Business Records Clarity

Just to be clear.

*

The reports are produced by XYZ financial services (usually FiServ in conjunction with CoreLogic).

*

The witness who is ostensibly employed by the company that has been designated as  “Servicer” knows nothing about the location, existence, ownership, or authority over any account maintained in the name of the company (ABC BANk — usually US Bank, DBNTC or BONY) designated as a creditor.

*

The witness has never seen the loan account, nor has he or she ever spoken with anyone from the designated creditor.

*

The report is simply a printout via access to a server operated and maintained by the financial technology company and is now categorized as a servicer by the CFPB which is the agency that is authorized to define that — but the courts have not caught up to that.

*

The witness also cannot testify on personal knowledge that the company paying him to testify has ever received, processed or distributed any payment received from the subject homeowner. If asked he will admit that he has never seen anyone from his company process a payment.

*

That report is NOT a record of business performed by the “servicer.” It is a record of business performed by the financial technology companies who are in control of the lockbox, depositing, and processing of all data entries of all payments received by or on behalf of any designated creditor.

*

That designated creditor (e.g. “REMIC Trustee”)is not someone who owns or knows anything about the content of any unpaid loan account.

*

That is why it is pointless to ask US Bank, BONY or DNTC anything about the loan account. They don’t know and they don’t care.

*

Since the author of the report presented in court is not present in court in person or even vicariously (as when a witness testifies that he or she is familiar with the record-keeping of the employer) and since the witness is not employed by the company that performed the business operations represented on the report, the report is inadmissible, upon timely and proper objection, as hearsay.

*

In addition, a further objection could be made as to the foundation and even relevance since the “report,” even if it is included in the records of the “Designated servicer” is not supported by testimony that establishes the chain starting with the financial technology company (because they don’t want to admit that the financial technology is involved).

*

They don’t want to admit that FINTECH is involved because that would lead to further inquiries revealing that all of these companies, including originators, aggregators, assignees, assignors, Master Servicers, sub-servicers, foreclosure mills, and trustees are acting as the alter ego and instrumentality of the bookrunner investment bank. ALL OF THEM!

=======

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
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.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting 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. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for 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 CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

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. ‘. . . acting as the alter ego and instrumentality of the book runner investment bank’ this sums up the felonious scheme.

    Please keep up the excellent tutoring Neil – the world has not grown cold, yet. I fervently hear everything you say!! Thanks!

  2. There is no correlation between the REMIC and the servicing platform. Nor are they any validated records showing the sale, assignment or transfer of any REMIC loans…further the SEC has no comprehensive history of the “alleged” investments. Every single document is fabricated and manipulated for the court appearance. Even the lawyers have no idea who they work for, and could care less. In my opinion…12 years and nothing lines up, can be verified or validated. I even had a lawyer show up in court for the “alleged” lender that didn’t exist in any of the 50 states. Go figure!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: