Everyone assumes that the company claiming to be a servicer is a servicer. But it isn’t.

Servicing is about money. If the money paid by homeowners is not deposited by their own employees into a financial account owned by the company claiming to be a servicer, then they have no right to record the receipt of such money. And they don’t.


I received the following inquiry: why does a “loan boarding analyst” need to be a computer coding expert. The answer is that the job description was put there in the name of a company that claimed to be a servicer and was not. The actual function is to make certain that all correspondence, statements, and notices go out under the name of the company claiming to be a servicer without that company ever performing servicing functions.

Because what those employees do has nothing to do with boarding “loans.” In our current example, SPS is a company whose servicing functions are performed by third parties. That would be legal if the third parties were performing those functions under the supervision of SPS. The records produced by those third parties would be qualified “business records” to avoid exclusion under the hearsay rule.

Servicing is about money. If the money paid by homeowners is not deposited by their own employees into a financial account owned by the company claiming to be a servicer, then they have no right to record the receipt of such money. And they don’t.
Everyone needs to be careful about accepting the labels and descriptions used by the banks to describe companies and their activities. Most of them are false and intended to mislead you and the rest of the world. So the reality of a job description for a “loan boarding analyst” is that the person needs to be a computer coding specialist with no required knowledge as to banking, bookkeeping or accounting. The object is to reset the basic data after the illusion of a transfer of servicing function has been created. This is shown to the homeowner as a “change of servicer” despite the fact that no such change ever occurred.

So after the claimed “loan boarding” date has been established, the third party who is actually performing the duties of a servicer (on behalf of investment banks, not investors) will start sending out correspondence, notices, and statements to homeowners who will think that they are corresponding with the company claiming to be a “servicer” and who would not think to question it.

Everyone assumes that the company claiming to be a servicer is a servicer. But it isn’t. And the records produced in court by a witness declaring that he/she is familiar with the record-keeping practices of the company are not qualified to be exceptions to the hearsay rule.
And that is because the further testimony that the data shown on those records were made by an employee of the company at or near the time of the transaction is untrue. The company never received any money and therefore made no entries on its accounting records to account for the receipt of money it never received. And this is why there are also no data entries for disbursement of money never received.
Anyone who has received a bad check understands this premise. If you received a check you only received a piece of paper. But if the check is negotiated into a depository account that you own and control then you also received the money. The money is what this is all about. Don’t let anyone fool you with paper. And by all means, don’t let reports about the paper stand in for reports on the money. It’s not the same thing. If someone sends you a check to an address owned and controlled by someone else, who is receiving and reporting the receipt of payment? It isn’t you. You didn’t receive it unless the third party was working for you and not the other way around.
The data was recorded, perhaps accurately and perhaps not, by a different company’s employee (or automated robot) because the depository account into which the money was deposited was named for the company claiming to be the servicer but owned by a different company. That means that both the testimony of the robowitness and the exhibits are not admissible into evidence and there is no other proof available to the foreclosure mill to establish legal proof that their claim exists.
BUT — unless the homeowner or the homeowner’s attorney attacks the presumptions through discovery, motions, and objections, this false testimony and the false exhibits proffered using the false testimony as the foundation for establishing the exhibits as business records, will be admitted. Upon admission, they become the facts and law of the case. The court has no room for discretion.
Even if the court suspects that the testimony and exhibits are false, the judge must rule for the foreclosure mill. The court is bound by the greater weight of the evidence. Questions and accusations do not count as evidence that will balance out the false evidence of the opposition. It is not false unless you present enough evidence that it is more likely than not that the evidence proffered by your opposition is false.

This is exactly where pro se litigants and inexperienced trial lawyers get hung up. They know enough to accuse the other side of wrongdoing but they can’t prove it.


The homeowner never has access to any admissible evidence that contradicts the presumptions created by the application of normal court procedure.


Without having undermined the ability of the opposition to claim such presumptions, the homeowner always loses. This is only accomplished in discovery demands and then demands (motions) to compel, for sanctions, and in limine. When the judge gets angry that his/her orders are being ignored, you are on the path to victory.


It is simple logic. If the opposition is relying upon presumed facts, you have the absolute right to test those facts in the real world. When they refuse to supply foundation evidence for the presumed facts, you have them right where you want them. The presumption fails and they have no further evidence to proffer. No evidence means no case. But without aggressively pursuing these rights, the false narrative will prevail.


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. Charles, Ginnie Mae DOES NOT own any Notes. It is all a giant scam operated by Wall Street Stockbrokers who are owned by the same families who own Federal Reserve.

    Here are no money in so-called “mortgages” after the very first transaction is securitized and placed with Cede & Co via DTC, unregulated branches of Federal Reserve.

    Notes are intentionally destroyed as soon as closing documents are scanned and placed into Cede and Black Knight’s systems. Ginnie Mae cannot “own” Notes which do not exists since closing.

    Read Florida Bankers Association 2009 report posted by FL Supreme Court. Wall Street Banks owners found the way how to eliminate any risk of loss in “lending practices” by a securitization scheme where only the very first transaction needed actual financing,such as earlier purchases of conventional loans; cashouts; large differences in home sale price (like “bidding wars” over $40K fixer uppers resulting in $400K sale price); or new construction.

    Which means they found the way to obtain a promise to repay substantial amounts of money from homeowners without lending them any money.

    After very first transaction was securitized, all following “lending” is merely a reference point to prior layers of securitizations which started with every new “purchase”, “assignment” or “refinancing”.  In order to avoid liabilities for this wide-spread fraud, Wall Street Stockrbrokers hired companies to pose as “Lenders” and “Servicers” who create a false impression that here are someone who lend money to homebuyers – solely to collect payments for a non-existing debt. 

    Why someone would intentionally destroy ownership of all debt? And WHO destroy all these documents?

    Because here was no debt to begin with and no one needs or wants any ownership of this debt, except when Wall Street needs to fabricate foreclosures – where “ownership” is assigned to fictitious parties by fictitious robo-signers most of whom do not physically exist. 

    Here is that Florida Bankers said  re lost notes. Its an official document from FL Supreme Court, not a conclusion or theory of conspiracy: 

    Bankers confirmed that Notes and all other mortgage files were converted into electronic files and immediately DESTROYED after closing which is basically a confession that nobody has or needs ownership of the Note until foreclosure. 

    Why nobody needs ownership of the debt? The only reasonable answer is – because here is no debt to own or someone does not care if the debt actually exists. 

    “Mortgages and Notes are converted to electronic files”

    by whom? Or they converted itself into files? Someone must have an authority to convert these mortgages into electronic files and store it in someone’s database. Present “Lenders” cannot do it since their role is to pretend that they lend some money and sell loans to someone.

    How can “Lenders” sell any loans if all files are destroyed thus nobody owns any debt? Only information about some “debt” (if exists)

    “Individual loans are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to secondary market”.

    Again, by WHOM they are compiled and who transferred them? Loans do not jump into portfolios  and transfer themselves. The Master ( the actual person ) who has legal rights (owner of the debt) is always  missing. The Seller in every transaction related to “sales” of loans is always missing. 

    “The RECORDS of ownership is maintained by a servicing AGENT on an electronic database. “

    So, Records of Ownership (which before foreclosures apparently   belong to the World at large) are maintained by a Servicing Agent who was hired by  SOMEONE  who is never disclosed, on  SOMEONE’s electronic database – who is never discloses; and these records of ownership were recorded by someone who is never disclosed – presumably the “Lender” who like Perl has no idea about that is going on with my “loan” and who never lend any money for home purchase to anyone.

    When you ask this “Servicing Agent” whom they servicing ; who appointed then as a Servicer and who  while they servicing a particular loan for particular time owns rights to collect from the homeowner ; and who owns this database  they will never respond or respond that it is a “proprietory  information” which is a typical language for the Ponzi scammers. 

    So who “owns” the debt until Wall Street owners need to steal someone’s home ? A World at large? It is not allowed by American laws. 

    Nobody owns any debt because here was no debt to begin with. Here were no money involved in so-called “lending”. Homebuyers agree to repay for information about someone’s earlier transaction (could be as far as in 1995) which was internally defaulted by Wall Street Banks to refuse payments to earlier investors.

    And if this property had several “mortgages” – every new “borrower” agree to repay for a pile securitization levels – without any money involved (except here are cash outs or a big difference between home value and purchase price of a new construction.

    No one GSE owns anyones Notes since they are all destroyed at the very beginning. GSE pretend that they “guarantee” payments to investors – without having accounts for “guaranteed” loans.


  2. Here is my issue is that on Jul 31, 2006, Wells Fargo Bank entered into a servicing agreement with Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) to service 1.3 million FHA & VA loans and took physical possession of the loans when it purchased the building housing the loan in Milwaukee Wi. Wells is collecting monies for WAMU only because WAMU gave them the ability, so on Sept 25, 2008 in secret the OTS came into WAMU and seized the bank and the FDIC declared WAMU a “failed bank” which ended them being a bank.

    Now none of these loans were in the possession of WAMU physically as Wells had all 1.3 million files. As we know for a fact that at least 96% of every FHA & VA loan is attached to the bank created Ginnie Mae MBS, and every loan attached must conduct a UCC3 procedure and are relinquished to Ginnie to create the MBS.

    WAMU stops existing on Sept 25, 2008, and has no powers to collect a dime nor does a Wells Fargo Bank working for WAMU but not Ginnie Mae who actually owns the Notes that are in their possession as Wells is acting as the custodian of records.

    Even now if Ginnie wants to claim that because Wells is in possession of the blank endorsements there was no sell of the loans. People were thrown off because JP Morgan purchase some of the other assets with portfolio loans plus they were servicing Fannie & Freddie loans, but they could not and did not servicer these FHA & VA loans which Wells is still servicing those loans.

    Serivers are given power through the lenders and in this case the lender stopped existing never regaining the Notes!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: