Self-Serving Documents created by Self-Serving Servicers


Bank or Servicer with “Free House” they obtained by fabricating evidence.

The one BIG thing that is missing in most foreclosure litigation is that the documents submitted are hearsay.  The danger is that certain documents kept in the ordinary course of business have credibility and therefore may be admitted as an exception unless you move to strike them from the record immediately.

The point here is credibility — if the documents come from a third party unrelated to the litigation and with no possible interest in the outcome, then the authentication process is enough. But the closer you come to the proffered document being a self-serving piece of work produced solely for the purpose of litigation, the less the exception applies. In other words if the document is coming from a party to litigation it is immediately suspect, or should be. Much greater authentication is required when a party proffers a document that comes from the party itself.

So in foreclosures, this is why the records are proffered as records of the servicer who might be considered to be someone who has no interest in the outcome of the litigation. They are a non-party and thus the suspicion is avoided under ordinary circumstances. But the reality is that the attorneys are not representing the trust or the trustee. They are taking their orders from the servicer who has an interest in (a) keeping the loan as a nonperforming loan because they get higher fees for that and (b) wants foreclosure for the Master Servicer who has an interest in collection of so-called servicer advances. Without the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the property the servicer advances are not paid.

This is why I am revisiting the whole issue of who should be made to testify in court. I think the Master Servicer should be brought in. But that will meet with fierce opposition for obvious reasons — the trust does not exist and the so-called Master Servicer would need to either perjure themselves or admit that the Plaintiff in the foreclosure (or the beneficiary in a non-judicial state) does not exist and thus could not possibly own the debt, note or mortgage.

So you see the issue is whether those records are the records of the Trust (impossible if it doesn’t exist), the Master Servicer, or the certificate holders, or the subservicer who often has no legal right to act as servicer. Hence the records of the servicer are suspect and they are hearsay and they are not the records of the Trust that according to the other side has no records, even though the investors are being paid.

9 Responses

  1. The movie The matrix was real in a sense. The movie zeigeist addendum 2 on you tube will wake up the masses. At 1st I thought the forecloures and federal reserve were separate issues. They are not. They are one in the same. Everyone in America needs to wake up and demand our lives back. We need to be free of the matrix that is keeping out salaries artificially low so we need to use credit to buy essentials. Please everyone watch the movie and get mad.

  2. Greetings Neil, I pray all is well , I was wondering if you have ever heard of using this for foreclosure? Thank you for all the information it has really been a great help. FL Statue 609.

    Us Bank as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation trust is not registered in Florida, I have checked Office of business and regulations, Division of Corporations. Us bank as trustee and LSF9 are not registered in the state of Oklahoma, and the Delaware statuary trust is register as a non-profit or religious entity, but they are not in good standing and have no certificate of trust. trying to learn. here is the website I found. hope it helps.

    On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Livinglies’s Weblog wrote:

    > Neil Garfield posted: ” The one BIG thing that is missing in most > foreclosure litigation is that the documents submitted are hearsay. The > danger is that certain documents kept in the ordinary course of business > have credibility and therefore may be admitted as an exception un” >

  3. We need help in litigating an illegal foreclosure case which is not dismissed but the bank took over the property and placed it for sale. We are in Rhode Island. We have a hearing coming up in early March this year. Kindly help.

  4. The courts are in on a similar money bill scam; they sell off ORIGINAL court orders, bills, notes warrants, bonds and such through clearing houses;

    Every ORIGINAL birth certificate, title deed, vehicle registration, utility bill, tax invoice, every tax receipt files with IRS, everything gets traded on for 9 times its value on the fractional reserve system;

    Don’t believe us; then ask the court for the original court order; or, look on your utility bill it says COPY; so, where is the original?

    The banks and the courts and the corporate franchises fronting as “government” are all in on it; they work hand in glove to fleece the 99%; the people are waking up to the truth; and, every country has its own revolution brewing;

    “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.” – Lord Acton

  5. A couple checks and balances that I have found in my case haven’t been adhered to:
    For the consumer: The 2009 TRID Section 404 Notice… if there was a transfer between lenders… they have 30 days or so to let you know. In my case, it helps substantiate there was never a transfer of ownership before the originator went bankrupt and was liquidated.
    For the investor: The ABS Form 15G… if there was a new loan introduced into a trust after the closing date and, if so, did that loan meet the representations and warranties? In my case, no new loans introduced; yet a servicer claims differently.

  6. Mark, you are correct. There is no default by the borrower because every fee, payment, etc. is paid by the Master Servicer. There is no official “default” but it is just made to look that way. The servicer is pocketing the money, because there is no creditor.

  7. I’ve a crazy case with a securitized trust.
    Follow this one. I got a loan on 10/17/2003 from Aames Funding Corp herein “Aames”.
    I get sued by Aames in 2006. during the law suite Aames sell loan to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee, on behalf
    Of the Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc.
    Trust 2004-HE1. Assignment signed 12/18/2006 is filed with county 7 months later in 2007. Now plaintiff changes names! Objection ~~~

    In 2014 law firm files an affirmation.
    In affirmation 1st time I find an allonge showing the sale of property 10/23/2003. What Aames is now longer a holder in due course, right!

    I complain to CFPB. Morgan Stanley states:

    Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc (“MSMC”) purchased the 1st lien mortgage at the property
    on 11/25/2003 in the secondary market from Aames Corporation. MSMC sold this loan on 2/26/2004 into the securitization trust,
    Morgan Stanley ABS Capital [Trust 2004-14E1. The servicer at the time of purchase and sale was Countrywide:
    however, this does not imply that Countrywide (or its successor) is the current servicer of the loan today. Neither
    MSMC nor Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital. Holdings LLC (“MSMCH”) tracks the servicer of a loan once it is sold.
    MSMC merged into MSMCH on June 4, 2007. MSMCH is not the current investor nor the servicing rights owner of
    the note/mortgage. This complaint should be referred to the current servicer or trustee of the securitization.

    So how did Aames get the loan into the secondary market? Hmmm
    It appears that the loan was sold several times and that the allonge or assignment in 2007 in void and that the law firm created a path to steal and unjustly enrich themselves. How will the courts handle this fraud ….time will only tell.

    For even a blind man can see, Aames had no standing to assign any loan into a trust but no one is looking! So watch out America and keep fighting.

  8. Question:

    If the Master Servicer to an alleged Trustee/Trust advances payment, then how is the alleged borrower in default of the initial missed payment?

    It seems to me that, especially when there is no relationship between the Master Servicer and “borrower”, if the payment is made then there can be no default in that payment and, hence, no right in the foreclosing party to make a demand or accelerate based on a lack of payment by the “borrower”.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: