Despite the fact that we already know in the public domain that the facts of this case probably provide ample support for allegations of fraud and defenses to any attempt to foreclose by a stranger, this case, like many others I have been lately reviewing shows directly what happens when you make a material admission to the status of any of the parties.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

see Third Circuit and owner of the mortgage and note

The moment you admit to any of the allegations in the narrative of the named foreclosing party, even if they are a complete stranger to the transaction (the loan of money), the execution of the loan documents (note and mortgage or deed of trust), the “transfers,” the current party claiming document possession, delivery, rights to enforce or “ownership,” you have autoasphixiated.

“Everybody knows” is not a legal doctrine. In this case the homeowner admitted the status of the servicer because somebody thought it was obvious and somebody thought that taking a contrary position would make him/her appear silly. Thus what was and remains false became true for purposes of the case.

What is silly is admitting things you know nothing about and haven’t bothered to research or investigate. That is as plainly wrong as the underwriting of loans on declared income of $126,000 for a dog walker unless you are Cesar Millan.

What is silly is admitting to the status and rights of any of the parties in the false chain presented and then challenging the status you admitted.

So you get decisions like this and people all up in arms about how unfair it is. The courts are not your lawyer. If you admit something asserted by your opponent it becomes a fact and it becomes the ONLY evidence of that fact on record. The appeals court has no authority to say that the trial court was wrong by accepting the admission because if it did any research it could have at least raised a question about the standing of the party foreclosing. The law doesn’t work that way.

The moral of every litigation story is admit nothing unless you actually know it is a fact and you are not relying upon the representations of your opponent. The fact that you have been paying an entity doesn’t mean that was the right thing to do. The fact that you reasonably believed that to be true can be admitted. But do not admit that they are who they say they are. The whole point of a case based in fraud, for example, is that you acted based upon false representations of the defendant; that the representations were material and false; that the representations were known by the culprit to be false; that the representations were made for the purpose of harming you and benefiting the party making the representations; and that you reasonably relied on those represetnations to your detriment.

Now in view of all that, how can you say that YOU know that the party representing itself to servicer, trustee or debt collector is who they say they are? The entire bank scheme is based entirely on assymetry of knowledge. They know exactly what they did and you don’t. They have access to the information that specifically details the fraudulent scheme and you don’t. But you can still attack standing and make other claims or defenses by showing inconsistencies that demonstrate their claims are false.

19 Responses

  1. yup… helicopters overhead in chicago,,,

  2. as stated in

    CementBoots, on August 22, 2017 at 7:29 pm said:

    From which song should I quote to describe your mental blocks with the things you THINK you are fighting? All has been asked and answered… You were hearing – just not listening… (IMHO)

    “Blinded By The Light” – Manfred Mann
    “We Don’t Get Fooled Again” – The Who
    “Another Brick In The Wall” – Pink Floyd
    “I’ll Be There/Reach Out” – The Four Tops
    “The Grand Illusion” – Styx
    “Freewill” – Rush

    Listen and get back to me when you’re ready for the details…

  3. @ Anon

  4. MB on the bubble — what’s your email?

  5. @Anon:

    Check out the links below. If you have access to PACER you can review the cases in their entirety there.,121,329


    I did not think you were a attorney. I’m attempting to brainstorm and welcome any potential ideas that might help.

  6. @Kalifornia — judicial. But, honestly, find no difference in the Courts. And, called a mortgage — but I don’t think so.

    @MB on the bubble – to get oral argument was a BIG step. New evidence is hard to get. But, not impossible. Not an attorney. But, curious to read your whole case.

  7. @Anon

    What they are afraid of is that we got “danger close” to prevailing. We had them dead to rights on the SOL question that prompted the appeal which is why they had to sidestep that question.

    I concur that this way bigger than any one plaintiff. We need to pool our resources (lessons learned and way forward strategies) We are taking on systemic corruption and conspiracy. We must be strategic in our decisions and our actions lest we continue to be devoured by the “machine.” I can’t help but thinking that Scalia’s and Schaack’s deaths might be more than meets the eye.

    Any suggestions on how to bring another case to get another bite at the apple?

    Keep fighting!!

  8. @ ANON

    Where you are, does the purported transaction result in a the recording of a DEED OF TRUST, or a MORTGAGE?

    Also, is the process where you are judicial, or non-judicial?

  9. Kalifornia,

    Can’t say what state I am in, but not in CA. If one reads the underlying complaint, and district court in the Third Circuit, Freddie Mac is identified as the owner of the loan. But, the bank says the proof as to Freddie Mac ownership is “generic” (came from Freddie website). There was concealment as to Freddie Mac ownership in the case. And, the District Court states that PNC is now the “owner.” This is in direct contradiction to the Third Circuit’s decision. So, Kalifornia, you are right. By the time the case gets to a Circuit Court of Appeal, it is like telephone gossip, the facts become distorted. The serious issue, however, as to the Third Circuit decision, is, as you say, the concept that any “bounty hunter” can claim rights to the home.

    @MB on the bubble – I have listened to the oral argument in your case, and read the decision. It doesn’t matter what was alleged, including specifics of TILA violation for rescission, because they would find a way out no matter what was stated. However, the court should have at least allowed amendment to plead with specificity, the actual TILA violations. Instead, the Court claimed amendment was futile. What were they afraid of?

    We are at the stage in which we are dammed if we do, and dammed if we don’t. The cause of this is much bigger than any case before the Courts, and has been deeply concealed from the public.

  10. TYPO:

    “, e.g., Kalifornia.”

  11. @ ANON

    Your points are well received as to the case analysis, especially the separation(s) of the evidence of debt from the obligation, and, assuming he composed the post, so are NGarfield’s.

    Hopefully the Third Circuit has its own splits of authority, along with the germinating splits occurring in other courts, e.g. Kalifornia, (Ninth Circuit).

    Additionally, other important facts to consider causing the posture to the ruling on the case are, e.g., counsel(s) of record (trial; BK; appellate), judge or magistrate, BK, circuit, state, judicial foreclosure, post-foreclosure, strategy, claims, etc.

    As to the issue of standing to foreclose, it appears that the Third Circuit continues to proscribe to Kalifornia’s failed ABSURD rulings that allowed any “bounty hunter” to steal homes — until the Yvanova ruling disabused that notion in the Ninth Circuit.

    ANON, in what state are you domiciled?

  12. Why aren’t the Completely Retarded To Death Municipalities being sued to oblivion, repeatedly – again and again and again and again???

    Make it a Great Day.

    Scott Thompson

  13. @ Dr. David and Cement Boots:

    I get the whole 20 days statutory requirement. Believe me, I do! My experience is based on first hand experience not something I was told or led to believe. The decision makers simply look for ways to bypass, dilute or totally disregard your position should you find yourself in a position where you happen to be right on the law, evidence, procedure, etc. How is that justice? Looks more like injustice to me!

    What should be clear, obvious and actionable more times than not, does not turn out to be the case when you are dealing with with a corrupt, immoral structure of individuals and institutions. I will let you fill in the blanks on that.

    If you look a the comments sections of the link below you will see a link to a audio file of the Oral Argument at the 11th CCOA. Listen to that and review the case filings in the Bazemore v. US Bank, NA matter and come to your own conclusion.

    We have to keep chipping away at their house of cards and corruption. Eventually it will tumble but like Dr. David implied, it is gonna take a miracle! I believe GOD never runs out of miracles!!

  14. The point of admission is not the point of this case. The question to be addressed is the Third Circuit’s conclusion that the entity entitled to economic benefit does not have to be identified. And, that the note “holder” may be different from the entity entitled to economic benefit. In itself, that is an admission by the Court that the note, mortgage, and benefit are separated. So it does not matter what the homeowner says. Also, servicers cannot act without authority, but the Third Circuit says otherwise.

    This is a request for Neil to address these issues. All know borrowers should not admit anything. But, the points of the case are separate from admission, and a terrible precedent.

  15. Personally I feel a ” known ” axe murderer (funny example trying to make light of a most horrible and demeaning situation) had not thought that we do in court. Axe murderers if they don’t confess and don’t make a plea deal get a trial by jury if their 12 peers. What do we get? A judge who went too law School 30-45 years ago. Think foreclosures are the same as back then. They do not line they are all crimes if stealing homes. Pmi long paid off these homes, fnm ect guaranteed these homes so the rest was paid, they according to the big short they also took it credit default swaps. So bank induced defaults are the norm. More$$$$ on defaults their outing 30 years of mortgage. Wells Fargo has a know foreclosure manual. And the judges know none of this and they do know then they are investors in property management firms that buy up foreclosures for rent. Sad that we do not get due process. Discovery process is considered too much for a servicer to submit (that’s what they claim) . Basically the judges maybe were corporate lawyers, family law, or even malpractice lawyers all now judges and not no a thing about these purported mortgage’s. We have cardiac surgeon ( a heart doctor for the non medical person) doing neuro surgery ( brain). Not until the judges one there truth or the conflict of interest is it if the court stealing of homes will continue. What is next for us? Rents in must community’s are 1/2 of one’s salary? Would appreciate some dialog here to have a game plan I am very scared

  16. Since the entire transaction from the point of filling out and presenting the application is fraudulent, compromised and ID theft occurred, admit nothing because there is nothing to admit.

  17. Think the point on this case is missed here. The problem with this case is the broad authority the Third Circuit grants to servicers – or anyone. Unfortunately, it allows servicers to foreclose without any question. It does not matter if the homeowner admits or rejects any theories. Further, the court separates the “Note” holder by stating that the entity with the right to enforce the note may not be the owner of the economic benefit. What? Quotes from the case:

    “Evidence that some other entity may be the ‘owner’ or an ‘investor’ in the Note is not relevant to this determination, as the entity with the right to enforce the Note may well not be the entity entitled to receive the economic benefits from payments received thereon.”

    “the authority of a servicer to file a proof of claim is expressly authorized by the rules of court.”

    ”the servicer may pursue such an action if “acting within its authority as the mortgage holder’s agent.” 450 B.R. at 538. While PNC has not submitted a servicing agreement, PNC was permitted by the foreclosure court to pursue foreclosure proceedings, evidencing its status as a “party in interest” capable of also filing a proof of claim.”

    What this case presents is further separation of the Note from not only the mortgage, but also from the entity actually receiving benefits.

    Not sure if Neil missed that or is justifies that here. Or simply saying — don’t admit anything – including the servicer.. This Plaintiff was in Chapter 13. She wanted to pay her loan, but she wanted to pay it to the right party. Third Circuit just told her — that is none of her business.

    Most homeowners do not admit much. The Court does it for them. .

  18. Purported, purported, PURPORTED, is what I tell E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E, and so few listen, thanks for validating a repeated point of mine…… purported mortgage, purported plaintiff, purported banks attorney, purported blah blah blah…….

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: