Legal presumptions are not meant to be used as a means for achieving an illegal or unjust result. But they do exactly that when apparently facially valid documents are left unchallenged.
A successful challenge to the credibility of the source of documents initially filed in foreclosure will end the case in favor of the homeowner. the reason is simple: with legal presumptions operating in favor of the foreclosure mill they have no case to offer or prove.
If you start at the beginning and challenge the narrative immediately it can and should lead to excellent results for homeowners under siege by profiteers seeking to force the sale of the subject property.
The plain truth is that all documents from securitization schemes seeking to foreclose are false. But at first glance they appear to be facially valid, which only raises legal presumptions if the deems the document to come from a credible source. This is true in all jurisdictions.
It’s high time for lawyers and pro se litigants to challenge the presentation of initial documents as coming from a source that (1) has a stake in the outcome and is therefore biased and (2) not credible based upon administrative findings in all 50 states in which the documents were not merely found to be defective but also untrue.
In all cases based upon securitization schemes, not even the named Plaintiff knows who owns the debt, note or mortgage. Ask anyone. Even in appellate proceedings the foreclosure mills had to admit they had no idea about the identity or existence of a creditor.
In other cases, attorneys were forced to admit that they never had any contract or or even CONTACT with their “client.” Cases whose style beings with the words “US Bank. Deutsche Bank, or Bank of New York Mellon” are sham cases with sham clients. The lawyer is neither instructed by nor paid by the bank nor is to processing the foreclosure on behalf of either the bank or any trust.
The same lack of knowledge is true for the foreclosure mill who operates under the protection of litigation immunity, the servicer who is receiving instructions from an investment bank posing as Master Servicer, a trustee who has no knowledge or administrative powers over the loan, a trust that has never been party to negotiation or sale of the debt or note or mortgage.
see RobosigningAdministrativeOrder
In all 50 states you have administrative orders in the courts, and administrative findings by the Departments of Justice and Attorneys general and even county clerks that point out with specificity the fact that the documents used by foreclosure mills were faked. That is fact, not opinion.
In hundreds of cases including some where I was lead counsel, there are specific recorded findings from trial judges as to how the foreclosure was faked.
It should not be that hard for lawyers to argue to the court that given the amount of work done (thousands of man hours) investigating the mortgage lending and foreclosure practices, some credence should be given to the now universal view that the documents were faked.
There can be no dispute that the documents all come from parties who have a unique and essential interest in the outcome of the foreclosure claim — i.e., preservation of revenue and achievement of additional revenue arising from the proceeds of a forced sale, none of which will be directed to anyone who paid value for the debt, note or mortgage.
The indicia of credibility and reliability are simply not there. And the indicia of lack of credibility and reliability are all there. Legal presumptions therefore are not legally available.
It is not a big leap to also argue that the documents contained data that was also also untrue because in every case where the documents were faked, there was no follow up of actual evidence or proof of the claim.
It never happened that the investment banks said “ok, just to make everyone feel better here is the actual proof that the loan was owned by XYZ Corp, who suffered an actual (rather than hypothetical) financial loss arising from nonpayment of the debt. So the foreclosure although based upon false documentation did not produce an unjust result.”
That didn’t happen because there was no such evidence. In every case the foreclosure resulted in a windfall profit to all the participants in the foreclosure.
Remember you are simply challenging the presumption, thus allowing the claimant to prove its claim without the presumption. that is exactly what the rules require. The fact that you defeat a presumption and that the claimant’s attorneys are forced to actually prove the truth of the matters asserted on the documents is not a stand alone reason for entry of judgment in favor of the homeowner.
THIS IS NOT A PUNISHMENT WHERE THE CLAIMANT IS DEPRIVED OF ITS CLAIM BECAUSE IT DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL. IF THEY CAN STILL PROVE THE CLAIM, THEY WIN.
If indeed the homeowner does owe money to the claimant and they are both parties to a loan agreement that the homeowner has breached then the claimant is entitled to foreclosure.
Legal presumptions are not meant to be used as a means for achieving an illegal or unjust result. But they do exactly that when apparently facially valid documents are left unchallenged.
In virtually all cases, such documents are not even facially valid, once you examine the contents and the signature block. Look at it. Study it. And then create your defense narrative.
These cases are winnable because they should be won by homeowners not because of some technical argument.
FREE REVIEW:
If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
Filed under: boarding process, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: credibility, evidence, evidentiary hearing, legal presumptions, securitization |
Excellent Bob G — The “govies.” Need to get the “govies” finally involved.
I have been saying the “govies” for a long time.
Thanks.
Foreclosure mills do not operate with litigation immunity. Just not true. Otherwise there would be no statutes or case law addressing fraud upon the court. And somebody does really own the note and the debt. They are just hiding behind the curtain. They use the banksters to front the foreclosures because, well, because they have the word bank in their name, and thus they must be beyond reproach, right ?
These guys are clearly engaged in a racketeering enterprise, to be sure. How do we know this? Simple…just remove any one of the players from the enterprise–ttee, servicer, assignor, mill—and the enterprise cannot function and comes crashing down. The problem is, a single homeowner cannot bring a racketeering charge against these guys, because the charge requires a pattern of racketeering, and you don’t have a pattern…all you have is one instance…your’s.
But the govies can bring a viable racketeering charge, because the govies can rely upon many unconnected fraudulent foreclosures by the same parties to make their case. So if you want to get some traction, you need to get the govies involved. Might be easier today now that the states are scrambling for money. Also, don’t just count on the govies to jump right in based upon your singular claims. Find some other folks who have similar claims that can be presented as a class of victims. Then be sure to cc: the media. That will get the govies involved for sure.