Livinglies's Weblog

While I have often expressed my opinions regarding how to conduct discovery, the article written by Donna Welch, Esq., and Kaitlin L. Coverstone of Kirkland and Ellis LP in Chicago Illinois presents a clearer and more concise blueprint for planning and executing discovery.

see SHAPING DISCOVERY

Some notable quotes:

Have a strategy. Rather than sending a huge number of overly broad requests and deciding later what’s relevant, think ahead about what facts will help you prove your case. If you are the plaintiff, consider what elements you need to prove for each claim and what kinds of documents would help establish those elements. If you are the defendant, approach discovery with your affirmative defenses or counterclaims already in mind. Tailored requests are more defensible if challenged, and can also avoid subjecting your client to equally broad requests. Courts are not fans of scorched-earth discovery with no reason, so be prepared to defend what you think you need and why.

• Adjust the scope of your requests to the questions at issue. If a particular issue has been resolved and is now off the table, (i.e., through a decision on a Rule 12 motion), make sure the scope of your discovery requests reflects the narrowed scope of the case.
• Send clear requests. In addition to being tailored, your requests need to be clear. Requests that include vague terminology, multiple subparts, or a series of “and/or” clauses can be unintelligible and make it difficult for you (or the judge) to police compliance. Sometimes it is better to split up a complicated request into multiple separate requests for the sake of clarity. If your opponent objects that requests are vague or overbroad, meet and confer and demand that they explain why. Then, consider whether you can reframe the requests to address the issue without sacrificing what you need
• Make your objections clear and specific. The need for thoughtfulness also applies to your objections and responses. With recent changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. That means that your objections need to be intelligible and defensible. Don’t object to every request as “vague” or “overly burdensome”—courts hate it and you will live by the same objections.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »

Without naming names, I recently responded to an email insisting that I take judges to task for “bad rulings.”

I’ve been a trial lawyer for more than 42 years, tried over 2,000 cases and I have reviewed the results of more than 10,000 foreclosure cases. While “bad rulings” are common they are neither produced by incompetence or corruption. Most bias is allowed on the correct premise that everyone has bias. Attacking a judge merely sends warning signals up that produce a response  — protect the judges.

All homeowners who have won have done so by persuasion of the judge — not by a judge becoming a pig digging for truffles. Homeowners and many lawyers misapprehend the role of judges and then criticise judges for failing to act in a manner consistent with what the homeowner or lawyer thinks will best produce a favorable result for the homeowner.

Here is what I wrote in response to that email I received insisting on the issue of corruption of judges.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts. Judges sit on the bench because they are there to call balls and strikes. If somebody fails to throw or hit a ball (most often the case in foreclosure defense) the Judge has no choice but to rule for the banks even if the Judge thinks something is fishy.

You are looking at the result and saying it is wrong. And you are correct. But law is about procedure and by definition procedure is right regardless of a bad result. This fact is completely ignored by lay people because it makes no sense to them. AND it is often ignored by lawyers who know better.

*

Focusing on bad judges, while there are many, will get you nowhere unless you are piling up “Likes” on Facebook. Focusing on what balls should be thrown or should be hit by foreclosure defenders is where I have achieved success — and everyone else who has done the same thing will attest to the same thing.

*

Plain Fact: Banks win because they have an effective legal team and an effective legal strategy. Homeowners lose because they enter the courtroom without any idea of what it means to have a good legal team and no idea about an effective legal strategy. 

Filed under: foreclosure | 18 Comments »

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to WEST COAST

The Neil Garfield Show

Hosted tonight by Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

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

• Robosigning is the act of placing a signature on a document on behalf of a person who knows nothing about the document, and who probably has no authority to perform the act that appears facially valid on the document.
• For the same reason that investment banks employ the services of companies who in turn use contract labor as robosignors, the perpetrators (investment banks) employ vendor and “servicers” (who are often in charge of robosigning) have the servicer select a “witness” to testify at trial as the “corporate representative” of the claimant. This is the robo-witness. See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.
• The script given to such people is their only instruction on how to act as a witness.
• No matter how bad it goes on cross examination the witness can neither testify nor admit to facts because the witness doesn’t know them. This limits the risks to the investment bank. And even if perjury is asserted or fraud it appears as the fraud of the “servicer” and not the investment bank who is calling the shots but is nowhere to be seen in the case — UNLESS of course the homeowner brings them in through a counterclaim or makes them relevant through an affirmative defense.

Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo will breakdown the topic of PMK aka Person Most Knowledgeable.

Charles and Bill will also address other issues related to the introduction of evidence, the needed standard of proof which courts are supposed to require, and otherwise get out details on how institutional players on the other side of borrowers–be those players on the plaintiff or the defendant side in any given case–all too often get away with using witnesses to successfully enter evidence, when those same witnesses have none of the bona fides evidence law requires, to get the evidence at issue admitted before the court in question.

Bill will greatly illuminate this topic by describing the details of the 2007 Texas Foreclosure Task Force, which 12 years ago looked into the troubling details of this important topic.

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »

We are inundated with requests for help. We will try to get to each request in timely fashion but in the meantime perhaps this post will be of some assistance.

Most people start off by bringing to us a case that is already in progress. But for those whose case is just starting this article should prove useful.

*

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

see http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/06/financialization-promotes-dangerous-speculation/

This was originally hailed as a brilliant financial innovation as US Fed chair Alan Greenspan believed that CDOs transferred risk from banks to investors able and willing to take it on. But securitization not only increased systemic risks, but also did not reduce risk to the originating banks who had sold off the loans.

The US subprime mortgage crisis, which started in 2007, quickly spread, via related CDOs and CDSs, to much of the rest of the financial system and across national borders, with repercussions for the real economy worldwide, not least through trade and other policy responses, including protectionism.

Risks and rewards have increased as collateral is rehypothecated, i.e., used by lenders for their own purposes. Such leveraging allows lenders to become borrowers. Mark-to-market practices, shorting and rehypothecation thus increase risks for the financial system. [e.s.]

CDO losses accounted for nearly half the total losses sustained by financial institutions between 2007 and early 2009, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a run on global repo markets that triggered banking and European sovereign debt crises.

Financial regulators recognize the systemic significance of these financial developments. Although the Financial Stability Board, created in the wake of the 2008 crisis, identified securitization and repo markets as critical priorities for shadow banking reform, securitization is back on financial development agendas, especially for developing countries.

Filed under: foreclosure | 3 Comments »

It is currently up to the homeowner to forcefully and convincingly persuade a judge that the party seeking foreclosure is unrelated to the debt and that foreclosure won’t result in paying down the debt — because the proceeds of foreclosure sale, contrary to popular assumption, are not going to any owner of the debt carrying a risk of loss on that debt.

While it is possible to reveal this under current statutes, the burden is unfairly placed on the homeowner to “prove” or reveal a defense to a claim that should never have been filed in the first place.

The fact that the current statutory scheme allows the false claimants to get to second base by fabricating and forging documents is an obvious defect in our current system of laws.

I recently received an email from a contributing reader who was complaining that judges are to blame for the foreclosure mess.

Correction. While judges might share some blame, it was the investment banks who did this, and their control over state legislatures and Congress has fostered an environment of moral hazard.

If you go to a doctor and tell him/her that your left foot  is hurting don’t be surprised if he/she fails to diagnose brain cancer. Maybe the doctor should have or could have discovered brain cancer but he/she had no reason to look.

Filed under: foreclosure | 5 Comments »

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

with Neil Garfield

or prior episodes

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

Tonight we talk about how to be persuasive in court so that the Judge realizes that the foreclosure might not result in any proceeds being used to pay down the debt. Everything else is important but secondary. Until lawyers and homeowners stop running away from the debt, the majority of foreclosure defenses will fail. Embrace it because they don’t have it.

The point of defending a foreclosure is saving the house or getting compensation for losing the house. Saving the house means defending it. Getting compensation means filing a lawsuit for damages. In nonjudicial states you need to file for a TRO in order to challenge the foreclosure.

The central point of foreclosure defense in the current era is to reveal the fact that the foreclosure will not result in payment of the debt. Everyone seems to think that the central point is to avoid paying the debt. There used to be only one defense to foreclosure: payment. In the current era starting in the late 1990’s there is another defense — lack of payment.

The issue is wrapping your head around something that is completely counter-intuitive. Why would anyone foreclose unless they were looking for money to pay down a debt?

The answer to that question sends most people into a tailspin, stumbling over their own words. In the end the judge doesn’t know what you are talking about and you lose your home unless you present a clear and persuasive reason to prevent foreclosure — namely that the party claiming foreclosure is not in fact the owner of the debt and probably has never seen nor possessed the original promissory note.

That claimant has never loaned any money and they don’t say that they have loaned you money. That claimant has never paid value for the debt, note or mortgage, they don’t say they did. In most cases you were mislead into believing that the Payee named on the promissory note was lending you money.

Filed under: foreclosure | 3 Comments »

Total hat tip to Bill Paatalo

There are two takeaways of major significance here.

1. Review of electronic records is not review of original records.
2. POssession of note does not mean that debt was paid for or transferred.
   https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2019/526630.html

   We’re getting closer and closer to the truth when the high courts begin to demand and require proof; a burden they cannot meet.

   “Plaintiff similarly failed to establish its standing by demonstrating that it had physical possession of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted, among other things, a copy of its complaint, the mortgage, the unpaid note (indorsed in blank), the relevant assignments of the mortgage and proof of defendants’ default. Plaintiff also tendered the affidavit of the authorized officer for Caliber Home Loans, Inc., the mortgage loan servicing agent and attorney-in-fact for plaintiff [FN3]. The affidavit of the authorized officer indicates the source of her knowledge to be her “review of the electronic records of Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” regarding defendants’ delinquent account, which includes, among other things, “electronic images of the note and electronic records maintained by Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” Other than alleging that she reviewed these electronic records, the authorized officer’s affidavit fails to provide any indication that she actually examined the original note, nor did it provide any details with regard to whether plaintiff ever obtained possession thereof and, if so, how and when it came into its possession (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Walker, 141 AD3d 986, 988 [2016]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 133 AD3d 1057, 1058-1059 [2015]). Moreover, the complaint is equivocal and alleges in the alternative that plaintiff is “the current owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note, or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note.” Such language is insufficient to establish that plaintiff had [*2]physical possession of the note at the time it commenced this action (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Kyle, 129 AD3d at 1169-1170). [e.s.]

   Defendants also specifically sought discovery with respect to when plaintiff took physical possession of the original note, from what entity it received it, what it paid for same, as well as “a first generation copy of the original [n]ote and all original [a]llonges to the note” and “evidence of the physical transfer of the original [n]ote from origination to its current location.” Plaintiff, however, failed to provide any discovery prior to filing its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, inasmuch as the proof submitted was not sufficient to establish that plaintiff had standing through assignment or actual physical possession of the note at the time it commenced the instant mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. Rather, Supreme Court should have compelled plaintiff’s disclosure of the original note pursuant to defendants’ discovery request prior to granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 133 AD3d at 1058-1059; compare Green Tree Servicing LLC v Bormann, 157 AD3d 1112, 1115 [2018]; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v McClintock, 138 AD3d 1372, 1374-1375 [2016]).” [e.s.]
   —

   Bill Paatalo
   Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411

   BP Investigative Agency, LLC
   Mailing Address:

   476 LaBrie Drive

   Whitefish, MT 59937

   Office: 1-(888)-582-0961

   bill.bpia@gmail.c

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »

No lawyer is an expert in everything. Every case is a learning experience for the lawyer. That includes me despite my extensive background in law and finance. All successful litigators will tell you that there is a subjective factor is the deciding issue in all litigation — passion, persuasiveness and knowledgeable plan of the litigator to get to a desired result.

In foreclosure litigation the banks have totally succeed in getting almost all members of the legal profession, including jurists, to believe that foreclosures are serving a useful function for society because they preserve the sanctity of contract.

Lawyers must start off with knowledge of what really happened, not hypotheticals and seem to corroborate claims of technical defects in the documents and testimony used to obtain foreclosure. Specifically they need to have detailed knowledge of property law, contract law, bills and notes (negotiable instruments), enforcement of security instruments, SEC rules and the use of SEC.gov, securities underwriting, trading in unregulated securities or contracts, and the actual chain of events in the real world. Without that kind of research and investigation, the layer is limited to attacking a few technical aspects of the claim brought against the homeowner.

For those who use this knowledge, thousands of homeowners have won their cases and tens of thousands of homeowners have settled cases under strict seals of confidentiality.

For the  public they assume that when they go to a lawyer that he or she understands every aspect of Wall Street finance and all the other factors described above. This is not true nor could it be true. There are some lawyers who have sufficient working knowledge to know that current foreclosures almost never pay down the debt when the foreclosed property is sold. They know that the parties initiating foreclosure are using fictitious names, documents, claims and testimony and they attack the case on those grounds. More often than not (65% in my my estimation) they win the case or settle it on terms that are entirely satisfactory to the homeowner.

But even the judges who rule for homeowners do so out of duty rather than belief that the judicial system has been unfairly weaponized by players representing Wall Street interests. Judges, and truth be told most borrowers and their attorneys believe they really have a debt to pay and that the chain of people who are seeking foreclosure contains someone who owns the debt and who will receive  the proceeds of sale as a paydown of the debt originated when the mortgage documents were signed.

The lawyers who “get it” are in high demand and float in and out of availability; and they get become increasingly choosy as to which cases to accept. They are also expensive. To my knowledge, winning cases has ranged from as low as $10,000 in fees and costs to a high, so far, of over $200,000. The average, based upon fee awards appears to be between $40,000 and $60,000. In our system of justice it is rationed based upon a claimant or defender’s ability to pay for costs and fees.

Most lawyers view foreclosure defense as a losing proposition. First they correctly assume that their prospective clients lack the resources or willingness to fully litigate the case. The bank playbook contains a simple strategy of using every rule in civil procedure to wear down, discourage and even intimidate or ridicule the homeowner or the lawyer for the homeowner. They almost never settle early which means persistence and expense must be pursued to the 11th hour. Their initial offers are designed to produce a feeling of despair in the homeowner and their lawyer. They use this strategy because it works. Most people walk away, dejected.

Most people lack the financial resources to fight the foreclosure “to the mattresses.” So what homeowners should be looking for are lawyers who are willing to work on a mixed retainer of fees, paid up front, hourly billing and a contingency fee. If the case is litigated to conclusion successfully there is a good prospect of securing an award of damages and even fees for wrongful foreclosure, breach of statutory responsibilities and breach of common law duties.

In order to get to the point of winning a homeowner has two choices. First they can pay the lawyer to do all the research, interviews and analysis necessary to develop strategies and tactics for a result in which he or she truly believes can and should win. This can be very expensive even with lawyers who have some familiarity with securitization and foreclosures by or in the name of “trustees for “REMIC Trusts” based upon fabricated, forged and robosigned documentation.

That is where we come in. I got into this to provide a bridge between the homeowner, who knows virtually nothing other than some snippets on the internet, and the lawyer who wants a winning case and to make a high profit from representation of a homeowner who is being unlawfully attacked by strangers, pretenders lenders. Because of our knowledge base I am able to provide drafts of pleadings, discovery, motions, strategy   and tactics on a fraction of the time that it would take a lawyer with n little or no familiarity with the facts and the law governing these real and false transactions.

My usual advice is to obtain preliminary information from us, have us prepare a summary report of the issues and how to beat them, schedule a CONSULT with the lawyer and “sell” the lawyer on taking the case and on taking some guidance and direction from us, subject to his ultimate decision making in consultation with the homeowner as his client.

These cases are won based upon aggressive litigation performed by an experienced litigator. Don’t send a dermatologist to do brain surgery. Don’t send a brain surgeon to perform skin grafts. The judicial climate is weighed so heavily against homeowners that selling the really good lawyers on taking your case is going to be a challenge, but I can tell you where to look. Personal injury lawyers are very accustomed to going into knock down battles with larger forces like insurance companies. Even young PI lawyers usually have good courtroom experience and access of investigators. Other lawyers whose name appears on decisions favorable to homeowners might also be a stop.

But all lawyers are concerned about the prospective client’s willingness and capability to pay, the need to do extra hand holding that is difficult to bill for the time spent, and the efficacy of the case. No lawyer wants to go out and lose a bunch of cases.  Clients are cautioned to remember that the lawyer is not a ter paist and has no obligation to listen to how much you are upset or hurting except when the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress arises. But such claims ordinarily arises AFTER you beat back their attempt to foreclose.

Yes I have contact information on hundreds of lawyers. But they are subatomic particles who float in an out of existence in the foreclosure defense market. My recommendation of a case usually causes the lawyer to at least look at it. But that is no guarantee that the lawyer will ultimate decide to accept it.

Many lawyers are asking me to do the initial vetting and recommendations. I can do that. What homeowners must realize is that while I am extensive general knowledge about the workings of foreclosure, securitization and Wall Street Finance, I don’t know (a) the particulars of their case. (b) the procedural status of the case and (c) the current likelihood of success based upon events leading up to this date. So I cannot formulate a recommendation that will have any credibility with potential attorney until I have done that work and provided a blueprint for defense strategies and tactics.

This is why I offer the following four simple services, for which you would otherwise get charged far more money if you hired a new attorney to perform the work. And I often get retained to do the actual drafting of pleadings, motions, discovery and preparation memos for appearances in court. But this ONLY happens when I know the details of the specific case.

Filed under: foreclosure | 3 Comments »

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to current episodes of

Co-Hosts Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

or prior episodes

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

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

Today’s Show involves two important topics:

1. First Circuit US Court of Appeals case, Thompson v. Chase, in which the appellate court reversed the lower district court, essentially strictly construing the Mass. judicial foreclosure statutory framework.

2. Real Estate brokers are being used as institutional stand-ins for certain evidentiary purposes, particularly in non-judicial foreclosure states like California. Bill Paatalo has a great blog item about this issue, on his blog, from May 17, 2019. Gives the appearance of real estate brokers paying illegal referral fees to sub-servicers, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement & Procedures Act (RESPA). Details to follow on today’s Show.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I have it on good authority that both real estate brokers and especially mortgage brokers executed indorsements of the note shortly after loan closings. Isn’t that interesting? It explains a lot about the illegal bonuses and compensation that was not disclosed to borrowers.

See MA Appeal Win – Chase foreclosure invalidated

This is an interesting case. In my mind this decision harkens back to the day when all elements of a claim in foreclosure were strictly construed — as a matter of public policy. The  conesus of everyone including the judiciary was that if someone is going to lose their homestead, that is a draconian remedy that is the judicial civil equivalent of capital punishment in criminal law.

But the bias still exists; and as long as judges believe that the defense did not reveal an inherent flaw, indeed fraud, judges will continue to believe that all defenses are an attempt to get free from an perfectly valid debt. Like all judges, if they perceive a party who SHOULD win, in their estimation, they will make rulings to support a final decision in favor of the party who they think should prevail.

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

1. You have Mary Jones who may or may not exist and whose signature might be forged or robosigned, and whose authority as “Authorized signor” is yet to be tested. This can be attacked during litigation but is generally not a ripe target for attacking facial validity.
2. You have Ocwen who supposedly is attorney int act as attested to by Mary Jones whose knowledge is unknown and in all probability have no knowledge of Ocwen’s authority just as she probably has no knowledge of the existence of the document on which her name appears. More importantly there is nothing recorded anywhere giving Ocwen as servicer who only operated under servicing agreements, power of attorney to execute anything for anyone. They can still prove they had the power of attorney but it is not apparent from the face of the document nor is it available in public records. And in order to prove the power existed, in the absence of any power of attorney in the public records or attached to the current document, they must allege that Ocwen had a power of attorney that was valid, unrevoked and effective as of the date they filed the instrument — and that is was executed by someone with authority to sign the power of attorney on behalf of a party who had a specific financial interest in the debt. Who signed the power of attorney? does the power of attorney exist? Did it exist at the time of the execution of the complaint, notice of substitution or notice of default? Probably not. But even if it did the notice is defective because it relies on the facial validity of implied but unstated other isntruments.  Failing that the foreclosure complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend alleging the proper elements to prove foundation for the attached documents and a new document must be attached to the complaint, which is the power of attorney; and or notice of default or notice of substitution of trustee must be canceled. If you don’t raise the issue it is waived.
3. The you have the third level which is the XYZ Trust-2006. Look closely and there are no beneficiaries except the investment bank, no named trustee with any right to know about muchness administer the active affairs of the trust, no active affairs of the trust, no settlor, no trustor, and no thing which has been entrusted to a named trustee for the benefit of named beneficiaries. In all probability the trust doesn’t exist and it certainly has no relevance to the loan if the loan was not acquired by the trust either though a purchase by the trustee LaSalle using trust assets to pay or by convenience by a settlor to the trust where the settlor owned the debt. That didn’t happen in any case that I have ever seen. What is missing from facial validity of any document here is legal and proper and customary identification of the alleged trust by stating its state of organization or under what jurisdiction it exists. Like the power of attorney no trust instrument is referenced or identified and there is no trust instrument in official records. SEC.gov is not official records because it is no more than Dropbox or Box.com for uploading self-serving documents. The SEC has nothing to do with the documents other than providing the platform for the uploading of documents. Reference to the trust is facially invalid because it cannot be actually identified. Reference to the Trust is facially irrelevant although the trustee could still prove the existence of the trust and prove that the trust actually owns the debt.
4. So then you have the fourth level. LaSalle Bank who was in a reverse merger with ABN AMRO which as acquired by Citi. Was the subject loan ever entrusted to LaSalle to own and administer the loan on behalf of beneficiaries of a trust? Did LaSalle Bank ever enter into a transaction where it paid value from the trust to the owner of the debt? Does the trust exist? If the trust is nonexistent in terms of facial analysis that leaves LaSalle Bank who disclaims any right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage related to any loan. It’s all smoke and mirrors. LaSalle merely received a fee for allowing its name to be used. It does nothing else.
5. The fifth level is Bank of America as successor by merger to LaSalle. BOA acquired LaSalle Bank presumably from Citi who had acquired ABN AMRO from the shareholders of ABN AMRO. Who gained a controlling share of LaSalle in a reverse merger. But all questions of fact as to the mergers aside, what interest or right to the subject loan, debt, note or mortgage was transferred in the mortgage. The customary and normal business practice in banking is to have a mortgage loan schedule if a new party is the owner in title or substance. But here we have a different problem. There is nothing on any of the documentation warranting or even asserting title to the debt, note or mortgage by anyone. The documents and claims thereon are therefore facially invalid.
6. The 6th level is US Bank who is said to have bought the trustee rights from Bank of America. This is facially invalid because there is no law suggesting that the position of trustee of any trust can be bought and sold like a commodity. Nor is there any reference, assertion or even suggestion that any specific loans were transferred to the Bank of America for administration over the loan including receipt of payments and tendering of those payments less expenses, to the owners of the debt. That is because neither US Bank or any servicer actually tenders the borrower’s money to anyone who owns the debt as payment of the debt.

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

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

I’m revealing tonight the specific structural analysis I use and which the LivingLies team uses under my direction to analyze the facial validity of documents that are being used to initiate fraudulent, yet legally effective foreclosures and sales of property. If you don’t challenge it the foreclosure becomes legal, valid and enforceable in unlawful detainer or eviction.

The basic premise of all foreclosures is that foreclosure is necessary and legal to compensate and protect a party who is losing money because a borrower-homeowner is not paying their legal debt to the party that owns that debt. They must assert the position that they are losing money because they loaned money or bought the debt. One of those two things must be true.

By attacking facial validity of documents you are starting at the beginning. You are attacking the foreclosure complaint, or the notices of substitution, default and sale. Properly done it removes all of the protective gear worn by your opposition and forces them to prove facts that don’t exist. That is how homeowners have won thousands of cases.

Article 9 UCC §203 requires payment of value as a condition precedent to enforcement of a mortgage or deed of trust. Remember this is to be distinguished from Article 3 which enables a non-owner of the debt to enforce the note and get a money judgment against the maker of the note. That’s different than a foreclosure judgment.

Most lawyers and judges forget that the UCC is not some theoretical treatise on commercial paper. It is law. It isn’t just common law, it is statutory law adopted in all US jurisdictions.

Facial analysis of documents is critical to success in court.

LISTEN LIVE TONIGHT OR CLICK ON THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »

So many people have asked questions about the CONSULT that I decided to make a blog article about it to avoid answering the same questions repeatedly.

1. If you only want a consult without review of specific documents, click the link for ordering and paying for the CONSULT.
2. You will be directed to fill out at least some information concerning your identity and your location as well as the location of the property. We must know your timezone in order to schedule the CONSULT.
3. That will take you to Acuity Scheduling in which you can select the time and date of the Consult. Just follow the instructions and select the time and date you want the Consult.
4. This will automatically put the CONSULT on my Calendar.
5. It will also automatically send me an email notifying me that you have paid for a consult and you have scheduled the consult.
6. I will set up a recorded CONSULT on our conference bridge FreeConference.com.
7. You will receive a confirmation email inviting you to participate in the CONSULT.
8. 1. The email invitation will contain the CALL IN NUMBER which most likely be 605-475-6333.
   2. The email invitation will contain the ACCESS NUMBER you must enter to join the CONSULT. The ACCESS NUMBER is unique for each CONSULT to maintain confidentiality and privacy.
9. Having a local attorney on the call is ordinarily helpful for homeowners or borrowers.
10. Our Preliminary Document Review (PDR) includes a 30 minute CONSULT. It comes in three flavors, each with increasing levels of analysis and scope of review.
11. 1. Ordinarily it is at least advisable to order, at a minimum, the PDR Basic. We usually suggest ordering the PDR PLUS which includes more review and analysis prior to the CONSULT.
    2. 1. The PDR Basic is designed for us to look at one page or a couple of pages of documents and provide guidance on the content of those pages and perhaps suggest some strategies or tactics that could be employed. 30 minutes of recorded CONSULT is included.
       2. The PDR PLUS is designed for us to look at recorded documents in the chain of title and some documents from either pending court action or recent notices and correspondence. Here our suggestions for strategies and tactics are more definite because we know more about your case. 30 minutes of recorded CONSULT is included.
       3. The PDR PREMIUM is designed to be a short-term abbreviated substitute for a thorough Case Analysis including all relevant documents including documents in chain of title, documents filed in court(s), notices, forensic reports, correspondence and other documents uploaded to our ftp server on Box.com. 45 minutes of recorded CONSULT is included.
    3. If time is of the essence and specific direction and guidance is requested then it is advisable to first order our TERA if you don’t already have a full title analysis with copies of the documentation.
    4. If you do have the title analysis with copies of the recorded documentation in your chain of title and you have pending court proceeding it is advisable to order the PDR PREMIUM.

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »