Livinglies's Weblog

1. The signature is a scribble signature that is the “Signature” of the practice of robosigning.
2. The signatory is NOT saying that he has personal knowledge of anything — just that he is authorized to sign the declaration. Any attempt to “recognize” that as implying personal knowledge is an attempt to read into the document words that are not there and were never intended.
3. The signatory is NOT saying that he has received authorization from (for example) DBNTC or even that he works for DBNTC. If sued, DBNTC would say we never signed and never authorized that. Another example of plausible deniability.
4. In fact, he says he works (for example) for SPS, which implies that he does not work for DBNTC. Hence the inference or one could argue the presumption is that this is not a declaration from the beneficiary.
5. This provides a fruitful opportunity for a motion to strike that will either be granted (leaving the foreclosure mill lawyer with no legally enforceable claim) or, more likely, the withdrawal of the declaration and the submission of a “corrective” declaration — like we have seen with endorsements and assignments. All of them say nothing except that they are offered in support of the claim for foreclosure. 
6. The declaration does not assert that DBNTC is a beneficiary. It only asserts that for purposes of the document, it is “hereby” the beneficiary. Being a beneficiary is not an operation of a contract or documents. It is a status conferred by law. If one is seized with ownership of the underlying obligation, then that person or entity is a potential beneficiary. This declaration does not state that.
7. The burden is on the claimant. Saying something does not make it true (ask any 3-year-old). Failure to state that makes the document facially invalid and inadmissible as evidence IF and only IF a timely and proper objection is raised and a concurrent motion to strike the offending document or testimony or affidavit is made. Don’t expect the judge to practice law for you.
8. The source of his authority is neither stated nor referenced. The reader cannot independently confirm the truth of the matters asserted — a key factor in due diligence practiced by the banks.
9. The proffering of this document is a violation of custom and practice in the banking community that has existed for hundreds of years. It is also misrepresentation.
10. You don’t borrow on the lease because you have produced a lease. You borrow on a lease because that tenant has been contacted, verified the lease, and has passed the underwriting requirements for credit.
11. The document itself is worthless unless the matters asserted are verified and independently corroborated by outside parties with no interest in common with the intended borrower — all of that is how the law works, but it does not work automatically. You must do something to object to the document and prevent the judge from legally using it.
12. As I have stated before, the assertion is that DBNTC does not appear on its behalf but rather as a trustee. But no trust is identified because, as I have previously stated, there is no trust, and even if there was a trust, it could not possibly include a trust account on the books of the designated trustee in which the receivable due from the homeowner is due to DBNTC. 
13. But the key words are that DBNTC is appearing on behalf of the holders of certificates.
14. The clear implication is that the purchasers of certificates are beneficiaries. Hence the implied status of trustee is created by the illusion of a trust, but the representation attributed to DBNTC is that it represents certificate holders which is a lie — unless some certificates were issued to the underwriting investment bank.
15. Certificate holders are creditors, not equity holders in any company nor the holders of any right, title or interest to an unpaid loan account nor the intended recipient of any payment allegedly due from the hoemowner.
16. Missing is any reference to any source document that grants authority to SPS to do anything, much less in the name of Deutsch. Such a source document must be identified with specificity for the Declaration to have facial validity, which it does not, in my opinion, and is, therefore, subject to a portion to strike.
17. Missing is any referenced person who works for DBNTC or any document executed by DBNTC. This is not just important because it is a necessary link. Such a document would contain warranties that DBNTC is the beneficiary, owns the unpaid account, and is the rightful owner of the note and mortgage.
18. If you successfully force an officer of DBNTC to appear for deposition testimony, they will give you a regurgitation of carefully scripted and memorized lines that say nothing.
19. For example, if you ask them whether DBNTC possesses a claim to be paid by the subject homeowner, you will not get a straight answer. The answer will be that the claim is on behalf of …, and then he will recite the entire style of the case rather than referring to DBNTC. So the answer will be something like, “No, not DBNTC. It is DBNTC as trustee for the XYZ Asset Acquisition Trust certificate holders series 2007-AIC.”
20. If you ask whether DBNTC as trustee for the XYZ Asset Acquisition Trust certificate holders series 2007-AIC has ever received any money from the subject homeowner or ever expects to receive any money from the subject homeowner, the witness will refer you to a company that is falsely labeled as a servicer.
21. The problem is that people, lawyers, and judges get worn out, and their minds get tired of figuring out what is happening (see my last post on Friday). They give up thinking that the inquiry is merely searching for some technical objection. But it is no technical objection when the homeowner owes nothing to the declared claimant, Plaitniff, or beneficiary.

As with other cases I won as lead counsel, this document is one of the elements that can be attacked leaving a judge with no choice but to find that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that DBNTC is owed money from the homeowner because they purchased the liability.

*

As any accounting auditor will tell you, the evidence is insufficient to support the claim of a transaction unless it can be independently verified with receipts and the prospect of contacting the counterpart to the transaction.

*

I have found in my journalistic reporting that people who try to prove that the claim was fraudulent typically fail, although only sometimes. Most homeowner victories are predicated on insufficient evidence.

*========

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.