With Autopen technologies, something is missing — a person.

People and lawyers often say that the judge would not listen. That isn’t true. The judge is listening. He or she is just not hearing well founded objections raised in a timely manner. If you don’t put the nickle into the gumball machine, you get nothing. It doesn’t matter that you had a nickle in your pocket.

I see no reason why automated technologies should not be used. They do make things easier, faster, better and less prone to error. But with machines that create a signature, there is a legal problem of great significance. It creates a loophole through which the largest banking institutions in the world are driving 18 wheel trucks filled with cash.

For purposes of information, if you don’t have the original document or a copy of the original document, then you must account for why you don’t have the document and why you should be considered a party to it. That is basic black letter law. See procedures for lost notes etc.

But what we have been seeing is a fabrication passed off as an original — with no explanation or accounting.

Hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases were originally filed as “lost note” cases because the original notes were destroyed contemporaneously with the “closing” of the transaction with the homeowner. As admitted by the Florida Bankers Association, it was custom and practice to destroy the promissory note even though it was a cash-equivalent document. Crazy at first blush but nonetheless true.

This was actually uncovered very early in the foreclosure mess that started around the year 2000. By 2007 it was very apparent that if you asked for the “loan file” before the foreclosure process began, nobody had it — and in particular, nobody had the original note. But after the foreclosure process begins the note pops up like magic. The reason became clear when the documents claiming to be original notes were signed with a different color ink than the homeowner used.

And we all know that all State attorney generals filed lawsuits against the securitization players for fabricating false documentation for exactly that reason. Apparently for political reasons the problem was never corrected and still remains. The players promised to mend their ways but did no such thing.

So what we are left with is a document that is not signed, as the word “Signature” is intended to convey. It is marked by machine and presented as the original that was signed by the homeowner. That means that the original is either destroyed (most likely) or lost (also likely). And that means that someone else might have the original or that someone else might be entitled to the enforcement of the note. Or it could mean that nobody is entitled to enforce the note because the obligation has been extinguished. It could mean almost anything.

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5VB8DuZMv8


And that is why the mechanical reproduction of signed documents is a hearsay declaration presented by the proponent of the evidence unless there is someone who can testify under oath (and subject to penalties of perjury) that they have personal knowledge of the transaction and the way that the original note was lost and why the proponent is entitled to enforce it.

The only reason why machines are used to fabricate documents as “originals” is to avoid the requirement of producing a real live witness with personal knowledge. Before the era of securitization, they had no problem with producing such witnesses. But now they not only avoid it; they also refuse to do it.

Remember that while it is presumed that possession of the original note means that the possessor is a holder with rights to enforce, the possession of mechanical reproduction does not carry such presumptions. The reason is obvious: it isn’t the original. This brings the claimant or plaintiff in a foreclosure case back to the very thing they wish to avoid: proving the existence and ownership of the underlying obligation.

People forget that the right to enforce must ultimately come from the person who has paid value for ownership of the underlying obligation. This is precisely the issue that has been dodged so successfully in foreclosure litigation resulting in foreclosure sales that inure to the benefit of companies that receive money in exchange for services instead of for the purpose of crediting a loan account.

The courts have all assumed and twisted judicial doctrine out of joint to prove their assumption that eventually the sale results in payment to someone who has paid value for the underlying obligation, owns the underlying obligation, and would otherwise suffer a financial loss if they did not get the monetary proceeds from the sale. That simply is not true.

It is the job of the defender to show (1) the basic black letter elements of a foreclosure case are not actually present or (2) that the opposition cannot prove that those elements are present; either one produces a win for homeowners. Homeowners make strategic errors when they attempt to prove that the elements do not exist. They should be concentrating on revealing that their opposition can not prove the elements —even if they did exist. 


Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.


Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.


2 Responses

  1. Yes, the Judge is listening…to the money.

    Most Notes have fake signatures which do not even look like signatures of the real persons who claimed to “sign” it. Thus, clear forgery and must not be accepted by any Court.

    Most defendants cannot object anything – judges simply would not let them to even open their mouth. This is not an isolated situation – its a system

    Mill lawyers often do not even file any “supportive evidence” such as payment history from Black Knight – and its ok with judges. Here is nothing to “timely object” for defendants when the documents are not filed with the case.

    If the “evidence” presented by mill lawyers is drastically different than originally filed – judges conceal this evidence from the record and rule for the money,

    This is not isolated precedent, judicial concealment of inconvenient evidence is published by numerous parties. I personally experienced such situation; and here are millions of cases where crime victims simply are too affraid to say anything about judicial corruption

  2. I can only speak to my particular situation on this. There is not “one piece” of paper that signatures, dates, parties, match the complaint served by the Plaintiff. Even the scriveners affidavit states: origination was in 2000, seven (7) years before the loan request. The original assignment was on behalf of New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC), endorsed by Steve Nagy, in 2008. He did not work for NCMC after September of 2007 (Nagy filed a personal bankruptcy in 2006, which I acquired a copy of….the signatures “do not match”). My note was seized (transcript of NCMC bankruptcy Trustee, Alan Jacobs, evidentiary hearing July 2012) and they were not in possession of the note when they initiated the foreclosure action in 2009…at any point, even up to, until 2015.

    These things should matter. If I were in court on any other matter, the cased would be tossed…better yet, try to sell/transfer the title to a car at the DMV with this stuff…they wouldn’t allow it.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: