Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show
Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays
Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall to discuss bank employee weaknesses and lack of credibility in depositions and affidavits.
Chase bank ‘witnesses’, and bank witnesses in general, know little about the loan in which they are deposed, beyond what the computer screen shows. Under oath, the bank employee will parrot information the bank’s attorney coached them on prior to their deposition. If you are able to drill-down, it becomes obvious that the person ‘with the most knowledge’, knows nothing regarding the travel of the loan, assignments or current holder in due course.
Bank witnesses can provide a balance, the name of the servicer, and who claims to own the note; but know nothing about payment proceeds from insurance/settlements or when the note was endorsed or by who. The bank employee relies on hearsay and and erroneous information on a screen to foreclose.
Chase employee Rosemary Martin inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan. See: Objection_to_Notice_of_Errata Rosemary Martin Deposition.
Even former in-house Chase counsel are oblivious in regards to the operations, documentation and validity of documents. Despite this lack of knowledge, the attorney submitted affidavits and loan verifications, when he knew nothing beyond what he read on a screen. See: McCormick Deposition.
The loans are defective, and only the illusion keeps the ownership facade alive.
Investigator Bill Paatalo
Office: (406) 328-4075
Contact Attorney Charles Marshall:
Not legal advice– for educational purposes only.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Contribute to the discussion!