Declarations and Affidavits Barred by Hearsay Rule: “I am familiar with…”

we keep seeing the same thing. The case goes to a brand new company that had nothing to do with origination, servicing, processing, paying the creditors, or negotiating for insurance and credit default swaps proceeds. The new company doesn’t appear until long after the declaration of default, and the commencement of foreclosure proceedings. The an employee fo the company that never had anything to do with the loan gets one of its employees to sign an old favorite “I am familiar with…” and she goes on to state the loan in default, the establishment of foundation of the note and mortgage etc.

By definition she has no personal knowledge of the transaction or anything else that transpired before the execution of the affidavit and is therefore not a competent witness to testify as to any of those facts or even the documents. “I am familiar with” is insufficient as a matter of law. You can get that through Lexus-Nexus or anywhere else.

In no state of the union can the business records exception  be invoked based upon “I am familiar with”. She is not a competent witness, she therefore cannot lay any foundation for any of the documents, which therefore cannot be admitted into evidence. The elements for the business records exception are clear and have been litigated all the way up to the US Supreme Court. There is absolutely no doubt that this is hearsay and that the witness does not meet the requirements of a competent witness.

Objection should be filed prior to hearing. specific objection to that declaration. Ken McLeod may be able to help. Call our customer service number if you want a referral for his services. Private investigator. He can call her and get her on a recorded conversation saying that her duties don’t start until after long after the foreclosure proceedings have already been started. Before that she saw nothing, knows nothing, heard nothing and wrote nothing about this case.

27 Responses

  1. Enraged….you are who needs the lithium to stay in your perpetual stupor. I don’t have to look up the word insolvent…I will take that very reputable attorneys word for it. As far as locking me up goes…This isn’t Russia or China….and you better hope that never happens because If I get locked up in the hoosgow for saying what an attorney told me is true….then the U.S.A will have been completely communised….and no one is safe.

  2. Look up “insolvent” in the dictionary. And while you’re at it, don’t forget to take your lithium. We wouldn’t want to see you locked up now, would we?

  3. Anyone see the interview today at noon on CNBC with EX-FDIC chairwoman Sheila Baird…? Ms. Baird was awesome. She is promoting her new book about the mortgage crisis. Ms Baird said “bailouter in cheif” Timothy Geithner was more interested in protecting Citi bank from the American people than protecting the American people from Citi bank.. She said there is still way too much junk on the banks balance sheets. I think that junk is called….insolvent debt. Anyway ….the interview is well worth the watch…I am sure you can Google search it.

  4. That is a COMPLETE LIE Enraged….DEBT THAT IS INSOLVENT IS DEBT THAT CAN NEVER BE REPAID…….All of the debt Wall Street created is INSOLVENT BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED MASSIVE FRAUD BY OVERSELLING INVESTMENTS IN CREDIT THAT NEVER EXISTED AND THEREFORE CAN NEVER BE REPAID. THE FED DOESN’T LEND MONEY….THEY BORROW OUR MONEY AND ISSUE US CREDIT…. CREDIT IS NOT MONEY……IT IS NOT A MONETARY SYSTEM…IT IS A CREDIT SYSTEM…THEREFORE THE FED CANNOT BE BANKRUPT ….. THE FED AND THEIR QUADRILLIION IN FRAUDULENT SALES OF INVESTMENTS IN EMPTY INVESTMENTS ARE THEREFORE INSOLVENT…..
    FOR EXAMPLE…..
    An attorney told me….”Don’t sign or agree to anything with with anyone regarding the mortgage. Because the DEBT THE BANKS CREATED WITH YOUR SIGNATURE IS INSOLVENT AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND CAN NEVER BE REPAID. IF YOU SIGN OR AGREE TO ANYTHING REGARDING THIS MORTGAGE YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN, BEING SET UP TO FAIL AND YOU WILL FAIL AND YOU WILL LOSE YOUR HOME IN 3 MONTHS.”

    THERE YOU HAVE IT….RIGHT FROM AN ATTORNEY…THE TRUTH IS ….YOU CAN SAY THE FED IS INSOLVENT BUT IN REALITY THE FED’S MASSIVE DEBT IS INSOLVENT..AND CAN NEVER BE REPAID…

  5. “The mortgages are insolvent.”

    Nope. Mortgages are not insolvent. Mortgages cannot be insolvent. People are insolvent. Corporations are insolvent. Businesses are insolvent. Mortgages are not insolvent.

    English 101.

  6. The sick cabal who are hiding behind the scenes of this crime are control freaks who enjoy creating and watching human suffering. That is why we are all here. The harder they make you fight, the more you suffer mentally, spiritually and physically…. Going all the way back to 9/11 up until today this is what has been occurring…..mass human suffering. Obama and the heads of the Federal Reserve & the Treasury believe creating suffering for the American people by creating a national welfare state is a good thing… That is not only untrue but incredibly evil. Being on a fixed income that has been fraudulently induced by MASSIVE Govt Corp fraud creates a dictatorship. Being told by the Government where to work, what you should earn, where you should live, what you should eat, what you can afford, how you can treat illness is not success or progress. It is fraudulently induced suffering to gain complete control of the masses. To realize the evil behind this plan you must realize not only who the real players behind the scenes are but their belief system. They believe creating human suffering gives them power…..they feed off of human suffering …they believe that is their life blood so to speak…Read about it at this link…Warning…it is not pretty….
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret15.htm

  7. stupendous…Why not just say it…? The mortgages are insolvent.. That is what they are trying to cover up. The mortgages are dead. There is no legal or monetary way to resurrect them.

  8. Garfield and Weidner, Charney, Russell, etc., all have a knowledge of how the courts rule on “vapor money,” and related theories. See this footnote in a KY case (Stevenson v BoA, NO. 2010-CA-002215-MR) that expresses how KY courts view, and rule on, the argument.

    “These filings were based closely on the “vapor money” and “redemption movement” theories
    which have been roundly rejected by courts across the nation. The “vapor money” (or “no
    money lent”) theory posits that Congress has never given banks the authority to extend credit
    and, thus, banks act beyond their charters when making loans. Proponents claim banks create
    money “out of thin air,” through ledger entries and bookkeeping tricks, by “depositing” a
    borrower’s promissory note without the borrower’s permission, listing the note as an “asset” on
    the bank’s ledger entries, and then lending a borrower back his own “money.” Since banks do
    not have enough “real money in their vaults” to cover the sums lent, loans are not backed by
    actual money—the only real money is gold or silver; paper money is worthless since it is created
    by an illegitimate Federal Reserve—making them invalid ab initio and creating no obligation for
    repayment. According to the “redemption movement,” when the U.S. Government abandoned
    the gold standard it devised a scheme to enable it to borrow money. Adherents to this theory
    assert that the government first sets up fictitious accounts—in the initial amount of $630,000.00
    —for each person at birth, and then pledges the “straw man of its citizens” as collateral for the
    national debt. Through a series of obscure procedures derived from the Uniform Commercial
    Code, citizens can allegedly gain access to these “secret accounts” and write “sight drafts” to utilize those funds for their own purposes. Some believe the secret accounts are virtually
    bottomless, meaning those who truly understand and comply with the required filings must never
    actually pay for anything.”

  9. If I got deposed I would admit to nothing…

  10. Enraged. I don’t shoot my mouth off in court. I always answer the Judge respectfully and honestly. I am not stupid… I stay within my rights. I have a right to object and deny all of their claims because thus far they are all insufficient in law….

  11. To both Carie & zurenarrh I absolutely could not agree more!! Z, even more so, agreed about Neil & Matt, they are very good men, BUT, stop short of some things as well, that was my point here as well…..and as a group, we ALL must realize, understand this concept AND STAND OUR GROUND BASED UPON THIS ISSUE!!! It is the truth and correct, and imperative to learn and understand it, a few here might, but even ones that have been fighting for years still can’t get this into their heads, BUT THEY MUST, AND WE MUST GET THIS TO SUCCEED!!!

  12. Ivent,

    If you get deposed and start shooting your mouth off out of turn and out of school, you don’t have a prayer…

  13. I am still in the discovery process on both my home and business property. The consumer fraud is a countercomplaint on the commercial. I haven’t decided whether I want to go to hearing on the residential based on fraud, forgery or lack of standing. Or file a motion to dismiss on one of those. The commercial is much more criminal. I am not trying to be greedy … just teach them a lesson. They think we are stupid. That makes me furious.

  14. How is that working for you?

  15. Clear title and monetary restitution because the Plaintiff committed acts described under the protection of the consumer fraud and deceptive practices act..

  16. @ivent … what type of resolution are you seeking with them? Your Demands as to settle the matter. What is it you seek as the solution?

  17. RE my commercial mortgage foreclosure….they never established cause of action at the commencement of the foreclosure proceeding as required by the UCC..yet they have transferred the mortgage twice since then…the first time it was reconveyed back to the original plaintiff by this debt collector…now it is has been conveyed to someone else..!! None of this cures the fact they never attached the legal assignment at the commencement or creates a chain of title. They are trying to confuse and deceive to hide the true facts that they committed fraud, with my signature that fraud began at the ORIGINATION continues through the foreclosure… They are doing this in order to try and cover up the Origination fraud, and they are committing acts of Civil RICO to try and deceive me ….they are further desecrating my title and have clearly committed criminal acts prosecutable under Federal RICO.

  18. Would that include the theory known as the “DOCTRINE OF CONVENTIONAL SUBROGATION”…….?

  19. @Liz – I’m not an attorney, but did you file a counter-motion for summary judgment since the claimant only made raw and unsupported allegations? Imo, if the court didn’t find them raw and unsupported legal conclusions, they wouldn’t have set the matter for trial. If you didn’t file a counter-motion, unless the court wanted to impose something sua sponte, it may have had no choice but to
    make orders for discovery plan and trial. Procedure is critical.
    But, even if you had or the court had, it would likely have been without prejudice, so the bankster may have been free to buff up its act, that’s being generous and overlooking bs and maybe fraud, and come right back at you with a beefed up complaint. Info which bears on or could bear on the issues(s) is discoverable by either party. If you are being asked for info which does not and could not bear on the issues, you can file an obj to those requests or a motion to strike the requests and set it for hearing on regular calendar or try for expedited hearing. I don’t think their lack of standing precludes certain RELEVANT discovery, but I don’t know. Course if they are suffering from lack of prudential or constitutional standing, they have no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the court – the court has none. If you are the defendant of record, but they came after you first, imo despite the court posture (you as plaintiff), they are the plaintiff for purposes of invoking the court’s jurisdiction, just as they invoked some alleged right to come after you out of court. I would be on the lookout for ‘changes’ which actually constitute a new claim, remembering that attachments to complaints rule over allegations made in complaints. Ask a lawyer about these issues.

  20. Incognito123,
    You are exactly right. These promissory notes we all signed were in truth, US lending money TO THE BANKS. Garfield and Weidner are great men and great resources, but they both always stop short of the horrible truth, which is that the U.S. dollar is a fiction. The banks don’t have money to lend–UNTIL you sign a promissory note. They then monetize that promissory note. Loans are deposits, they say. That’s like saying you can eat an apple by biting into an orange. Only to a bank are loans also deposits–that’s impossible for you and me. That’s impossible even for the government.

    And the thing is, the fact that our fiat money is absolutely fictional and worthless is not even a secret. The Federal Reserve admits to it openly (“Modern Money Mechanics”). The Patman report details how this works. Those publications don’t use those words–“fictional” and “worthless”–but they detail how “money” is created by the act of “lending.” Even a child knows that you can’t create something by lending it. To lend something, you have to have it first–you can’t create the something by lending it.

    Yet the Federal Reserve tells us that “banks actually create money when they lend it” (from Dallas Fed website). It’s very interesting that they put it this way, saying that banks create the money by lending it. There are of course TWO sides to this transaction–the “borrower” and the “lender.” This Fed publication could have just as easily described this transaction thusly, and it would have made as much sense: “People actually create money when they borrow it.” But that’s not what they want us to believe, that people create the money, even though that’s actually the truth. It’s quite diabolical.

    Yet this is the insane system we are allowing to impoverish us, to steal from us, to divest of us our property and literally make us homeless. We don’t owe the money. We don’t owe the money. In fact, the money is owed to us–we are the ones that literally give the money its value. And I think the only way we are going to permanently fix any of this financial terrorism is to accept the fact that the banks need us, not the other way around, and we and they need to start acting accordingly.

  21. Exactly, incognito…just like the total deception of 9/11…
    “The bigger the lie, the more people are inclined to believe it…”
    Sad but true.

  22. True here, but even more basic and important, where is the proof you were lent anything in the first place? YOU WERE NOT, AND IT DOES NOT EXIST, even though so many believe they were lent money. There are also NO ORIGINALS as they do not exist either. The deception is so hard for most to see through, yet imperative that they start to realize and understand this basic important fact.

  23. If the loans did not make it into the trust, then the servicers dont own squat, no loan in trust no tranche no ownership.

  24. This is a tried and true winner ,, I had a junk debt buyer suit last month dismissed on these grounds… affiant was incompetant and the JDB’s lawyer was stupid enough to recite “facts” not supported by the docs and make himself a(n) (incompetant) witness ,,, one that REALLY didn’t want to be cross examined… he didn’t fight the objection,, just let the case drop.

    Stick to the basics and win people ,, deny deny deny , make them PROVE their case and become real familiar with rules of evidence and procedure… even if you have a “good” lawyer ,, 99% of them aren’t agressive enough on your behalf.

  25. anyone,
    what happened to the deposition of erica johnsen seck, the women was assigning after indymac went into bk, or maybe it was just one of her rubber stamps. i swear if i get chance ill depose her.

  26. NEIL SAID:
    “The case goes to a brand new company that had nothing to do with origination, servicing, processing, paying the creditors, or negotiating for insurance and credit default swaps proceeds. The new company doesn’t appear until long after the declaration of default, and the commencement of foreclosure proceedings.”

    YES—BECAUSE THEY CONTINUE WITH THE COVER UP HOWEVER THEY CAN OF THE TRUTH—WHICH IS:

    CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) were the investments that most “mortgage” security investors were investing in. They are largely synthetic because they were not derived directly from the asset itself — they were derived from the securities that were derived from the loan “assets.” The banks that owned the REMICs (the banks did own them), would package different tranches from multiple REMICs into CDOs — and that is what the pension funds, insurance companies, etc. would invest in.

    A REMIC is typically structured with about say– 15 tranches. Since these were NOT “mortgage loans” by which securities could be derived for Triple A rating, these REMICs had to structure the trusts to provide credit enhancement that the rating agencies would use to “upgrade” the rating quality

    Here is how the process went:
    1) the subprime loans were sold to one of the major banks (this is NOT reflected in any assignments, and only some REMICs disclose this). (will explain why not reflected in assignments in a later here). 2) the bank’s subsidiary Depositor deposits the loans in an off-balance sheet trust (some Depositors were not subsidiaries of big banks — but they had corridor agreements to sell to the banks — which we also do not see by REMIC disclosoure — (Corridor agreements to sell to the banks, but the Depositor name would remain on the trust )
    3) the REMICs are structured into certificates, which are all sold to the security underwriter (except the bottom tranche which the servicer would usually own).
    4) the security underwriters were subsidiaries of the big banks.
    5) the top tranches of the REMICs were rated the highest because the lower tranches provided support to the upper tranches — that is, given a default, losses would accrue to the lower tranches first.
    6) the big banks sold the top tranches to Fannie/Freddie and kept them for themselves (Louis Ranieri — grandfather of the subprime trust has explained this).
    7) Ranieri has stated that the lower tranches (credit enhancement) were sold first — to hedge funds, and other distressed debt investors, while the banks retained the upper tranches
    8) some of the tranches were sold to other big banks.

    9) Then the banks would take different tranches from different REMICs trusts, and package them into CDOs — to be sold to security investors. And, yes, the guy who sold the software for these CDOS is right — one had to be an idiot to invest in these CDOs, because the ratings on the REMIC trusts from which the CDOs were derived, were manipulated. Anyone who read the prospectus for the REMICs would know that the CDOs were derived from risky “loans”, and that they were not legitimate. From CDOs, CDS (credit default swaps) were derived — which are contracts not even “synthetic securities.” Sometime CDOs were repackaged into Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs).

    10) The CDO “security” investors are, the pension funds, insurance co., etc, that Neil refers to when he talks about “those who put up the money.” These security investors, however, did not put up one dime to the borrowers, they were just the “synthetic” SECURITY INVESTORS that bought the idea that the derived CDOs, derived from the REMIC certificates, derived from the bogus loans, were actually triple A rated (this deriving is what is called “leverage”). These security investors do NOT fund mortgages, they do NOT give borrowers money, and they are NEVER the creditor. The creditor “investor” is the bank that originally purchased the subprime mortgage — that was never a “mortgage” to begin with.

    11) the CDS (default swaps) remove collection rights from the cash pass-through structure. Once removed from the above — who knows what the original bank does with your loan. Very often, collection rights are sold to the hedge funds who provided credit enhancement by purchasing the lower tranches of the REMIC trust. The “servicer” who owed the bottom tranche, continue to “service” for unidentified CDS holders — who have nothing to do with the REMIC trustee (as CDS are contracts not securities). So creditor is never identified.

    12) Back to #1 — why the assignment to the purchasing bank is never apparent — because in real securitization, the asset/liability balance sheet receivables are removed from the balance sheet to an off-balance sheet conduit (such as a REMIC). BUT, THE SUBPRIME WAS NOT REAL MORTGAGES, THEY WERE GSE CHARGE OFFS, WITH ONLY COLLECTION RIGHTS SURVIVING. Collection rights are not reported as “receivables” on an asset balance sheet. Any pass-through of cash is considered income, not collection of receivables (you can not have receivables when the loan was previously charged-off). Thus, the subprime REMICs were never “true sales” of anything. They were not legitimate balance sheet transfers.

    13) Many of the original tranches to the bogus REMICs have been paid off. At the very least, by the TILA amendment, the remaining certificate holders to the REMICs could be considered your creditor (remember there are only about 15 tranches to begin with). Creditor is NOT the derivative security investors. According to the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment, when there are multiple creditors, the creditor who holds the largest percentage interest in the loan, must identify itself to the borrower. Thus, the tranche holder with the largest position in your loan — should be identified. This is not happening — foreclosures continue under the bogus name of the trustee to the trust. Again, and again, security investors, trusts, trustees, and servicers are not the creditor. And, Neil is on bad track when he starts saying that “security investors” funded the loan. This is in gross error, and has caused more harm than good.

    Security investors were chasing high yields — they expected the subprime borrowers to fund their pensions. I find outrage in this. Interest rates on these loans could go as high as what one might consider “usury.” And, the further outrage is that the properties that funded the bogus subprime were inflated to make these bogus loans higher and higher — which would generate more and higher cash flows. The fact the government still has done nothing to help these victims is the final OUTRAGE…”

  27. Off topic but would like someone’s opinion on how you would go about this situation faced with:

    Plaintiff Bank, was denied summary final judgment at hearing. Judge set trial date for few months later. Plaintiff seeks information and documents, which Defendant believes they are not entitled to, standing has not been proven. Plaintiff filed assignment of mortgage and Defendants brought proof before the court that it is fabricated and false, (to establish it standing) Plaintiff is basing the foreclosure on claiming the trustee is holding and owning the alleged Original note, (which allegedly was securitized “GSAMP”, which was an issue at SFJ hearing, of its authenticity, the indorser, the indorser’s authority, etc., due to the alleged lender being shut down and under bankruptcy years before the foreclosure suit filed. The alleged note is objected to in total.

    To date they have not proven a thing. No proof of purchase, transfer, etc., why is this court allowing such and what can I file to stop them from getting any of my work product, private information, etc., How can I get the court to order them to prove they have the right to continue and/or to my information. This is just so bias.

    Motion for Protection???

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: