If you don’t know procedure you don’t know how to win.

The claim of securitization is present in virtually every case of a loan account receivable. It is a false claim. All  subsquent claims to administer, collect or enforce the alleged loaon account receivable are therefore also false.

But the false claim becomes the law of the case unless the consumer — with no help from government agencies that are tasked with protecting consumers — contests every single piece of correspondence, exhibit, document, notice or pleading starting with “Greetings we are your new servicer.”

One of my favorite contributors asked a question about how to find the fact that there is no loan account. This question comes from uncertainty about whether there is a loan account after all or not. It also raises the wrong question because it addresses substance rather than procedure. Procedure is what wins and loses cases.


The specific question is whether the recitation of “valuable consideration” or $1, $10, etc. is enough to show that the loan account receivable was not actually sold in a commercial transaction. the precise answer is no it isn’t enough on its own.


You don’t need to find the loan account or to get an admission that it doesn’t exist. In fact, the fewer the answers to the actual legal demands the better for you if you know how to enforce them.


If you want to accomplish anything you need to assume that the loan account receivable does not exist. And you must challenge every claim of any right, title or interest in the administration, collection or enforcement of any alleged unpaid debt.


You have to realize that you are never going to get the answer you were looking for. And you have to accept the fact that the only effective way of pushing back is by legally contesting every piece of correspondence, notice, recording, pleading, or exhibit.

The answer to your question would be that the party simply wanted to keep the details of the transaction confidential. That isn’t true, but that is what they will say. And that is why you need to pierce through the arguments and allegations and demand actual copies of the account receivable and evidence of payment for the underlying obligation.
Failure to do that leaves the judge in the position of hearing you say “isn’t this suspicious?” and hearing the other side say “No, it isn’t suspicious, we simply use that form to comply with statutes and to keep the details of our transaction confidential.” The key is the word,” transaction.”
No document is anything more than a legal nullity if it is not a memorialization of something that actually happened, is happening, or is intended to happen. The argument that a transaction exists is not evidence — but it becomes evidence when the homeowner fails to challenge it in a manner that requires a compulsory response. THAT is procedure.
Like most things, law is about perception. If you wait to first raise these meritorious issues until the opposition actually starts with enforcement, the perception is that your defenses are suspicious —- not that the claims are suspicious.

3 Responses

  1. I call it Circus Courts

  2. Happy New Year Neil and a Big THANK YOU for ALL ypu have done in your role as Don Quixote for all of us victims of our very own government and all the nastt, corrupt lenders, and our really really poor representation on behalf of so many inept and corrupy, as well, government elected and selected representatives!!
    My initial loans with Countrywide have been supposedly/allegedly transferred to now yet another lender
    Have a great year and please stay happy, healthy, and safe in theses really crazy and bizaare times!!! Semper Fi from a 77 year old Veteran

  3. Sounds like if you are great at being a criminal , the procedure of the court will protect you & blame the pro de defendant, even though everyone in the room knows the truth. Nice Kangaroo Courts in the USSA.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: