW THEY HAD A LABEL ON THEM AND YOU WERE EXPECTING A LOAN. THEY WRE LYING THEN AND THEY ARE LYING NOW.

In jury trial, the Judge, the prosecuting lawyer (Plaintiff’s counsel), and the Defense Counsel attempt to reveal the biases of the jurors. We ask what the juror already knows, how he knows it, and what he thinks about it.

*

Ultimately the question is whether the juror has already formed an opinion of the outcome of the pending case. If the juror is not open to hearing both sides, the juror is automatically disqualified from serving on the jury.

*

This article aims to explore ways in which we might make the same inquiries and establish baselines and doctrines that would ensure the same objectivity from jurists as we do from jurors.

*

I hasten to add that the goal here is NOT to add fuel to the false fire that judges intentionally get wrong in foreclosure cases. They are not. The issue I address here is that judges are ignorant and don’t know it, PLUS they think they know things that are not based on any empirically corroborative evidence.

*

Let’s get specific. Walking into a courtroom, Judges think they understand that securitization and mortgage-backed securities are exactly what they already know — that debts are sold to many investors, each of whom has an equity stake in the debt, note, payments, and lien issued by the homeowner.

*

As I have shown in thousands of articles and cases where I was victorious against false foreclosure claims, the judges are wrong. The truth is that most lawyers and even homeowners believe that description of “Securitization.” So not only does the judge proceed on false premises, he or she has no reason to think otherwise because nobody is presenting an alternative explanation.

*

In plain language, it is inconceivable for anyone to believe that what started out as a loan transaction (or at least labeled as a loan traction) could not result in a debt that could be later enforced through foreclosure procedure. Starting out from that premise, it is easy to see why foreclosures are rubber-stamped by the millions.

*

The investment bank’s playbook usually uses the statute of limitations in particularly pernicious ways. When the homeowner realizes that he or she might have been an issuer in a securities scheme rather than a borrower in a residential loan transaction, large expanses of time have elapsed. Even after receiving an explanation from an investment banker like myself, they still don’t understand it. Many of my clients who benefited from winning their cases still don’t understand why they won.

*

The issue frequently boils down to whether or not the homeowner should be barred from bringing a claim that he should’ve known about earlier. The judge is correct that the bare facts were revealed earlier The interesting part of this is that the judge’s ignorance corroborates the narrative that the homeowner could not have known of the significance of those facts until someone with expertise could explain it.

*
So the bottom line is that the judge is saying that even if the entire foreclosure was fraudulent, and the wrong party got judgment, and we now have both the facts and the appropriate interpretation of the facts that were concealed, the judge is going to allow the perpetrator of the fraud to keep the spoils of war.
*
The next step is the filing of a notice of appeal, but only if we think we have a reasonable chance of success. The challenge here is that none of the judges believe the defense narrative proposed in favor of the homeowner is even possible.
*
So the gravemen of any appeal probably needs to track the “actual innocence” doctrine governing criminal law. The judge, in this case, can accurately state that the record displays a high probability of compliance with due process. We might take issue with that, but I think the focus of any appeal should be that the judge is required to maintain impartiality.
*
I think that what we are asking for is an expansion of due process to include a fair and impartial look at the ability of the judge to understand the mechanics of securitization and whether it produces a viable, enforceable contract — and perhaps whether it requires information by the court either on motion of a party or sua sponte by the court itself.
*
If there was a possibility that the prior proceedings were the result of a fraud perpetrated on the court, and the result was the loss of the Homestead, it seems to me that an impartial appellate court might state that the trial court should have allowed the case to proceed, perhaps with a high standard for the burden of proof.
*
The obvious problem is that the homeowner will never be able to prove anything other than the fact that the opposition cannot produce a single witness (employed by the claimant) who will attest to the claim attributed by counsel to the designated claimant.
*
If the proceedings were to continue, the opposition would continue stonewalling and would be demonstrably unable or unwilling to produce an officer or employee of the claimant who would attest to maintaining the alleged unpaid loan account on its books as an asset and who would attest to the fact that it had been receiving payments and now expects restitution for an unpaid debt through the process of foreclosure.
*
I have always recognized that this would be a very steep uphill battle, and it is. The key question here is whether we can convince an appellate court to right a wrong. To do that, we must convince them that the trial court should have explored whether a wrong had been committed — not just technically — but one in which justice was twisted rather than served.
*
If we proceed, we should not try to convince the court that the foreclosure case was a fraud. We should try to convince the appellate court that the trial court is under an obligation (perhaps a new obligation) to inform itself about securitization and determine whether the foreclosure is based on any legal foundation in which justice is served. We might be asking for new law, which is, I think, the cleaner approach.
*
All of this starts, I think, with a procedure I have sometimes explored in court. Voir dire (to see and to say) is a process by which lawyers question jurors about bias, as I have outlined above.
*
I see no impediment to conducting voir dire directed at the Judge at the start of the trial or even the start of a hearing.
  1. Specifically, the question should be whether the Judge has already decided that the subject claim is based on a debt that has been “securitized.”
  2. And further, that securitization means that the debt is an asset that has been sold to multiple investors.
  3. Lastly, the questioning should be directed at the source of such “knowledge.”
  4. And finally, I would ask whether an alternate explanation (the defense narrative) can be fairly and impartially heard by the judge sitting as both judge and juror.

*

I won’t deny that judges will get testy about this, but that might only serve as additional grounds for appeal.

*

Comments would be appreciated.

============

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Are they really mortgage loans? Are they still mortgage loans?

Most of the long-standing transactions with homeowners were falsely dubbed as “mortgage loans.” And most of the false premises are compounded by additional false premises in the form of forbearance, modification, and other agreements that effectively change the name of the designated “lender” and conceal the absence of an unpaid loan account by many layers of “documents” that are fabricated, forged, backdated and robosigned.

*

Here is my answer to one such inquiry.

*

From Wikipedia:

American Home Mortgage Investment Corporation was the 10th largest retail mortgage lender in the United States and was structured as a real estate investment trust (REIT).

In 2007, it filed for bankruptcy and was liquidated.[2][3

*

Originally a conventional lender, it switched business plans when securities brokerage firms on Wall Street (investment banks) offered them more money and less risk. The plan enabled the Wall Street firms to create the illusion of entering the lending marketplace while at the same time luring homeowners into becoming issuers in a new securities scheme.
*
Both investors who purchased “certificates” (unsecured IOUs) and homeowners who thought they were creating a loan account were duped. Eventually, the 2008 crash ensued, but the government failed to correct the conditions that made the mortgage meltdown and the 2008 crash happen. It is still happening.
*
The new securities plan enabled the Wall Street firms to effectively sell the same illusory transaction repeatedly without ever selling a unpaid loan account — thus avoiding statutes governing lending and servicing. It also served as the foundation for a new illicit scheme for foreclosure. In order to maintain the illusion of unpaid accounts, it was necessary to enforce the faux loan accounts.
*
In order to satisfy legal requirements for a judicial or nonjudicial sale, documents were fabricated and forged, using a history of unsigned documents, correspondence, statements and notices that were generated by remote third-party financial technology (FINTECH) companies.
*
Nearly all such foreclosures were successful because of the belief that the homeowner owed money to the party seeking relief. In virtually all cases, the party designated as seeking relief had no knowledge or control over the foreclosure proceeding — and it neither expected nor received any money from the homeowner at any time. It only received royalty fees for use of its name.
*
That party (usually US Bank, Bank of New York Mellon or Deutsch Bank National Trust Company) received only a fee for use of its name to make it appear that the process was generated by an institutional lender rather than private group of investment banks with no right, title or interest to any attributes of the orinngal transaction with the homeowner (having sold same repeatedly to third party investors). Said nominal parties received only their fees and never received the proceeds from the liquidation of property obtained through forced sale.
*
Homeowners seeking protection from federal and state agencies are consistently rebuffed, probably due to the unusual influence that the Wall Street firms have in federal and state politics. Accordingly it is up to the homeowner to obtain relief in private rights fo action under the statutes that ought to be enforced by agencies.
*
In your case and your friend’s case it appears that you both fit into the above description. Your forbearance agreement was a ruse to get you to admit to an unpaid loan account that does not exist. My suggestion is that both of you start sending qualified written requests (QWR) under RESPA and debt validation letters (DVL) (plural, meaning follow-up letters pointing out how they did not answer your simple questions about the existence, location, ownership, and authority over the alleged loan account).
*
They still will not answer. The issue in your case is whether US Bank maintains a trust account in which it holds the alleged unpaid loan account. If it does not have that trust account or if the trust account does not contain an unpaid loan account due from you as an asset, then the presence of US Bank is irrelevant.
*
That means it has no standing and anyone who designated US Bank as a claimant was lying. I can tell you from experience that the lawyers on the front line of these foreclosure schemes have no contact, no contract and no relationship with US Bank or any other designated claimant.
*
They get away with this by making certain legal arguments about possession of the promissory note you signed. But physical delivery of the original promissory note can never be established because it is custom and practice to destroy the physical note after it has been endorsed (usually by a broker with no authority). So possession is unlikely. And in order to qualify as a “holder” of the note, one must have received authorization to enforce it from someone who as authorized to enforce it. Ultimately such authorization must come from the party who owns the unpaid loan account, which as I have said, does not exist.
*
I am forwarding your request to an attorney who maintains contact with certain lawyers in New York. I would add two caveats: First, the battle against these forces is not easy and will meet with considerable resistance from the bench and the bar; second, the cost is often out of reach of homeowners, which is why the securities firms are getting away with pursuing groundless claims.
*
The cost tends to rise because the foreclosure lawyers hired through a string of intermediaries have specific instructions to conduct the litigation like a ground war and not to give an inch until the very end.
*
In order to say that you have exhausted all administrative remedies, I always recommend filing a complaint with the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Board) at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
*
The last step is filing a complaint for breach of statutory duties under the FDCPA and RESPA.
*
The preparation of the statutory letters and administrative complaints is part of what we call our “Administrative Strategy.” The filing of a lawsuit requires you to either hire an attorney (highly recommended since most of these cases are decided on the rules of procedure) or proceed pro se, and we can assist in preparing the narrative of the complaint. The latter engagement is subject to an email retainer agreement that will include discovery requests, preparation for hearings, memorandums of law, etc.
*
If you want us to prepare the qualified written requests and debt validation letters for the Administrative Strategy, please click on the following link:
*
*
===============
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How do you challenge illegal claims to administer, collect or enforce claims arising from transactions with homeowners? Nip It In the Bud!

The basic idea is not to give a single inch. If you do, you lose. Don’t accept a single assumption or presumption as though it was really true. It isn’t.

Always focus on what is missing.

Correspondence allegedly from the designated “Servicer” is not signed. It is always ended with a reference to some nondescript team. So if it is false or improper who can you blame? But if it isn’t signed then it the legal equivalent of not having been sent.

Making a claim is not the same as proving a claim. As long as you obey the rules of pleading you can make any claim, no matter how ridiculuous.

And there is little to stop you from fabricating documents that look like evidence. It is when the lawyer looks behind the evidence for corroboration of the transactions referenced or recited in the documents that the claim falls apart.

One of the strategic issues with these cases is all about when to make what challenge and how aggressive you should appear. These are mostly decisions for the lawyer on the ground, not for someone in an ivory tower in Jacksonville, Fl. Nonetheless, I have been toying with some ideas.

*

As a litigator, my opinion is that you should come out of the gate with guns blazing. The real place to start is immediately after the “Closing” has been consummated. You thought you were getting a loan from the named “lender.” You thought it was a lender because the documents said it was a lender. You thought it was a loan because the documents you signed were called “loan documents.”

*

So ideally the time to start is immediately after closing, but why would anyone do that unless they knew that the transaction was a sham and if they did, then why did they sign the documents?

*

So as a practical matter, the first time the homeowner starts questioning and challenging is when the company that has self-appointed itself as the “servicer” starts communicating with you despite no notice from the designated “lender” on the closing documents. And as a practical matter, homeowners are not moved to do anything until they are at risk, which is exactly the gamble that the investment banks made when they devised this scheme.

*
In communications with the lawyer who asserts or implies the representation of some name or entity, here are the strategies, facts and the issues — and keep in mind that keeping it simple makes it more likely that you will get a satisfactory result while ignoring the basic issues will eventually lose the property. (Names used are for examples only):
*
  1. Dear Attorney: Our client is John Smith, and he has informed us that he has received a communication from you or referencing your law firm as the attorney for U.S. Bank. But we have received other information suggesting that you either represent Ocwen Loan Servicing or simply some regional law firm that has tasked you with pursuing a claim they told you about. Can you please clarify? That is, please identify your client and their role in connection with the subject property.
  2. We also see that while there is correspondence purportedly from Ocwen Loan Servicing and referencing “records” of Ocwen Loan Servicing,” we have received information indicating that Ocwen does not receive, collect, process, account for, or disburse funds received from the subject homeowner and will not receive any money from the forced sale of the property if it is successful.
    1. Therefore if Ocwen has business records,  they would not contain any data relating to business Ocwen conducted with our client.
    2. Can you please clarify the information upon which you rely as to business records for the foundation of the claim you are presenting and identify the intended party for the distribution of funds if and when the subject property is liquidated (sold to a third party bona fide purchaser for value)?
    3. Please identify the person, company, or business organization(s) that perform functions relating to the receipt, collection, processing, accounting, or disbursement of funds due to a “creditor” received from the subject homeowner and the person, company, or business organization(s) that will receive any money from the forced sale of the property if it is successful.
  3. We also see that there are references to the promissory note but no references to the unpaid receivable account on the ledger of any putative creditor. Such an account is neither asserted or implied. Can you please clarify whether you represent the party who owns that unpaid receivable account due from our client? This is also necessary to assess the putative servicer’s authority and the attorney’s authority to proceed.
*
You understand perfectly well what I am getting at here. You can juice it up or down. Like, for example, “if you have asserted, implied or filed a claim without knowledge of the identity of the owner of the claim, then the claimant has not appeared, and your appearance is irrelevant –except for advancing the theory of the claim potentially on behalf of unknown parties.” Or “your conduct may be in violation of the  ethical and disciplinary rules governing the conduct of attorneys.”
*
CRAZY EXAMPLE: I sue you for stealing my German Shephard and performing life-altering experiments on him in Alaska. The truth is I don’t have a German Shephard, and you don’t live in Alaska or work there. But I created documents that apparently you signed (even though you didn’t) and receipts showing that you took the dog from my backyard (deep fake pictures). The natural assumption by everyone is at least that I own that dog. But I don’t. And if you don’t defend, there will be a judgment in my favor and maybe even some criminal charges against you for something that never happened. Basically, lying is at the core of all judicial systems, If people didn’t do it, we would not need courts.
*
Just because you hear, read, or otherwise think you know something because it seems to make sense does not mean that any part of it is true. No matter how often a lie is repeated, the only fact is that the lie has been repeated.
*
And that is why this site is called livinglies.me.
=============
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

%d bloggers like this: