LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!
At 3:12 AM Kelly E. posted the following:
Answer: who does the Servicer represent, I.e: who is the alleged mortgagee and what authority does alleged servicer have to represent? Once a party name is supplied, send a Qualified written request with more specific questions.
Kelly will get a free pass to the seminar on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT. Upon request, Kelly may pick a licensed practicing attorney to attend also for no admission fee. The attending attorney will receive 2.5 credits in Florida and probably 2.0-2.5 in any of 26 other states that previously approved my presentation for CLE credit.
==========================
At least a dozen others also got the right answer, one of whom I was going to invite as a guest anyway because he was co-counsel with me when we won two cases hands down with findings of act opposite to what the foreclosure mill as arguing — Patrick Giunta, Esq., in Fort Lauderdale. Great lawyer.
Several of the people who submitted the right answers but also got lost in the weeds. The simple correct answer is to challenge the authority of the company that is named on the letterhead. It’s pretty simple: the proof fails if the foreclosure mill can’t produce a witness who will provide the legal foundation for the documents they intend to use at trial.
Patrick and I didn’t win our cases (he also won others on his own) because we proved that all claims of the securitization of debt are false and that foreclosures based upon the theory of securitization of debts are a scam although we both think that is probably true.
We won because we stopped the other side from getting their B-S into evidence. And we won because the lawyers for the homeowners revealed and then the judge found too many discrepancies that led the court to question the credibility of the documents proffered by the foreclosure mill. Since the entire case is built on documents that refer to events instead of records of those events, the case fails nearly every time.
That is all you need! But getting there is a challenge especially with judges who are, by definition, supposed to be skeptical.
The first thing that can be challenged and which therefore is the first step in the challenge is a challenge to authority. That authority must come from the owner who paid value in exchange for legal ownership and transfer of the alleged underlying obligation. If the authority exists then the servicer is a servicer. If it does not exist, then it doesn’t matter what business the company is in or what functions it actually performs. If it is a servicer, (by broad statutory definition) then you can go to the question bout what functions does it actually perform relative to the subject homeowner transaction.
Filed under: foreclosure |
You are sort of correct. But the first thing that can be challenged and which therefore is the first step in the challenge is a challenge to authority. That authority must come from the owner who paid value in exchange for legal ownership and transfer of the alleged underlying obligation. If the authority exists then the servicer is a servicer. If it does not exist, then it doesn’t matter what business the company is in or what functions it actually performs. If it is a servicer, (by broad statutory definition) then you can go to the question bout what functions does it actually perform relative to the subject homeowner transaction.
Judges don’t care about anything – except money.
When evidence is too inconvenient (too fraudulent) for their preferred parties (banks and well-connected lawyers) Judges are not shy to lie in litigants’ faces and conceal material evidence. I personally experienced it and observed in many publications
Florida Judges do not even allow ProSe to speak in their defense – at all, it was published by Mark Stopa.
Its inquisition not justice
The mysterious Fairies behind the scene are William P.Foley and his Black Knight aka Lender Processing Services/DocX LLC-2 (Foley’s DocX, LLC, not Lorraine Brown’s DocX.
Foley’s lawyer Todd Johnson registered the same company on the same day in 2008 when Brown closed her DocX, LLC
Another hidden fairy is CoreLogic, partner of First American Title who sell you bogus Title Insurance via third parties.
Florida AG knows about everything and covers
Oh — and is Kelly E in Florida? Happy New Year to Neil — and all my Jewish friends.
Congratulations to Kelly E!! I concur with Jan van Eck here. First of all — subservicers and special servicers do not have authority, but you don’t know that until you ask – who claims to be Master Servicer with claimed authority and how? Second, asking “who is the alleged mortgagee?” – will not work when the adversary attaches trustee name to a bogus trust. That is, for example — letterhead will reveal — U.S. Bank, N.A., trustee for BS Trust 1234. The claimed BANK should be the mortgagee, but they are not. They will claim — U.S. Bank, N.A., trustee for BS Trust 1234. But U.S. Bank N.A. trustee – holds nothing. Never did. They are not a mortgagee. Adversary tricks to pretend they are there in court. They are not. This is the most widely ignored representation issue in courts across the country. So — asking who is the alleged mortgagee – is a trick question. And, they will trick!!. Semantics. Is the trustee BANK really there? NO!!!! And, trustee is only a department – not an entity – you need the BANK there. Servicer authority is an important question – yes. But first you must decipher the actual adversary client — and you will NOT find it on a letterhead. TRAP. So fundamental first question is – accounting. That would flush out claimed mortgagee – if there ever was one. Not a question of getting trapped the “weeds.” It is a question of getting trapped in semantics. Representation – what you see is not what you get!!! And, if you rely on that – doomed. But — hey — Kelly E – make sure your attorney knows this!! QWR will verify the misrepresentation. And judges buy it. Good luck!!!
I remain unconvinced that this is the correct Answer. The problem with this is that it presumes that the Party writing that crank default notice is actually a Servicer. There is no evidence of that. I would suggest that the more usual situation is that the party writing that default letter is actually a stranger, an outside bill collector who is untethered to the debt or even the Note. Receiving an unsigned “letter” from a bill collections outfit that is attempting to rape you for your property is hardly conclusive that that entity is a traditional “servicer.”
The other issue, typically unexplored, is whether or not a “default notice” is actually a Letter in any legal sense if it bears no sender name and bears no signature. Can a default be even declared by other than an Officer of the entity that paid value for the debt? Probably not.
These are serious questions that need a proper legal resolution. Perhaps Mr. Garfield could chime in.