Falling Into the Traps Set By the Banks

For the past 15 years there has been a huge chasm between what a document says and what actually occurred. In foreclosure settings, the conscious decision has been made to ignore the Truth and proceed on the falsehoods promulgated by the banks. This arises from the “national security” fear that if the banks are not allowed to continue their fraudulent behavior, the entire financial system will collapse taking the entire society down with it. This myth is promulgated by the Banks, who supply the government with people to regulate the banks. Even as a theory it is untested, and unsupported by any real evidence. Unfortunately for Americans, too many people believe it.

Listen to the last Last Neil Garfield Show at http://tobtr.com/s/9673161

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
We are constantly analyzing the documentation that is produced by the banks or their surrogates. But we are failing our clients when we say that something actually occurred just because a piece of paper says it occurred.
“Prepared by” is just a hearsay statement that the document was prepared by the entity identified after those words. It does not mean that the document was in fact prepared by that entity — usually a title or closing agent — nor does it necessarily mean that the identified entity actually even handled the document.
Too often, and virtually the rule, is that facially valid documents are telling the truth about what occurred. In the present context of “lending” the facially valid documents relied upon by foreclosing parties are usually fabricated, forged, robosigned and prepared by entities who create and maintain the records upon which the foreclosure proceeds — separate and apart from the alleged “Trust” or other “owner” and separate and apart from the party identified as the servicer but who actually do nothing except lend its name for use in a foreclosure.
We don’t want to be saying (and therefore admitting) that the title or closing agent DID prepare the document — but rather admit the obvious: that the document says that they prepared it. It is the same with other documents.
We don’t want to say that an assignment was made; in our reports we say that the document labeled “assignment” says there was an assignment. It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that basic references are truthful when in fact they are not. We do a disservice to our customers if we submit a report that plays right into the hands of the banks. It also misdirects the lawyer or pro se litigant into failing to object to the references within a facially valid document because then those defenses are probably waived.
But looking at the “prepared by” and “return to” instructions on an instrument may give you another lead to a witness who is unwilling to lie about the the alleged transaction.
The closing agent or escrow agent may be willing to state that they received money, as they were instructed, and that they dispersed the money as instructed. They might be willing to admit that they did not prepare the documents but rather received them from a source that also might not have prepared them. And they might be willing to admit that they have no knowledge of from whence the money came for the alleged “closing.” Thus their testimony could be that they can provide no foundation to the assertion that a loan was made by the named mortgagee or beneficiary.
A facially valid document, particularly if it is recorded in the public records, normally carries with it a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to suggest that the document was fabricated, forged, robosigned or that there are other indications that the document is just a self-serving fabrication. But the admission of such a document into evidence should be the start of the argument not the end.
Once the document is admitted into evidence, hopefully over the timely objection of foreclosure defense counsel (lack of foundation), the statements within the documents are hearsay unless the hearsay objection is waived. Those statements, without foundation testimony cannot be used as foundation for other testimony about the authority of the “servicer”, the “trustee,” or anyone else posing as owner or servicer of the DEBT.
A simplified example: A warranty deed executed by John Doe, executed with the formalities required by statute is a facially valid instrument. The recipient Jane Roe received title ownership of the property according to the provisions stated on the face of the deed. If the deed is then recorded in the County records, it establishes notice to all the world that Jane Roe is the owner of the property described in the deed.
But if John Doe never owned the property then the deed conveys nothing. It is a wild deed. It can be ignored by the world and everyone else. It can be removed from chain of title generally by a quiet title action (lawsuit in local jurisdiction) or simply an affidavit saying that John Doe mistakenly executed the deed describing the wrong property or whatever situation arose to cause the recording of a false deed in the chain of title to someone else’s property.
But if Jane Roe insists that she does own the property described in the false deed and acts on that assertion, that is where things get messy. If Jane Roe files a quiet title or other lawsuit and presents the facially valid warranty deed from John Doe, the deed will be admitted into evidence, probably over the objections of the real property owner. It is admitted to prove only that the document exists in the county records and NOT to prove that the truthfulness of representations on the deed (“Grantor is full seized and owner of the property”), which is still the burden of proof for Jane Roe. There is also generally a representation as to the payment of good and valuable consideration, which we will presume Jane Roe never paid and obviously can’t prove. And THAT is where Jane Roe’s case should fail.
The mistake made by pro se litigants and lawyers defending foreclosures is that they don’t go back to these basics. The original note and mortgage may indeed have been signed by the present homeowner. But the representations concerning payment of good and valuable consideration by the party named as mortgagee (or beneficiary under the deed of trust) are untrue as to most of the original “transactions” and therefore all succeeding documentation purporting to “sell’ grant bargain and deed” the note and mortgage to another party. Even where the originator does fund the initial “loan” (a small minority of originated documentation) the assignments are mysteriously missing any actual payment and therefore there can be no proof of payment of good and valuable consideration.
In plain language, the fact that the homeowner owes SOMEBODY doesn’t mean that they owe just ANYBODY.
For the past 15 years there has been a huge chasm between what a document says and what actually occurred. In foreclosure settings, the conscious decision has been made to ignore the Truth and proceed on the falsehoods promulgated by the banks. This arises from the “national security” fear that if the banks are not allowed to continue their fraudulent behavior, the entire financial system will collapse taking the entire society down with it. This myth is promulgated by the Banks, who supply the government with people to regulate the banks. Even as a theory it is untested, and unsupported by any real evidence.
It is this policy of presumptive national security that has sacrificed the lives of 20 million people thus far.
Questionable Documents: Investigation and Discovery Required
NOTE: Analytical reports on title or securitization are not evidence without foundation testimony and/or affidavit, as the court permits. Our analytic summaries represent our observation and opinion as to issues regarding Chain of Title, Authenticity, Forgery, Fabrication or Robo-signing. Actions to be considered include sending a Qualified Written Request (QWR) under RESPA, Debt Validation Letter (DVL) under FDCPA, letters/complaints to State Attorney General and Consumer Financial Protections Board, and legal claims and defenses as to Legal Standing.

20 Responses

  1. The judges in New Jersey just see a homeowner who didn’t pay his mortgage for several years. They ignore the fraudulent documents. They don’t care that the note wasn’t indorsed until summary judgement. They get around the fraudulent assignment of mortgage by relying on affidavit of the servicer even though they say a different trust owner and not the trustee for the certificate holders is the owner. They don’t care that there is no attorney in fact document tying the servicer to the alleged trustee. They don’t care about the certificate of diligent inquiry was signed by the lawfirm and servicer attesting that the documents were truthful even though there was the fraudulent Aom and a note payable to originator. So don’t waste your time on foreclosure defense. It’s a joke in New Jersey.

  2. I don’t think la salle has anything to do with it. either

  3. Ok well that makes it all even more strange,maybe connected to la Salle.

  4. I am trying to remember who had the loan before I did the refi,….I don’t remember but I do not believe it was BOA

  5. Thats bizarre stuff Sheri,let me ask you,did you refi out of a B of A loan?

  6. to froglet where are you in Virginia? what court? Who was the attorney (just curious) What issues?

  7. Randall Stephens,
    What you said re entering a new loan (for me a HAMP mod) in 2009 makes sense. I believe that WAS a trap.

    Sheri Daniel: Wish you the best of luck. I’m in VA too. Wasted a LOT of money on legal fees and am no closer to resolution than when this nightmare started.

  8. That’s what wells fargo did…endorsed the note from WF to WF…then claimed BOA was creditor….but BOA sent letter saying they had no record they were creditor….but they foreclosed and did litigation in name of BOA.

    Signer was someone other than Joan Mills.

  9. That I don’t believe thats WF,can endorse a note to WF.

  10. Well when one googles Joan M.Mills,she is on many banks signing many endorsements,but she also claims to be a Wells Fargo Employee on several as well.

  11. What does it mean when wells assigns to itself? They did the same on mine then claimed that boa was creditor

  12. What about if the servicer misrepresented themselves as the creditor when presenting the loan mod papers? (without identifying the actual creditor)….the loan mods cannot be valid contracts. Not in Virginia anyway.

    PS latest on my case Eastern Virginia Alexandria 1:16cv1360CMH/JFA yesterday Wells Fargo (servicer)’s attorneys sent notice of Motion for Sanctions….they want me to be quiet and withdraw the case.

  13. Oh midway through first case appears on WF docs from that point a ta da endorsement Pay without recourse to WF,signed Joan m. Mills,she signed for several others but claims to be a WF employee.
    WF assigns to itself?

  14. 2 cases dismissed,2 BK chapter 13 filings dismissed,December 28th auction date,a lot of equity and have been screwed by every attorney I have ever paid.
    To date 80k in lawyers fees,6%,interest only,fixed for ten,broker originated,Wells Fargo,no doc refi of my principle residence of 25 years,only assigned once in 2012,into Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-4,in BK at time of assignment,disputing WF claims ,listing them as a Un Secured,Non Priority creditor and disputing all claims.

    Non licensed Broker,at time of origination,fictitious escrow agent,Honey NikNam,closing docs WF claims to have paid 2nd with Chase but I paid it 2 months prior and have cancelled checks,

    According to WF math they shorted me 130k,and I have been paying interest on that money,15 single points of contact,robo signed docs,fabricated docs,lies in court and lies to regulatory,14 year premiere client at WF and here I am facing losing my biggest asset to date.

    Current lawyer has dragged this out for 2 months and now says he’s waiting to discuss with WF attorneys.

    Any help or input would be awesome.

  15. Is modification a trap when the alleged mortgagee doesn’t have original of the promissory note?

  16. I agree with deadly Clear – my audit on a Bloomberg terminal is so clear and factual that I could use this to defend myself if needed. Buyer beware.

  17. Agree Deadly Clear we still have foreclosure attorneys that treat homeowners like deadbeats and use terminology like “liar loans” that reinforce the deadbeat bias in courts and public consciousness.

  18. Jim – some securitization audits are worthwhile if the attorney knows how to use them. There are reports that some companies, if they use Bloomberg Terminal, provide that information that can contradict the statements of the servicer. The point is not all all audits are bad or scams – but you do need to know what to look for… in other words “truth but verify”.

  19. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    The beginning of Fake News promulgated by the banks setting up the dynamics early in the failing game with the national media (that they owned with over-leveraged debt deals) by labeling “liars loans” and “deadbeat borrowers” to place the blame for their fraudulent enterprise on the homeowners. The banks knew their scheme and bubble would fail and rather than expose the truth they made sure the public’ first (and lasting) impression was that it was e homeowners’ fault because they bought homes they couldn’t afford.

    The truth in fact was that if the banks hadn’t crashed the economy, gambled away (lost) the pension funds that caused businesses to close, bankrupt, layoff thousands of employees, and destroy the construction industry… not to mention municipalities and states struggling with the loss (3.4 TRILLION dollars) of their employees pension and retirement funds, there would no need to create fake news stories to predispose public opinion in advance of the crisis.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: