The devil is in the details and it is in the details that actions don’t add up if one party is faking their status.
=======================================
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
Hat tip to Summer Chic
I have long described the practice of sending out correspondence and notices from, say for example PennyMac, from an address that has never been PennyMac. Summer Chic discovered with some snooping that the letter she received from “PennyMac” was sent from a Bank of America location. Bank of America claims no connection with PennyMac. In many such scenarios Bank of America claims no connection with the loan.
Of course that might very well be true. Because in the securitization game the real records are kept at the investment bank (who at least WAS the real party in interest when the loan was originated or acquired) and a central repository from which documents, notices and other instruments are created, signed, sent and filed. In most cases this central repository is Black Knight, which is the new name of Lender Processing Systems, (LPS) who had a subsidiary or division called DOCX.
This is why the claims of a “Boarding process” are pure fiction, because the records are always kept in the same place and never move.
DOCX you might remember is the place where most of not all document fabrications took place including signatures that were forged or robosigned. Fabrication as you know means that they were creating documents that did not previously exist. Those documents did not exist for only one reason, to wit: there was no transaction to document so the document was never prepared until it was necessary to fake it for the purposes of foreclosures.
Incredibly Black Knight is now used as a trusted source of information about mortgages and foreclosures despite being the central entity (operating through third party contractors) from which false documents are created and used in foreclosures.
It was necessary to fake it because under the law, it isn’t enough to allege or assert that a borrower failed to pay. Failure to pay is only a breach as to the owner of the debt who is entitled to receive the payment because he/she/it paid money for the debt and the rights to enforce. But no such payment ever occurred. If there is no rebach there is no claim.
So in order to cover-up the illusions created by fabrications of documents, it was necessary to fake the sending, filing and serving of process of documents. While this was accomplished in some corrupt courts (one right here in Florida), ordinarily it was accomplished by sending the notices not from the central repository, Black Knight, which would make it obvious that it was all coming from one place, but from different locations around the country — hundreds of them.
So in our example, PennyMac agrees to let Black Knight use its name for notices, and Bank of America agrees to have the notice sent from one of its thousands of locations. In reality the notice came from Black Knight and neither PennyMac nor Bank of America know what is contained in the notice, nor do they care.
In court, as I have repeatedly said, it is unwise to try and allege and prove all of that, because you will never get access to the real records of Black Knight, Pennymac or Bank of America. If you could you would would have one big class action lawsuit against all three of those entities. It is well hidden under agreements that might never see the light of day.
BUT, you can use discovery and cross examination to gradually educate a reluctant judge so that he/she gets increasingly uncomfortable with what they are hearing. By using discovery effectively you could even bar the introduction of certain evidence and legal presumptions because you never received an acceptable response to your requests for discovery.
The questions are quite simple: using the envelope as evidence (after proper foundation testimony or as a exhibit for ID to be later admitted into evidence) you elicit the fact that either the entity does not maintain any address at that location and never did or that the witness doesn’t know and that the employer refuses to answer.
You are asking the question “Who sent this notice?” knowing full well it wasn’t the witness or his employer or anyone else in the chain of title. If the witness slips and answers truthfully (which happens occasionally) that it was Black Knight then you’re off to the races with questions about what Black Knight is doing sending out notices on a loan with which they supposedly have no connection and on whose behalf the notices were actually sent.
Filed under: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions |
ANON, if you were to make that same statement to a judge you’d get laughed at.
Storm — you are mixed up. There was a “loan” transaction” – but it was not a mortgage/deed of trust as conveyed. It was layered debt. People signed with the devil debt collector.
Famous lines from The Devil’s Advocate. —
“Don’t ever let them see you coming…. I have the surprise …. they don’t see me coming…… that is what you are missing.”
ANON, do you realize your statement: “ALL these loans were in recorded default before any party signed any “loan” transaction and before they even defaulted” makes no sense. ”How can a “loan” be in default, if there was no “loan transaction.”
It’s almost as nonsensical as these clowns that claim you can rescind a “loan transaction” that was never consummated.
Storm — Just explain — where note is — when there is no “right” to enforce as there is no default. I think that will help explain a lot here.
A goes to B goes to Z etc. No Mers involved. A through Z not recorded. Payoff to who? No right to enforce – as no default. It is the payoff that is the goal of SOMEONE. Not even foreclosure. The payoff.
But here is the key — I know you don’t like – but ALL these loans were in recorded default before any party signed any “loan” transaction and before they even defaulted. .
Once anyone figures this out — Landslide win., I see no one doing this – no one going back to prior transaction. Anyone sticks to last transaction – doomed.
I have tried to say this for a long time. No one listens. Agree – not addressed here.
Thanks.
Got it, smarty pants…”anybody” is my issue…I thought it said: anyone “entitled” to enforce.
Poppy, two problems with your hypothetical. Nobody drives around with a box of “notes” in his trunk. Second, you can’t “enforce” a note without the borrower breaching the contract first.
Let me ask this: if a bank guy is driving down the street and he has in his possession a box of “notes” in his trunk, the trunk flies open and all of the notes blow down the street…can anyone pick them up and enforce them? Just asking. ’cause that what it seems like many are saying. “Anyone in possession” means anyone. That’s scary!
So, does it mean that Fidelity Title intentionally breach Titles for properties under glimpse of various Servicers acting through their sham conduit Black Knight?
Like a drug dealer who during the day works as a local police officer?
Even better. PennyMac who is registered in CA as “Internet Agent” without branches, wants to collect my payments though their Texas P.O. Box which is located exactly next to P.O. Box, in the same post office in Dallas TX. used by the prior Servicer, Caliber.
PennyMac listed their physical address at 2201 W. Plano Pkw. in Plano, which is about 21 miles away from the post office where P.O box is located
PennyMac’s phone numbers associated with address at Plano belong to (1) California 8182247442, Westlake Village.
Another phone number (817) 494-0240 associated with this address belong to PennyMac purported address at 14800 Trinity Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Based on business directory, 2201 W. Plano Pkw has/had 43 companies who rented there. PennyMac was not listed at all.
The address 14800 Trinity Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76155. belongs to another company,
In Chicago PennyMac purportedly located at 122 S. Michigan Ste 1900. This facility belongs to Department of Insurance and ironically shared by Department of Professional Regulations and IL Lottery who never heard about PennyMac
In other words, PennyMac DOES NOT have ANY physical locations in TX where they can collect payments.
Thus, this is someone else who pick up and deposits checks.
My checks were cased by BOA whose routing number starts from 11.
Under Fed. Reserve code,the first two digits in the routing numbers represent certain regions. from 01 – 12.
Number 11 belongs to Dallas TX, or where my payments are collected by fakes like PennyMac and Caliber, from the SAME post office
So, keep the envelopes and check the physical addressed of PO Box
i have problems with this: “Failure to pay is only a breach (of contract, presumably) as to the owner of the debt who is entitled to receive the payment.”
In a straight breach of contract case, this may be true. But we’re dealing with negotiable instruments law. Courts universally state that in order to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff need only show possession of the note and mortgage at the time suit was brought, and proof that the mortgagor defaulted. That’s it…nothing more needed.
This has been going on since at least 2008 when the “crash” occurred.