Very often the reason I won a case tried in front of judge or jury was that I wasn’t afraid to question the essence of the case against my client. Chewing around the edges is a tacit admission that the essence is true and valid.
When I represented lenders most borrowers did not contest — and when they did it was always about mistakes in accounting. Unless the borrower could show which mistake occurred and when, they lost. Those are the rules. My strategy was to pin down the essence of the attack. More often than not, it did not really exist.
So now, representing borrowers, I challenge the essence of the claim — that there is a debt, it is unpaid and the named claimant has been injured by nonpayment. Most lawyers are afraid to ask the question because they think they know the answer — that the debt does exist, it is unpaid and the named claimant has been injured by nonpayment. But in transactions that have been enmeshed with claims of securitization, the answer is not what you might think.
When a military sea vessel or aircraft is fired upon, especially by a heat seeking missile, it scatters bright and shiny objects that give off heat, but whose destruction will not harm the ship in the least bit. Wall Street banks have been sharpening this strategy for more than 20 years.
Most of the technical attacks on lending, collection, servicing, and enforcing claimed “debts” and foreclosures are simply wasting the time, money and energy of the homeowner whose best defenses are a good offense.
The winning attacks or challenges consist of directing and enforcing questions and asking for documents to which the homeowner is entirely entitled by law and by common sense.
There is no real world in which a Defendant is not entitled to know the name of the person suing him. There is no real world in which the Defendant is not entitled to know if the injury forming the basis of the complaint actually exists. And those rules, applied to collection and enforcement of mortgages were written by bank lobbyists. So you are not twisting either the word or the intent of the rules or the laws.
I think that both pro se litigants and their lawyers are afraid to get egg on their face and that is one reason why they lose so often. If you are going after a scheme make sure you are at least threatening to kill it. Don’t be afraid to ask whether the debt exists — the answer might surprise you.
FREE REVIEW:
Filed under: foreclosure |
@ ANON , I would love to see that question answered ,, I had AHMSI “lose” payment after payment creating a default on their books ,, it started the same month they became “servicer” ,, Wilbur Ross REALLY wanted people to default and if they wouldn’t do it fast enough he’d help them!
https://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/new_bank_of_america_whistle_blower_emerges_more_customer_abuse/
Interesting analogy. I know Neil is ready.
But, I am going to tell you – I pay. I have never not paid. And, the questions go FAR deeper. One has to look at what is happening to the money that IS paid by those paying – compared to those who were denied to even be allowed to pay. This will help. It is not about “egg.” Judges don’t have a clue. Why?
Will let you decide that.