The West Coast Radio Show with Charles Marshall at 3pm Pacific: Capacity and Tenacity reveal the Trust is a Sham

 

 

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursday

In re JenzabarInc. Derivative Litigation

1-18-2018-US Bank Reply – Schaeffer – TX

Money Laundering Threat Asssesment – 2005 (1)

Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California attorney Charles Marshall to discuss the disturbing fact that most trusts are unable to prove standing through competent evidence.  Instead, they resort to heavily redacted documents, with no signatures that are not notarized and contain no information of value that would permit the homeowner to validate their legitimacy.

Paatalo points out that a terminated or unfunded trust lacks capacity to direct other parties to sue or be sued, or to sue or be sued in a representative capacity.   However, it is routine to allow Trial courts to fail to require supporting evidence of a trust’s capacity to directly foreclosure.  WHEN the judiciary finally has enough after years and years of hearing fraudulent foreclosure cases, perhaps it will demand that the trust provide detailed evidence that can be confirmed by third parties (like the Federal Reserve) that a transaction actually took place where actual money was paid before a lender/servicer/trust can foreclose. Instead, the courts rely on the appearance that the trust exists instead of actual proof.

If this was any other type of lawsuit outside of the foreclosure universe, the judge would require reliable evidence and proof- but here in the uniperverse of foreclosure, evidence isn’t necessary, trusts don’t have to be legitimate, and the winner of the home is the best bullsh*tter.  Trying to penetrate these entities with all of the inconsistent statements and documents only raises more questions while revealing multiple PSAs with different names, titles and dates of production that conflict with each other.

The alleged trust that likely was never funded and exists only on paper lacks any authority and yet the courts will proceed with the presumption that the trust in in compliance with all applicable laws- unless this issue is brought to the attention of the court.   A terminated trust lacks the capacity to pursue a derivative action.

The issue in foreclosure therefore, is whether the trustee, as fiduciary for a trust that was previously terminated, has the power to direct a servicer to maintain a foreclosure action. Courts typically have a rule in pertinent part that:

-When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, the party shall do so by specific negative averment, which negative averment shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.

 

A negative averment is a statement or allegation that constitutes a statement of fact and that must be proved by the party making it. For example, a negative averment alleging that the plaintiff did not have the capacity to sue.  As a rule it is established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, so that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative (the trust or servicer for example).

However, this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, and ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is removed.  A motion to dismiss should be filed by the homeowner based on the lack of supporting evidence of the trust’s capacity.

In the Jenzabar case (see above) the court and state law required that all real estate transactions be notarized to prevent fraud, forgery and fraudulent signatures.  Notarized documents are given the presumption of validity​ and are documented in the notary’s journal.  However, trust agreements that provide the Trustee with the power to foreclose, but do not have a valid notarized signature, are allowed to proceed with the presumption that they are valid.

The Trust Agreement should be considered null and void because it lacks the signature of someone with authority to proceed with foreclosure, and because of this lack of an authorized signature, the court should not assign the presumption of validity. Without evidence that a person’s signature is in fact their signature, the trust could be an imposter looking to foreclose without authority or capacity.

If the trust signature is validly notarized, a presumption of validity is granted and the foreclosure can proceed.  But in reality, a heavily redacted Trust Agreement with no signatures or notary signatures does not convey the power for the trust to foreclose.

Homeowners should expand their defenses to contract and challenge standing that is not conveyed with a redacted Trust Agreement.  The Trust Agreement is unenforceable without the proper signatures, capacity and standing.  The court should require that the Trustee prove that it has a case or controversy and is the real party in interest which it cannot do with a redacted Trust Agreement that is not signed or notarized.  The Assignments to the trust mean nothing if the Trust Agreement is unenforceable.

Thank you to Investigator Bill Paatalo and Lendinglies Paralegal Connie Lasco for this potential strategy.

To Contact Charles Marshall:

California Attorney: Charles Marshall, Esq.
 

Investigator Bill Paatalo at the

BP Investigative Agency

Office:406-328-4075

Email: info.bpia@gmail.com

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: