Who is the Creditor? NY Appellate Decision Might Provide the Knife to Cut Through the Bogus Claim of Privilege

The crux of this fight is that if the foreclosing parties are forced to identify the creditors they will only have two options, in my opinion: (a) commit perjury or (b) admit that they have no knowledge or access to the identity of the creditor

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see http://4closurefraud.org/2016/06/10/opinion-here-ny-court-says-bank-of-america-must-disclose-communications-with-countrywide-in-ambac-suit/

We have all seen it a million times — the “Trustees”, the “servicers” and their agents and attorneys all beg the question of identifying the names and contact information of the creditors in foreclosure actions. The reason is simple — in order to answer that question truthfully they would be required to admit that there is no party that could properly be defined as a creditor in relation to the homeowner.

They have successfully pushed the point beyond the point of return — they are alleging that the homeowner is a debtor but they refuse to identify a creditor; this means they are being allowed to treat the homeowner as a debtor while at the same time leaving the identity of the creditor unknown. The reason for this ambiguity is that the banks, from the beginning, were running a scheme that converted the money paid by investors for alleged “mortgage backed securities”; the conversion was simple — “let’s make their money our money.”

When inquiry is made to determine the identity of the creditor the only thing anyone gets is some gibberish about the documents PLUS the assertion that the information is private, proprietary and privileged.  The case in the above link is from an court of appeals in New York. But it could have profound persuasive effect on all foreclosure litigation.

Reciting the tension between liberal discovery and privilege, the court tackles the confusion in the lower courts. The court concludes that privilege is a very narrow shield in specific situations. It concludes that even the attorney-client privilege is a shield only between the client and the attorney and that adding a third party generally waives that privilege. The third party privilege is only extended in narrow circumstances where the parties are seeking a common goal. So in order to prevent the homeowner from getting the information on his alleged creditor, the foreclosing parties would need to show that there is a common goal between the creditor(s) and the debtor.

Their problem is that they can’t do that without showing, at least in camera, that the identity of the creditor is known and that somehow the beneficiaries of an empty trust have a common goal (hard to prove since the trust is empty contrary to the terms of the “investment”). Or, they might try to identify a creditor who is neither the trust nor the investors, which brings us back to perjury.

5 Responses

  1. In our careful examination we found out that the trust CWABS, Inc., asset backed certificates, series 2007-4 has, at least, our property not assigned properly. This is very clear to anyone with commonsense.

    The FBI says something on the line that not assigning mortgage is not a federal crime. What about issuing flawed securities or certificates based on this defective or perhaps empty trust to investors? SEC says the trust prospectus doesn’t necessarily mention individual properties in the trust. So, how do we go after this crooked bank? Any ideas?

  2. Mine is a copy of two stamps,,,,they are not original stamps or signatures…the edosement page is a copy only

  3. The Indorsments can be a stamp of the endorser’s name, signature and all. The fraud would not be complete without them.

  4. Just a quick question for discussion…
    I and a forensic document examiner went to the Wells Fargo Bank attorneys office to examine the so called original note and deed of trust signatures. While examining the documents, the endorsements for the note were not stamped on the note. The endorsements were on a separate piece of paper that was only an undated copy that was not affixed to the note.
    My question is: Do the endorsements need to be originals or can the endorsements be a copy
    Thanks

  5. Reblogged this on boglinwordpresscom.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d