Tackling the Business Records of the Servicers


WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.


One of the very contentious issues in foreclosure litigation is the question of hearsay and the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Business records are hearsay, there is no doubt about that. But they are usually allowed into evidence under the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule. The issue of business records heads right into the issue of moral hazard.
There are actually three entities present where the foreclosing  party would have you believe that there is only one party: (1) the true creditor, if there is one meeting the legal definition, (2) the holder of the note (usually the trust) and (3) the subservicer and its predecessors (actually a group of parties). The issue I present is whether the so-called records of the servicer can be attributed to the alleged holder and whether the alleged holder is actually representing a creditor.
The question is whether records showing transactions between the alleged borrower and the alleged servicer are sufficient. The question arises because the party who is asserted to the foreclosing party has a contractual relationship with the investors in the trust to make payments. These payments should be made by the Trust to the Investors derived from payments to the Trust from the servicer. The payments to the Investors are not conditioned upon payments to the Trust. Thus you have the following contractual relationships:
  1. REMIC Trust and Beneficiaries (investors)
  2. Master Servicer and Trust
  3. Master Servicer and subservicers
  4. “Borrowers” and payee on the note, and its legal successors — if there was consummation of the original loan. If not then between homeowners and investors whose money was used to fund the appearance of a loan transaction

The investors might be, as a group, called creditors — but the actual identification of those “creditors” might be incapable of determination because of the commingling of funds of investors from a multitude of Trusts and the failure to provide a clear money trail that shows the presence of one or more creditors in a specified “loan” transaction. We already know that the Trusts are never asserted to own the debt. They are alleged to be holders and not holders in due course. The trusts are “place-holders”. One thing appears certain — nobody is suggesting that the borrowers and the investors have any contractual relationship. I would suggest the homeowners and investors are the only parties who have a real relationship and that all others asserted by the banks are an illusion. This relationship between the investors and the “borrowers” is not in contract, but rather in equity.

There is a big difference between a certified fraud examiner and a CPA. The CPA would carry far more weight in my opinion. That is because the CPA would be testifying, using the rules on auditing of banks, and other “lenders”, about the absence of evidence upon which a presumption would arise that the loan in question was on the books of any entity as an asset. This would lend considerable support to discovery demands. Since we are saying that the chain of money and the chain of paper went off in two entirely different directions, who better to say that than a CPA with no stake in the outcome?

Then the forensic analyst comes and says that there are defects, forgeries etc — an opinion upon which the CPA could rely, in saying that auditing rules, in the face of such conclusions require examinations of the actual transactions, including proof of payment. Without that, the CPA would testify, the “business records” may not be business records at all (but rather a device to create the appearance of business records, and therefore overcome the hearsay objection). The dichotomy being that the subservicer is presenting “business records” of its own and prior companies but not the business records of the foreclosing party (i.e., usually the Trust). The presence of an actual default in the accounts of the investors is debatable at best.

If you talk to a CPA with an open mind, even if he/she doesn’t want to become an expert witness, they can explain it. The question is how do we know whether this loan is an asset of any person? And how can we know who is authorized to represent the owner of the asset without knowing the owner?

The CPA can also clear up another shroud. Can the records of a servicer (assuming it was authorized) actually be the entire records of the real creditor, who is another party?

The biggest obstacle to this is the mindset of borrowers and their attorneys. They can’t quite wrap their minds around the idea that there was no consummation, there was no loan (at least with the party who appears on the note). But the biggest hurdle in understanding all this is the totally unique concept that the homeowner received money and that from the start there was no party answering to the description of a creditor — unless we accept the premise that we don’t need to know that.

So the evidence question is how can we ever be sure that the records of a subservicer are representative of realities at the level of the Master Servicer, the higher level of the alleged Trust, or the highest level of the investors/ beneficiaries? Without business records of the Trust or the trust beneficiaries we only have  partial picture from a subservicer who generally has no direct knowledge or records about transactions with either the investors or the homeowners.

24 Responses

  1. Neil, please correct this paragraph (at the bottom of above article) so it is readable and makes sense.

    “Neil Garfield | February 18, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Tags: (2) the “holder” (Trust) who is suppoed to ownw the loan but doesn’tThere are the holder who seeks foreclosure is whether n the alelged borrower and the alleged servicer are sufficientervicerbeiyt eh , business records, CPA, ecordsYou actually have three entities involed: (1) the real “creditor” that might not exist at all under legal definitions, foreclosure defense, forensic analyst, hearsay, money chain, owers “payee and its sucessors — if there was consumamtion n of the original loanl loanoan. legalIs appears certainnobody is suggesting that the investors and the borrowersthat that the at they are t, paper chain, Servicer and subservicerservicer, there can be little question as to then betwappearnce ppear.holderscontractual arearerealaultisi”|

    Thank you in advance.


  2. TheCompanyOfCreators

    Will you please contact me at 1LawOfLiberty@gmail.com?

    We did claim Washington and USA constitutional violations and criminal activity, though not with exact specifity, in our 9/6/2013 filed Complaint for Emergency Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, and in our 9/6/2013 filed Complaint For Quiet Title (defs in both being JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., FNMA, QLSCW (alleged trustee), and individual officers of each. On these bases, we moved for EmIjn & DeclRelf, and complained for QT.

    Our case was MSJ dismissed with prejudice, without opportunity for discovery and demanded jury trial. Any reasonable reading of our court documents will prove that there is AT LEAST ONE (but actually multiple) material fact in dispute.

    However, every attempt to foreclose has been thwarted and failed. We are still in the home. Studying, praying to know how to do Rescission Enforcement ourselves. (Jill Smith, atty in Washington, refused, without giving reason, and was found by another atty to not have filed a RE in 9th Cir. Western Washington or elsewhere. If that info is wrong, I apologize and ask Jill to give here a case ref for ER that SHE wrote and filed).

    6/4/2015 we sent rescission notices to the above defs, and recorded in the county on 10/30/2015. Because of alleged Trustee continuing activity to attempt foreclosure, we rescinded on 12/30/15 the criminally fraudulent Appoint of Succesor Trustee, making reference to the 6/4/2015 Notice of Rescission .

    Our notice of rescission is continually arrogantly ignored and degraded by Chase saying they disagree with the rescission and “do not grant” it.

    On 12/29/2015, we received alleged “Notice of Assignment, Sale or Transfer of Ownership of Mortgage Loan (15 USC sec 1641(g))” stating
    MTGLQ is “the new Covered Person” (which we found to be a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs) and “The current servicer of your loan is Chase (your ‘Mortgage Loan Servicer’)”.

    MTGLQ’s Notice DOES NOT ON ITS FACE comply with 15 USC sec 1641(g)–a FDCPA violation. I’m drafting an inquiry to MTGLQ.

    On 2/10/2016, we received a “Mortgage Statement” from Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing.

    On 2/20/2016, we received a demand “…for insurance information…” from Shellpoint. (I REFUSE to buy insurance for a beneficiary OTHER than our family! Let them buy and pay for it, like Chase has, who also has paid the property tax, since 10/2011.)

    On 2/16/2016, we received a Shellpoint letter stating that “…effective 2/1/2016, the servicing of your loans has been transferred from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing…” I am drafting a QWR to Shellpoint.

    Neil (Garfield) has all the above and much more as attachments for our “Application” to inquiry for pro se assistance since mid-Feb, but has not even given a courtesy response, though I have sent several follow-up requests by phone, email, and this blog. I am NOT PAYING him $600 or to another atty, legal writer, or auditor (which we don’t need) to worsen our situation, and just take our money without SUBSTANTIAL HANDS-ON HELP BY CONTRACT. Would anyone reading this blog?

    This is the quick overview. The rest is in our court documents (not-so-perfect), county records, and communications from these entities.

    I am seeking camaraderie, brainstorming, and brain-picking for the steps before me: Rescission Enforcement, Void Judgment, Respa suits.

    You can also call me at 509-526-0888.

    If you do not want to call or email me, “…Company…”, please make a courtesy statement to this effect on this blog.

    Anyone else able and willing to help?

    Sincerely endeavoring to jail the criminals, including Judge Lohrmann, if at all possible, and get a VERY LARGE award or settlement from them,


  3. Is anyone else aware of this, Carrington mortgage ( Formerly New Century) makes sense now why sec was looking in to them. No wonder why Carrington has there same address.

  4. Does anyone know how I can find out what Wells Fargo location a particular employee works out of. They signed Foreclosure documents as Vice President of Loan Documentation, but the document was notarized in South Carolina. The name is Asahia Brooks. Any help would be appreciated. James Smith, 443-677-2799, jsmith5915@msn.com.

  5. the company,

    You totally get it.

  6. Finally someone is getting it.. with a few corrections… you state:

    “The investors might be, as a group, called creditors — but the actual identification of those “creditors” might be incapable of determination because of the commingling of funds of investors from a multitude of Trusts and the failure to provide a clear money trail that shows the presence of one or more creditors in a specified “loan” transaction. We already know that the Trusts are never asserted to own the debt. They are alleged to be holders and not holders in due course. The trusts are “place-holders”. One thing appears certain — nobody is suggesting that the borrowers and the investors have any contractual relationship. I would suggest the homeowners and investors are the only parties who have a real relationship and that all others asserted by the banks are an illusion. This relationship between the investors and the “borrowers” is not in contract, but rather in equity.”

    Corrections: The investors are just that “investors” and as we know investors do not “loan” or “front” money, they “invest” in some thing of substance and value (or at least are lead to believe they are) in this case the Deed of Trust which is the underlying asset unlawfully put into a new trust. (can’t be done else the original trust dissolves and the property goes back to the grantor. The DOT Whether the courts like it or not is a “trust” as it has all the elements of one and one only need to go back to Dartmouth College to see how the law is applied there. The only problem with this trust is that it never was actually “consummated” or created (need a proper term for it.. implemented in law?) Because the mission statement or purpose for which it was created never took place “debt evidenced by the Note” which it secures (not the Note but the “debt evidenced by the Note”. So since there never was any “debt evidenced by the Note” the necessity or purpose for which it was created never took place so the DOT in actuality is “VOID” as a matter of law.. kinda like a bill that never gets passed or one that never gets an enacting clause to give it power to be enforced.
    But for now, even “IF” the DOT was valid, there is no way that the RES can be taken out of it except for the specific process and by the only party under those certain conditions specified by the Trust (which by the way is the law, the supreme law and the primary law, no statute or code or court can breach it!!!!! WTFU) anything else that is done is “ultra vires” of it and “unlawful” -Criminal, fraud etc. …
    Thus these alleged REMIC’s or any thing which purports to use the RES (the valuable “thing” put into the trust (could be jewelry, stock etc)) in any manner outside of the DOT is fraud. Period! (unless the trust such as a will might specify that the trustee can remove some or all of the RES to invest in some manner etc or a living trust for investment purposes etc.. this is NOT the case here! It is specific and special and for only one purpose and irrevocable so far as its intent)
    So there is not nor can there be any “relationship” between the Grantor and the alleged investor without actual negotiations and contract which means the Grantor would not be able ot use the RES in two manners for different purposes without it being clearly the intent and spelled out and provisions made and some mutual benefit, consideration etc…for the Grantor/Homeowner (remember you are the homeowner the day you signed and the seller signed the agreement. Else how could you put something you do not own into a trust as the RES??? No one disputes this do they because if they do then the DOT is VOID and they could not fraudclose…
    Moving on… The “Investor” also can not have any “interest” in the Property (this “property” of yours includes the home, the Note and the Dot along with all other documents which have any mark of yours on it which they or anyone can trade, sell or use. Just as your labor is your property.) Because the “Investor” did not invest in any of your “property” but bought a share of a bond which was created by Sherman and Leamans based on the alleged value of the REMIC (by the way when one looks into the box which allegedly holds the Notes and DOT one will find it is empty.. nadda, zip, zero, nutin there honey. (update: The investors only invested in a counterfeit instrument.. the bond which they bought a share of because the bond value was fraudulently based upon the alleged untouchable value of the property within the DOT.)
    Only when one presses for some copy of what is allegedly in it will they get an electronic copy of the instruments from the counterfeiting “Mortgage Electronic Records Scam” which holds “electronic plates” of all the mortgages and Notes for customers to get counterfeit prints from for various uses of uttering and passing for profit, or a copy from the Land record with a stamp added to it and copied again to look like a true copy, or they do a separate allonge which is fabricated and not “permanently attached to the instrument as the alleged copy illustrates by looking closely there are no staples no glue, no noting etc etc. Fraud on its face…
    This was discovered when the Investors tried to sue for damages and discovered that they had only a share of a bond which was created by fraudsters allegedly based upon the alleged value that was allegedly in one of these boxes (Trust REMICS).. thus the investors barked up the wrong tree too. They should make claims based on fraud, misrepresentation, fabrication etc. Hell even the snake oil salesman provides a bottle and something in it. The banksters true to form provide noting, no thing and steal all the value, substance and property of the people in the same way you exchange your labor for a worthless piece of paper and ironically those pieces of paper are not taxable either but you pay with your labor there too… ha ha dumb asses….
    Oh yea, the term “Creditors” is invariably misused and improperly used. The people are the Creditors and always have been and always will be. They are entitled to everything on and in this earth as it was given to them and all other things are creations of man which are subject to man. Further “investors” are not “Creditors” either as they are looking for a return on their investment. Unless they are investing in something that does not exist but providing the substance needed to create the thing, then they are “creditors” but technically not so because they are actually putting up something not credit. The people are the “creditors” of the United States and as such “all debts of the people are obligations of the United States” Because the United States is using the “good faith and credit of the people”.

    “Then the forensic analyst comes and says that there are defects, forgeries etc — an opinion upon which the CPA could rely, in saying that auditing rules, in the face of such conclusions require examinations of the actual transactions, including proof of payment. Without that, the CPA would testify, the “business records” may not be business records at all (but rather a device to create the appearance of business records, and therefore overcome the hearsay objection). ”

    Now you’re getting somewhere! The actual accounting of “the accounts” All of them, is evidence to the charge of fraud, embezzlement, deception etc, to the act of theft of which the fraud closure is merely further evidence of more fraud by simulated legal process, color of law action or simply out right simple passing and uttering of counterfeit instruments. Thus one does not want to “defend” or bring an action to “stop the fraudclosure” but bring charges of criminal activities which have caused one and continues to cause and will cause (injunction) damages and irrevocable damages if allowed to continue. Theft of property by deception, fraud, etc. then the uttering and passing of those papers (your property) to further deceive others and for profit, then more fraud and deception, uttering and passing through the courts in judicial states and outright theft in non-judicial, by counterfeit and contrived documents.
    These are the charges we need to bring to bear. Thus we control the subject matter jurisdiction and Discovery of these “causes” not the ones they want to bring and bamboozle and use the leverage of the prejudice of the judges that you are a bad bad defaulter responsible for the bad bad economy… No sir I bring charges of counterfeiting and I have a right to discover the evidence which is uniquely in the possession of the accused to which my negative averment requires them to provide documentation to the contrary or else it is admitted thereto, summary judgment or at least partial summary judgment on these ten to twenty issues, each of which are sufficient to “cause” the claim to be justified and defeat any claim to be entitled to a fraudclosure or any claim by any of them in any action. Period.
    Offense not Defense!! Box them in and remember your greatest advisory is the judge and his prejudice against you! so Box his ass in as well so that when he fails to provide due process you have the evidence needed for a 42 USC 1983 and invariably the judges bonds are used to pay you off and guess what happens to the judge?
    Remember too that the Judges/Courts can ONLY enforce that which is within the contract which is being allegedly enforced. Otherwise they are accomplices to the crime and are equally liable and so is the corporate court which employs them… oops did I let that spill? Yes, the courts are Corporation like any other and have a corporate charter, so you need to be sure to make contract before you do a damn thing with it, and then when they breach that contract you can sue the corporation court like any other…… In other words you can not hold them accountable if you have failed to establish the terms of the contract before they take action. The court is merely making an offer to “settle the matter” as it sees fit because someone brought it to them as a collection agency to force you to do something. If you do not counteroffer and/ or lay down the parameters by which they shall act then they will do what they were paid to do … find a way to help the thief get you to believe what they are doing is lawful so you will concede/agree/contract…
    Yup been busy discovering the various layers of the fraud… right in front of our faces, “hidden in plane site”. So I suggest that you make the Court and the Judge a party to the “transaction” of litigation. I have yet to see a judge write back and say “this court is not going to abide by the laws of this state and act in accordance with the Constitution and the United States Constitution, nor are we going to provide equal protections of the law to you. etc… but if you do not make it a part of your response, reply, answer, motions then .. well they as a corporation don’t believe they have an obligation and you can not prove that they do and it is difficult to sue them without it in writing … you can sue the State for negligence in allowing a corporation to do certain things outside of its corporate charter and the laws of the state…. and show that it is the “policy” of the State to do so and by doing so deprived you of your rights among which is the right to contract and own property allodial in nature and to allow various criminal acts to go unchecked which is a direct cause of the injuries and depravation of “rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

    ” The biggest obstacle to this is the mindset of borrowers and their attorneys. They can’t quite wrap their minds around the idea that there was no consummation, there was no loan (at least with the party who appears on the note). But the biggest hurdle in understanding all this is the totally unique concept that the homeowner received money and that from the start there was no party answering to the description of a creditor ”


    Blessings to all who come in kindness. Kindness the only true currency of the universe.

  7. The PPM ….
    Said document that purports the beneficial interest held is binding amongst the successors parties in the formation of certain Limited Partnerships formed as Limited Liability Corporation or “LLC”.

    The parties under the PPM form amoungest themselves the understanding and the contents of the parties right to claims for
    Yee Title for the Estate .

  8. @michaelkeane… please remember that almost 50 of all MBS Trusts are not registered with the SEC because they are sold pursuant to a private placement memorandum. These particular securitizations are common and can include entire tranches of PLMBS that have been carved out specifically for that purpose.

    Although, ultimately the collateral package is never transferred to the Trustee of these entities either, they do exist and are exempt from registration…

  9. @djabelanger,

    You are correct… (and, no disrespect) kinda’.

    The “loans” are claimed as entered into an “SPV”, of “MBS”, except the Trusts are PHONY.

    Neither of my “Loans”are found on the SEC EDGAR Website…

    Some guy…. Lemme see… Oh, Yeah, David Belanger has already shown me the SEC has no knowledge of the “Trust” that claims my “loan”…

    Oh, and the same guy… David Belanger.. has also shown me the “PSAs” to the “Trusts” that aren’t on the SEC website.

    Those “PSAs” claim the states those “PHONY TRUSTS” are entered into, as “Registered”, with those states, never, in fact, ever “Registered”.

    They are a legal, “Non-Entity”; a “Fiction”.

    What’s a girl to do? Well… a large-boned girl, like me, needs answers. “Trust”, is a hard thing to come by.

    Particularly, when the “Trust”, in question, is no such thing; the criminals are harvesting “Black Acre” Titles to property that doesn’t belong to them and then placing those “titles” into a “Bucket Trust”.

    Black Acre: “refer to situations where there exists some contention or ambiguity surrounding the rightful owner or respective rights of the parties.”

    Taken from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackacre

    The “Black Acre” is a legal, Mythical Beast and attorneys consider it a kind of “Holy Grail”, particularly if they should be so lucky as to find themselves in command of the type of dispute where they become recipient to the ownership.

    A “Bucket Shop” is illegal… Everywhere. It isn’t legal, anywhere.

    It comes from taking the dregs of the whiskey barrel and harvesting it from the bottom of the keg after the tavern owner has placed it for return to the distillery.


    Anybody else see a trend developing here? People taking things under false title and seeling the proceeds (your home, for example) as “Holders”; not, “Holders In Due Course”.

    Anyway, in a “True” “REMIC Trust”, the banks have 90 days to enter the “loan” they just wrote, on your house, into a lawful, “tax-deferred”, conduit.

    This is the nature of the “Secondary”, or “Securitization Market”. The banks are given 90 days to complete the paperwork or the “loan”, according to “PSAs” becomes “Void”.


    Well, let me tell you.

    In the 90s, criminal bankers like Neil Bush, were opening “Savings and Loans”, turning their pals onto “loans” and then bankrupting the bank they were in charge of .


    Once criminals, like Neil Bush, gave money to their friends, they defrauded the investors to the bank and their friends essentially got “free money”… of course, the Taxpayers, thorugh the FDIC had to pick up the tab… for criminal bankers, like Neil Bush… and their friends.

    In order to defeat predatory behaviors designed to harm investors, “REMIC Trusts” were the solution.

    The point was to provide a system where tax deferments (“Pass-Through Cetificates”) kept everything in the open,,, as a failure to conform would “void” the mortgage.

    We have all seen the result of the effect a failure of regulatory oversight has played.

    In the meantime, the banks are using drug money and terrorist money and pension plan money to hijack the ownership of American Mortgages.

    And, the banks are well-aware. So are their lawyers.

    Here’s Hillary Clinton, a degenerate criminal of the first order:


    Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, disrupted a federal, criminal, investigation, in order to conceal the criminal bankers at UBS.

    Nowadys, those criminal bankers are hosting her campaign funding:


    Of course the banks are desparate to conceal their criminal behavior, because they are, presently, insolvent.

    The $ 600 Trillion Derivatives Market – Newsweek

    Derivatives: The $ 600 Trillion Time Bomb That’s…

    The $ 600 Trillion Time Bomb Set to Explode -…

    Four US banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S….

    Next bubble: $600 trillion? – WND

    Just How Big Is 600 Trillion? – WSJ

    Ticking Time Bomb: $ 600 Trillion in Derivatives…

    ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM: $ 600 Trillion of…

    Derivatives – The $ 600 Trillion Time Bomb Set to…

    There are about five hundred more articles in a similar vein, but, I think you get the message.

    So. Given the facts, how can any person, in debt to the international fraudulent SCAM that is “Central Banking”: “IMF”, “Federal Reserve”, ‘World Bank”, even consider they owe a debt to these criminal filth, in the first place?

    They are Insolvent.

    But? How can there be this much money, owed as “Federal Reserve Notes” to this system?

    It is simple, the bankers planned it this way. They are intentionally defunding the US Dollar so they can cultivate the “Communist Chinese Yuan”.

    The Capitalist Bankers, read: “Criminals”, are already hosting the “Communist Chinese Yuan”, as intended currency, as “vehicle of choice”, with, “store of value” to penetrate Chinese and Indian Markets, while using Australia as the base of operations.


    … From the article above: “Only 11 percent of respondents have said that they do not expect the yuan to become a major reserve currency,”.

    Those same 11%, of some 200 “senior”… “institutional investers”also explained they had reservations regarding, “the yuan as a store of value”. That leaves some 89% to agree the Yuan is already poised as major player.

    Also, from the article, above: “… the consensus is that one day it will be a yuan world, according to the survey.”.

    Also, (Google: “TPP”).

    The Criminal Bankers are planning to move into the Pacific Rim Countries and use Australia as a the new, “Central Banking- base of operations”.

    This is why the US Stock Market has been used to artificially depress the price of gold and the Chinese now own the Chicago Stock Exchange.


    So the establishment, career criminals, the Bushes and Clintons, vilfy Senator Sanders as a “Socialist”, while pandering to the Communist Chinese… makes perfect sense.

    In the meantime, if you are a criminal banker, could you possibly think of a better way to intentionally debase the US Fed Note than to render it hyper-inflationary through Mortgage foreclosure SCAMS, predicated upon fraud and denial of civil rights, in the absence of the “Rule Of Law”?

    Didn’t think so.

    Oh and robbing title to property you don’t own, also has the added bonus of reducing those that are inclined to understanding and fighting, this mess, to pauper status.

    The banks are using “Naked Short Sales” of “loans” they don’t own: “Black Acres”, in “Bucket Trusts”, within a closed system, the “MERS” to capitalize on “REMIC”, “INVESTMENT” “CONDUITS”…
    Except. Those phony “Real Estate Mortgage… “INVESTMENT” … “CONDUITS” are now:

    “Real Estate Mortgae… “Insurance” … “Conduits”.

    The “Insurance” is : “Credit Default Swaps”, “Collateralized debt Obligations” and “Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations”.

    Just as they took your signature on a “Mortgage Loan” and through “Conversion Fraud”, turned you into a tenant to a “Deed of Trust” and now claim the ability to “Re-Lease” the underlying asset as a “Black Acre’, they have stolen…

    They are also, through semantics, using the stolen title to your home as an opportunity to capitalize on “Notional Derivatives” and the shortfall to the system, internationally, should these criminal frauds not come to fruition is 1200 Trillion Dollars.

    Its not an Investment Conduit. The “Trust” is a legal fiction.

    It is, instead, a fraud, to capitalize on a closed system predicated upon placing “bets” on something they never owned in the first place.


    Plant more acorns, we ar gonna need more trees.

  10. The Big News today: Glaski Wins!

  11. The trustee of a deed of trust is not a true trustee with fiduciary obligations, but acts merely as an agent for the borrower-trustor and lender-beneficiary.

    Conduit loan servicing: Who’s who and what’s what? The thing most borrowers fail to realize AND MOST COURTS, EVEN THIS SUPREME COURT IN CAL. about conduit loans is that once a loan has been securitized, they are not working with a “lender” anymore. The loans are pooled into a securitization called a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC). The REMIC is a trust and it has no lenders, only fiduciaries of the “certificate holders.” Once the loans have been pooled and securitized, the players are as follows:

  12. Like the Massachusetts borrowers considered in Culhane, whose mortgages
    contained a power of sale allowing for nonjudicial foreclosure, California
    borrowers whose loans are secured by a deed of trust with a power of sale may
    suffer foreclosure without judicial process and thus

    ―would be deprived of a means
    to assert [their] legal protections‖ if not permitted to challenge the foreclosing
    entity‘s authority through an action for wrongful foreclosure. (Culhane, supra,
    708 F.3d at p. 290.) A borrower therefore ―has standing to challenge the
    assignment of a mortgage on her home to the extent that such a challenge is
    necessary to contest a foreclosing entity‘s status qua mortgagee‖ (id. at p. 291)—
    that is, as the current holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust.

    (Accord, Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc. (1st Cir. 2014) 744 F.3d 1, 9 [―A
    homeowner in Massachusetts—even when not a party to or third party beneficiary
    of a mortgage assignment—has standing to challenge that assignment as void
    because success on the merits would prove the purported assignee is not, in fact,
    the mortgagee and therefore lacks any right to foreclose on the mortgage.‖].)11

  13. I still see the ‘servicer’ as an agent who can be attacked in CA with the statute of frauds – documents relating to title, such as assignments, must be in writing, including communications between ‘beneficiary’ and their ‘servicer’. At best they are a distraction whose only legal contribution would be the PSA and servicer agreement with a schedule of loans it affects.

    Anything vital comes from the ‘beneficiary’ in terms of title, including purchase, sale, assignment, bailment, instructions to agents regarding specific loans that impact the statute of frauds. THOSE are the documents your discovery should focus upon, at least in California

  14. I asked under fdic under FOIA, about the disposition of the asset and remic status amongst other things the answer was all the info is with the servicer and that they had kept no records on fdic tile but one cannot help but be curious as to how you sell an asset if you have not examined it’s worth and to that you must understand the disposition of that asset but anyway – I did follow through and thus far , bupkis from servicer

  15. Greg,
    So are you saying I shouldn’t contact Shawn Adamo ??? LOL

  16. Thank you Neil for your continued dedication and insight.

  17. BTW,

    Anyone fighting the banks and their attorneys… study they as well as their peers resumes and background. You will find they are white collar criminal defense attorneys…this is where homeowners need to be keenly aware. White collar criminal defense=no criminal prosecutions.
    They are paid to keep the white collar crime continue to go unchecked. Keeping the Ponzi Scheme going is much more lucrative than a home.

  18. Interesting ‘narrow’ decision on Yvanova, in light of the plain language of Cal Civil Code 1203 – “Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be
    proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such instrument.” There are no qualifications of pre-foreclosure or post-foreclosure in that text. Just as in Jesinoski, the activist Kalifornia Korts are rendering case law that is not supported by plain language of the statutes in order to protect the Korporate Kreditors and their Kronies.

  19. Danelle,

    It would seem to me a starting point in getting the judges attention is to prove quickly that the foreclosing entities will get the ‘windfall and the free house’. Also, start pressing criminal charges…fraud, perjury, identity theft.
    Also, request a jury so your peers can see the unjust suffering innocent homeowners have and continue to suffer…in many cases loss of health and death. Personal injury attorneys anyone? That way homeowners can pay attorneys to defend them to get results.

    We conclude a home loan borrower has standing to claim a nonjudicial
    foreclosure was wrongful because an assignment by which the foreclosing party
    purportedly took a beneficial interest in the deed of trust was not merely voidable
    but void, depriving the foreclosing party of any legitimate authority to order a
    trustee‘s sale. The Court of Appeal took the opposite view and, solely on that
    basis, concluded plaintiff could not amend her operative complaint to plead a
    cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. We must therefore reverse the Court of
    Appeal‘s judgment and allow that court to reconsider the question of an
    amendment to plead wrongful foreclosure. We express no opinion on whether
    plaintiff has alleged facts showing a void assignment, or on any other issue
    relevant to her ability to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter is remanded
    to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
    LIU, J.
    KRUGER, J.
    HUFFMAN, J.*

  21. The collapse in 2008 of the housing bubble and its accompanying system of home loan securitization led, among other consequences, to a great national wave of loan defaults and foreclosures. One key legal issue arising out of the collapse was whether and how defaulting homeowners could challenge the validity of the chain of assignments involved in securitization of their loans. We granted review in this case to decide one aspect of that question: whether the borrower on a home loan secured by a deed of trust may base an action for wrongful foreclosure on allegations a purported assignment of the note and deed of trust to the foreclosing party bore defects rendering the assignment void.

    The Court of Appeal held plaintiff Tsvetana Yvanova could not state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment because she lacked standing to assert defects in the assignment, to which she was not a party. We conclude, to the contrary, that because in a nonjudicial foreclosure only the original beneficiary of a deed of trust or its assignee or agent may direct the trustee to sell the property, an allegation that the assignment was void, and not merely voidable at the behest of the parties to the assignment, will support an action for wrongful foreclosure.

    Our ruling in this case is a narrow one. We hold only that a borrower who has suffered a nonjudicial foreclosure does not lack standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment merely because he or she was in default on the loan and was not a party to the challenged assignment. We do not hold or suggest that a borrower may attempt to preempt a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure by a suit questioning the foreclosing party’s right to proceed. Nor do we hold or suggest that plaintiff in this case has alleged facts showing the assignment is void or that, to the extent she has, she will be able to prove those facts. Nor, finally, in rejecting defendants’ arguments on standing do we address any of the substantive elements of the wrongful foreclosure tort or the factual showing necessary to meet those elements.

  22. @ djbelanger (& anyone else)

    Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. 2/18/16 SC


  23. This makes sense to me. And I bet there are some lawyers who really do understand it. However, those of us in non-judicial states need something to PROVE this is the case. We need previous cases that can be cited as precedent where this situation was shown to be the facts of the matter, having been decided in a court of law where the expert witnesses were accepted as expert witnesses by the judge. And we need some pleading(s) we and our lawyers can use to make a motion to get things started, and ways of how to stop the foreclosures and sales of our homes and keep the banks from stripping every last cent from us that we have in fighting their fraud. Because in North Carolina at least, none of the judiciary seems to get it, and the only issue entertained is that there was a contract, the homeowner(s) mortgagors have breached it if he/she/they have quit paying, and nothing else seems to matter if it is now past the original three years out from the closing of the home purchase or refinance. The banks are considered entitled to the free house plus getting to keep all we have paid in over the years. We need a quicker, more direct way to PROVE the lenders and holders have committed fraud and to void that contract. The lawyers know the banks have deep pockets and will not stop their fraud and crime – and yes, to us homeowners, it is a crime, someone is trying to STEAL our homes. Please, somebody, give us some real help on this.

  24. Keep in mind I am a CPA in NJ and have testified in foreclosure cases. I am available all over rthe country (have testified in CA case).

    Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:09:33 +0000 To: adamo@usa.com

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: