The irrefutable logic at the foundation of all successful foreclosure defense narratives

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Neil Garfield

The mortgage lien is designed to protect against financial loss — not to promote financial gain. If Wall Street wants to protect the financial gains it created from its crazy scheme using weapons of mass financial destruction, then the least it should do is share a little of that with homeowners, consumers, the government, and investors.

I continually get the same question, mostly because neither the homeowner nor the “investigators” understand anything about being a licensed, educated, experienced investment banker, lawyer, or accountant. If they were any of those, they would not ask the question.

The latest question was whether the discharge in bankruptcy helps.

The discharge in bankruptcy does not interfere with the ability to enforce the lien if the lien is valid — and the enforcer is a creditor who maintains an unpaid loan account receivable due from the homeowner on the ledgers of that creditor. I think the lien is invalid because it did not secure an underlying obligation created by the original transaction.

The original transaction consisted of an incentive payment paid to or on behalf of the homeowner in exchange for the issuance of documents that created the illusion of a loan transaction.

Thereafter, no party treated the transaction as a loan, nor did any party claim ownership of an unpaid loan account on their accounting ledgers. But documents were filed in support of fraudulent claims for foreclosure remedies that appeared to be facially valid, raising the presumption that the loan account existed.

I think the problem is that people can’t wrap their heads around one idea. The transaction they signed into was not a loan. If there is no lender, creditor or loan account, there cannot be a loan that is recognized in our legal system, nor should there be.

If there is no loan, no loan account, nor any creditor sitting with an accounting ledger on which they report the acquisition of an obligation due from you, you don’t owe the money to them. If no such creditor exists, you don’t owe the money at all.

The mortgage lien is designed to protect against financial loss — not to promote financial gain. If Wall Street wants to protect the financial gains it created from its crazy scheme using weapons of mass financial destruction, then the least it should do is share a little of that with homeowners, consumers, the government, and investors.

We are so trained to believe that we are not entitled to profit from Wall Street schemes designed to defraud us that we refuse to accept the profit even when it is sitting on a golden plate in front of us.

If homeowners were to withhold payments (that are not legally due anyway) en masse, it would force Wall Street to do the right thing: reform all the transactions to reflect the economic realities, to wit: share the bounty with the keystone participants — homeowners who issue the documents that form the foundation of the sale of securities that are unrelated to the illusion of any sale of an underlying obligation.

To be sure, there would need to be substantial changes in the law governing consent and compensation, in addition to the existing laws requiring full disclosure of all financial transactions producing revenue from the stroke of a homeowner’s pen. That can be done if we want to do it. Until then, homeowners will continue to win their cases in small numbers without truly understanding why or how they won.

*========

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.

Filed under: bankruptcy, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Investor, originator, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: financial loss, homeowner as issuer of securities, illusion of sale of underlying obligation, mortgage lien | 2 Comments »

How Evidence Works for and Against the Consumer/Homeowner

Posted on April 7, 2022 by Neil Garfield

(Once again, because of minor medical issues I decline to do the Neil Garfield Show. I offer this instead)

It is easy to get lost in the weeds. Don’t make up your own words or definitions because your definitions have no relevance to your case. Do hold the accusing side to their words and to the legally accepted definitions of those words as contained in statutes and cases.

But above all, start at the beginning — a rookie mistake made by nearly all young litigators and pro se litigants who skip over the gold to pick up a few pieces of copper. They exclaim “How could I lose, I have the copper!” And all the court wanted was the gold.

This post is inspired by the factual findings of several of my most generous contributors, and a hat tip to summer chic. Just because you hear a word or term don’t think you know what it means or the context in which it is issued. That is what litigation is all about.

So first I will repeat what Aristotle said. First, define your terms. I personally know what Fiserv did as a payment processor when it served to intercept and process transactions from POS and ATM devices. I know what it did when it effectively acted as Gateway for intercept processors, including itself.

Payment processing in all of its forms consists of three distinct nodes: receipt of money, data processing (recording the receipt and disbursement of money) and the actual disbursement of money. In that sense, Fiserv has always been a servicer.

So it is easy to see why the investment banks trusted FiServ to handle those functions rather than anyone else. And they did. After the Tylor Bean débâcle, they would never let a company actually perform servicing functions because that would leave open the door to stealing.

It was Black Knight who set up the lockbox arrangements (contracts) but FiServ who actually did the grunt work — receiving, accounting, and disbursing $MONEY$. Except that they didn’t really do disbursing.

Because the act of depositing the money was a disbursement. They would take a $1,000 check from Homeowner Smith and deposit it into a bank account that was owned and controlled by XYZ Capital Finance, Inc. which was either a subsidiary of the investment bank or a conduit for outflow to offshore accounts. The named “servicer” never saw or even expected to receive that money.

The reason why I am commenting on this is that this is extraordinarily important to the defense narrative for consumers. The ONLY party who may sue is one who has suffered financial injury “proximately” caused by the conduct of the party against whom he has filed suit.

I have argued for 16 years that the homeowner deserves to win. But people take that as meaningless drivel from a defense lawyer who will always say that his criminal client is innocent. So try this: you can win and why should you not? If you were facing jail would you really so blithely accept the “inevitable”?

If the homeowner fails to make a payment that appears on some schedule and Goldman Sachs loses money because they’re betting that he would make the payment, the injury suffered by Goldman Sachs is NOT LEGALLY caused by the failure of the homeowner to make a payment. GS cannot sue the homeowner for that. That bet is the same as betting on a horserace. You can’t sue the owner for losing or throwing the race.
If an investor IS getting paid regardless of whether the homeowner makes a payment or not, then they can claim no injury from the “failure” to make a scheduled payment.
- The investor who purchased a certificate is simply betting that the investment bank that issued the certificate will make the payments or cause payments to be made according to the terms of the contract that is the certificate — not according to any contract with the homeowner. The certificate parties are investor vs investment bank — not investor vs homeowner.
If an investor has no legal claim to receive payments from homeowners nor to administer, collect or enforce any alleged loan account the investor has no claim whatsoever against the homeowner — for the simple reason that the investor has chosen to have no relationship whatsoever with the homeowner in order to avoid liability for lending and servicing errors, mistakes or violations of statutes passed by the Federal and State governments — of which there were tens of millions of cases resulting in hundreds of billions in settlements, so far.
If an investment bank was counting on receiving a scheduled payment from a homeowner but had no right to receive it, it may not under current law in any U.S. jurisdiction recover money from the homeowner nor force the sale of the homeowner’s property.
If the investment bank had no legal right, title or interest to the underlying obligation, debt, note or mortgage (deed of trust) issued by the homeowner, then it had no right to administer, collect or enforce any payment set forth on any schedule — nor grant the authority to do so to someone else.
- One may not grant rights that do not belong to the grantor. If I promise to give you my jet, you will not get the jet simply because I don’t have a jet. And if you know I don’t have a jet you have no claim for my failure to deliver it.
If a company is named as servicer then unless FiServ is doing the work for that “servicer” company (under contract), then the work done by FiServ is the work of Fiserv, and only Fiserv employees and representatives can testify about what was done and what their records contain.
- Any report issued by them or based upon FiServ data must be established by foundation testimony from the records custodian of FiServ and not some robowitness employed by the company who was named as a servicer but was not performing the basic servicing functions.
- Any such report and testimony of the “representative of the named “servicer” are irrelevant, lacking in competence, foundation, or materiality.
- Such testimony is rank hearsay clearly excludable in every court in every U.S. jurisdiction — but only if a timely and proper objection is raised within the context of a coherent defense narrative.
- This is because the only thing that a robowitness can really say is that “I received this report and my boss says it is a report from my employer who I have been told by someone (I don’t remember who) is a servicer of an unpaid loan account due from the homeowner to the Greatest Bank of All Time, N.A., not on its own behalf but on behalf of the Indecipherable Trust 200x-04 ALRT-A pass-through certificates, not on its own behalf but on behalf of the holders of those certificates, about whom I know nothing.”
  - “I know nothing about the content of any servicing agreement between my employer and any creditor who has paid value or otherwise has a right, title, or interest in receiving money from the collection of payments, principal, or interest from homeowners. “
- In truth, the report is entirely printed out from data received exclusively from FiServ data processing servers and storage servers which are owned, operated and maintained by FiServ which provides services (“servicing”) to and for the exclusive benefit of investment bankers who have no legal right to administer, collect or enforce any debt.
- In truth, when the robowitness says he or she is familiar with the records of his or her employer what they really mean is that they’re familiar with a script and know absolutely nothing about the operations of their employer because their employer does not want them to know anything. (This is how many such witnesses are “blown up” on the witness stand by hundreds of lawyers across the country.)

So for purposes of this discussion, a payment processor is a company that processes payments — i.e., something that is actually happening and something that they are a direct party to witness the actual occurrence of actual events and recording them. A “servicer” is a company that services payments from the homeowner and accounts for its actions by recording data on its own records regarding said receipt.

If they have not done that, then they’re not a servicer in the conventional use of the word, even though the statutory definition for purposes of statutory liability to consumers is much broader. That statutory definition (augmented by regulation X) does not mean that they received any payments nor recorded any such receipt.

Use of that statutory definition as a basis for misleading the court about the role of the company named as servicer and the origin of the information will eventually become, in fairly short order, the subject of a series of actions by state bar associations, the FTC and the CFPB. Insurers of lawyers have already inserted sufficient cover language to deny coverage for intentional misdeeds. Since the company named as “servicer” is not “servicing” any unpaid loan account receivable (which it will be revealed does not exist) they have no right to testify about it, much less the balance or record of payments.

This is all true and but it is NOT a sign of judicial corruption to point out instances in which these particular facts are either ignored or denied by the person sitting on the bench. Their job as judges is to rule on what is brought in front of them — not what might have been brought nor what should not have been brought if there had only been an objection. The truth is that in most cases I have received I would have ruled the same way as the judge frequently accused of corruption.

Once the homeowner has effectively admitted that there is an unpaid loan account receivable exists (without any information), admits that the third party company is a servicer (without any information), and admits that the bank named is the trustee of a trust (without any information), and admits that the trust owns an unpaid loan due from that homeowner or even argues about which trust owns the loan, what choice do I have as a judge but to rule that those facts are, for purposes of the case in front of me, the facts of the case?

Litigation is about offense and defense. The purpose of defense is NOT to let the evidence in or to find ways to get it out. It is not to prove that the lawyers or anyone else are corrupt, evil, or belongs in jail. Once you make that allegation and can’t legally prove it, you will lose all credibility on the main point — defense. And that will cost you the opportunity to make a ton of money on wrongful foreclosure.

================

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

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

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 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.

Filed under: boarding process, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, hearsay, jurisdiction, legal standing, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | 1 Comment »

Why the UCC Matters in Foreclosure Cases

Posted on April 5, 2022 by Neil Garfield

The problem as illustrated by many scholarly articles and articles on this blog is that courts are given to treat plaintiffs and claimants as holders in due course without anyone asking them to do so.

The first thing you need to know about Foreclosure is that it is only about money. If you have the money and you pay it, there is no claim — or at least no claim against you. You might have a claim against a “debt collector” seeking to enforce a nonexistent debt for a nonexistent claimant.

The second thing to remember is that, by definition, foreclosure is a lawsuit or claim based upon enforcement of the mortgage or deed of trust. The promissory note is usually introduced as evidence of the existence of the obligation and the duty to make scheduled payments. But enforcement of the note alone can only result in a monetary judgment that could be discharged in bankruptcy.

According to the law in every U.S. jurisdiction (adopting 9-203 UCC) the mortgage or deed of trust can only be foreclosed to satisfy an unpaid existing obligation owed by the homeowner to the named claimant. Lawyers and judges have adopted various strategies to allow foreclosures when they are only based upon the enforcement rights of a holder of a promissory note and often without regard to whether the claimant is a legal “holder.”

In fact, most courts treat the claimant as though it had established its exalted status of a holder in due course — without anyone asserting that status. And the common failure to object to such treatment is the principal reason why homeowners fail to successfully defend foreclosure actions based upon a nonexistent loan account and often even a nonexistent claimant.

In 2007, the Fordham Law review published an article entitled “Will the real holder in due course please stand up?” I republished that article later on this blog. The answer to the question, in cases where foreclosure was claimed as a legal remedy by some alleged REMIC trust structure, was that there was no holder in due course.

You’ll be surprised to learn that there have been many cases where a credible offer to pay the claim has been declined if it required confirmation from the named Plaintiff or claimant.

This is standard industry practice in circumstances where a prior “loan” is being been financed or paid off through sale or other means. Many states have laws specifically requiring that the payoff information includes such information and assurances — in order to prevent a payoff to a party with no claim. It is basic common sense and basic law to assure continuous clear title to the property free from claims of clouded or unmarketable title.

In each case where I have been involved, opposing counsel basically took the position that they didn’t want the money they wanted the foreclosure. And in each case, the judge was surprised by that position.

But most homeowners are not in a position to make a credible offer to pay off the entire amount as demanded. Those who can make that offer are utilizing the AMGAR strategy that I developed 16 years ago.

Those who cannot make that offer must litigate to make the same point — that in the final analysis (trial) the attorney for the named claimant will be unable to proffer credible evidence of the existence, ownership, and authority to administer, collect or enforce any debt.

Instead, they will proffer fabricated documents and argue that the judge should apply legal presumptions to conclude that an obligation exists, the named claimant owns it and the homeowner is in breach of a duty to make scheduled payments.

In reverse logic, the foreclosure lawyer simply takes an uncontested fact (usually) and bootstraps it into a case that the judge thinks is real. And what nearly everyone forgets is that the absence of a scheduled payment, even after making such payments, is not evidence of default nor a license to declare a default unless the payment was actually legally required to be paid to the party seeking to collect it.

If you skip a car payment I have no business, right or justification in declaring that to be a default. But current law is hazy on the subject of what happens if I do declare the default and then bring a claim based upon my declaration of default and my claim that I represent the loan company.

In a 2016 article just brought to my attention that was published by Franklin Pierce School of Law of New Hampshire University, a lawyer in Miami published an article about the nonconforming use of the UCC to support nonconforming claims. At the time of publication, he was associated with a Florida law firm representing lenders. 14 U.N.H. L. REV. 267 (2016), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol14/iss2/2.

See

The Non-Uniform Commercial Code: The Creeping, Problematic Application of Article 9 to Determine Outcomes in Foreclosure Cases

Morgan L. Weinstein

Senior Attorney at Van Ness Law Firm, PLC, Miami, FL

The Non-Uniform Commercial Code_ The Creeping Problematic Applic

Weinstein makes a clear presentation of fact and law with respect to the application of UCC Article 3 (notes) and Article 9 (Security instruments, mortgages deeds of trust etc.).

Keep in mind here that a holder in due course (HDC) is ONLY one who has paid value for the ownership of the note in good faith and without knowledge of the maker’s defenses. In plain language, the HDC can enforce even though there are potentially many defenses that would be available to the maker of the note if the claimant was merely an alleged “holder.”

In every instance where a REMIC trust structure is alleged, there is only an allegation or assertion that the “trustee” or trust is a holder, not a holder in due course. Earlier (2001-2005) assertions of HDC status were removed from the script.

Also, keep in mind that a legal holder of a note has two attributes: POSSESSION and RIGHT TO ENFORCE. The latter is overlooked. The only party with the power to grant the right to enforce is ultimately the creditor who owns the underlying obligation.

So the claimant attempting to enforce a note may file a complaint (and win a judgment if there is no contest) based upon the technical allegation that it is a “holder”. But it still loses at trial or summary judgment if it fails to respond to discovery requests asking for the source of its authority to enforce (given that they are not a holder in due course).

The problem as illustrated by many scholarly articles and articles on this blog is that courts are given to treat plaintiffs and claimants as holders in due course without anyone asking them to do so. Although I have seen many transcripts in which the lawyer Argues that his “client” is a holder in due course without any reference to payment of value in exchange for ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

Such “misstatements” are protected under the doctrine of litigation immunity unless you can prove that the lawyer speaking absolutely had knowledge that he or she was lying when the statement was made.

He begins with a discussion of negotiability:

Negotiability presents the possibility of a transferee taking a position that is better than the transferor.The Uniform Commercial Code defines a number of different possible parties to a negotiation. There are three general positions that a transferee can occupy in a transfer under a negotiable instrument: the transferee can occupy a better position, a same position, or a worse position, with each position being relative to the transferor. [e.s.]

Typically, lenders in foreclosure actions occupy the same or worse position, given their frequent status as a “holder,”rather than the better position of a “holder in due course.”

Under Article 3, a “holder in due course” occupies a privileged position.Specifically, a holder in due course is insulated from numerous defenses to the right to enforce an instrument. A holder in due course is susceptible only to the “real defenses” of a borrower or other interested party.The real defenses include claims of infancy, essential fraud, insolvency, duress, incapacity, or illegality.Though there is an assumption of good faith in Article 3 dealings,a holder in due course is still protected from many defenses to the right to enforce.

Weinstein makes the following point, though:

it is generally understood that a note-holder may foreclose a mortgage, and a plaintiff need only establish entitlement to enforce the note in order to demonstrate its ability to foreclose the incidental mortgage; such a plaintiff need not demonstrate ownership of the note.

Although he correctly states the current status of legal consensus, this statement overlooks the issue presented above — that the right to enforce emanates solely and ultimately from the creditor owning the underlying obligation. Otherwise, the whole concept is meaningless.

The prima facie case of the claimant need not prove that line of authority and grants but the defense can undermine and eliminate the prima facie case if it can be shown that the claimant has not received such authorization or that the claimant cannot produce evidence of such authorization in discovery and even under court order in the discovery process.

Thus whether one relies on Article 3 or Article 9 the UCC result is the same: there is no remedy of foreclosure for a party who has not paid value for the underlying obligation or at the very least can show the foreclosure sale will be used to pay the creditor owning the underlying obligation thus reducing the alleged loan balance.

This goes to the root of foreclosure. Nobody in the courts would agree that anyone with knowledge of the original transaction with a homeowner should be allowed to enforce a contract to which he she or it was not a party. And if the proceeds of a foreclosure sale are not intended to decrease the loan account receivable of a creditor who paid value, then there can and should be no foreclosure or any other claim for that matter.

As far as I can determine, contrary to the belief of most lawyers and judges, there is no single instance where the forced sale of residential property in which the claimant was an alleged REMIC trustee, for an alleged REMIC trust resulted in payment to anyone who was owed the money. In fact, there is no single instance in which the alleged REMIC trustee or the alleged REMIC trust even received one single penny at any time.

My conclusion: all alleged REMIC trust structures are basically trade names (fictitious names) for the investment bank. None of them ever see a penny of payments received from homeowners or their homes.

=======================================
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

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

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.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | Tagged: Article 3 UCC, article 9 UCC | 2 Comments »

How Those Refi’s Were Turned Into Gold by the Investment Banks

Posted on January 12, 2022 by Neil Garfield

Most people cannot conceive of why they should have been paid more at the purported “Closing” of their transaction than what they received or what they think was paid on their behalf.

But the bottom line is that in most cases, whether the transaction involved a resale of the home or “refinancing,” only a fraction of the money you thought was transacted was actually present. It’s not just that they should have been paid more — it is that the homeowner did not receive the money he or she promised to pay back. This fact is part of a pattern of active concealment directed by investment bankers that starts with the initial transaction and continues right up to and including the foreclosure sale and eviction.

In short, you issued notes and mortgages for far more than any money paid to or on your behalf. You didn’t owe the money but they got you to promise to pay it anyway. This is a joke and a bonus for investment bankers — but it is a loss for the homeowner.

Instead, each new transaction left the previous one intact and started a new securitization infrastructure. So a home that was subject to an initial securitization claim could end up with as many as 8 securitization infrastructures —- all with sales to investors for far more than anything paid to or on behalf of the homeowner. And each securitization infrastructure led to sales of around $12 in securities for $1 of apparent money that was asserted to have been transacted with the homeowner.

Do the math. A single transaction falsely labeled as a mortgage loan can produce up to $96 for each dollar originally paid to or on behalf of the homeowner. Don’t you think you should have been told about that? It turns out that the question is fully answered in the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

And the answer is yes, you should have been told that because the purpose of the Act was to prevent virtual “creditors” from being substituted for actual creditors who were responsible for compliance with lending laws, rules and regulations. Event table-funded loans were declared against public policy — but this is much worse. It takes an essential component out of the transaction falsely labeled as a loan.”

If you believe the transaction consisted at least partly of “paying off” an old lien, then you DO want the outgoing wire transfer or other means of payment. If the prior and new lien were funded by direction from the same investment bank it would be unusual for that portion have to have been sent to the old “lender” because it is long out of the picture. But it is still common because the investment banks don’t want to alert the closing agent that the deal was a scam. So they direct a wire transfer to a certain depository account bearing the name “Ocwen Servicing” or some such thing that is actually controlled by the common underwriting investment bank.

So if you ever get those wire transfer receipts, you want to trace down the ownership of the depository account. For example, Goldman Sachs (or any other investment bank) can open an account named “Ocwen”. It is still a Goldman Sachs account and they can go out and buy groceries with whatever is in the account.

But to the outside world — the homeowner and the closing agent — they would swear that Ocwen was involved. And they would be 100% wrong. Ocwen for its part has no record of the transaction because it was not their money and they take no legal action against the use of their name because they are part of the game.

So the bottom line is that there was no payoff of the old lien and no cancellation of the note or underlying obligation asserted by fake “representatives” of a nonexistent creditor owning a nonexistent loan account receivable. If there was an existing loan account receivable that would make one of those thinly capitalized nonentities the owner of the right, title, and interest to payments, balance, and interest — something the investment banks would never permit.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | 2 Comments »

Homeowners need to understand that they are investors, not borrowers.

Posted on January 10, 2022 by Neil Garfield

In nearly all cases that the amount of money paid to a “prior lender” is entirely or mostly fictional in all cases of refinancing and nearly all cases in purchase money mortgages. As long as the same underlying investment bank is the same for both the Buyer and Seller or the same for both the new “Lender” and the old “lender.”

But in cases where the Seller gets money (equity) at least some money is actually produced for closing. And as long as the refinancing produces cash to the homeowner, some money is actually produced at closing. So for example, if the Seller nets $50,000 from the closing statement, that is what the Seller receives and the Seller does not care where it came from. If the homeowner receives $50,000, that is what the homeowner receives and the homeowner does not care where it came from — because the homeowner does not know that he or she has been surreptitiously recruited into a scam plan for the sale of unregulated securities.

BUT remember that each new “closing” produces a brand new securitization chain. In plain language, if the investment bank is selling securities worth $12 for each dollar that is reportedly paid in “closings,” then each closing represents another $12. So if you have an alleged purchase money mortgage plus 3 refinancing transactions, the total generated could be as high as $48 for each dollar reported as paid in all the closings. Those “reports” of payment are also entirely fictional insomuch as they include money that was NOT paid.

So a $200,000 mortgage represents the base transaction in a $10 million scheme. This is why so many people on Wall Street received bonuses equal to three times their previous annual earnings. It is also how convicted felons who had $10 per hour jobs earned upwards of $1 million per year. It was a heist. Most of that money went to investment banks who then scattered the funds all over the world. They are still sitting on trillions of dollars.

If homeowners were only allowed the minimum “introductory fee” (common on Wall Street that would mean that the homeowner was entitled to receive a $200,000 payment in exchange for issuing virtual notes and virtual mortgages and the homeowner’s consent to treat them as real.

What makes me burn is the idea that the players can get back the money they paid to homeowners without any consideration for their role in an undisclosed transaction that can no longer be unwound. In such instances, it is up to a court to “reform” the transaction to reflect the economic realities. But NOBODY is doing that. I think there is a strong case for that. The investment banks don’t want to do that because they refuse to share with lowly homeowners. And the courts are both brainwashed and somewhat corrupt because they are accepting “instructions” about mortgage cases.

But the courts are NOT corrupt in the sense that most people keep saying. And that is why I have won so many cases, and other lawyers have done the same. They all start out with bias but they CAN be turned.

Filed under: discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, escrow agent, expert witness, forensic investigation, investment banking, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: refromation of mortgage transactions | 4 Comments »

Wilmington Entities in Foreclosure

Posted on December 29, 2021 by Neil Garfield

The “Wilmington” name shows up with what appears to be increasing frequency in foreclosures. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that whenever the “Wilmington” name appears in foreclosure cases, it is an attempt to launder title such that the lawyers who prosecute the foreclosure process can reasonably imply that he or she is representing a creditor who is one or more of the following — none of which are true in any respect, in my opinion, and no evidence has ever been produced to support these premises:

it is a holder in due course of a promissory note,
It has paid value for the underlying obligation due from a homeowner to the “client” that the foreclosure lawyer asserts is making the claim
it is a successor lender
it is part of a trust, implying that there are beneficiaries or investors on whose behalf the client/claimant appears
it maintains a trust account in which a loan officer maintains a loan account receivable payable by the homeowner to the trust or trustee
it has a relationship in which some company is a servicer — i.e.e, a company claiming to process payments, accounting entries, and disbursements to and from homeowners and investors or beneficiaries.
the remedy (forced sale in foreclosure) will produce money proceeds that will be paid to the Wilmington entity whose trust officer will credit (reduce) the amount supposedly due from the homeowner — as reflected on the trust account containing the loan account receivable relating to the homeowner.

In reviewing hundreds of “Wilmington” cases I have not seen a single instance in which any of the above premises are true. All of the cases rely upon the invocation and court acceptance of the application of legal presumptions under the evidence code arising from the apparent facial validity of fabricated, false, forged, back-dated, and robosigned documentation. Not all “Wilmington” names are part of false securitization schemes. Wilmington IS the name of a city. Careful analysis is required.

This is an incomplete history of known Wilmington names that have been successfully used/abused in invoking the foreclosure process:

“Wilmington Financial” is a name that does not appear to be legal business entity registered or organized in any jurisdiction — but our investigation is not complete. The use of this name as a “fictitious name” — i.e., the name under which a legal business does business is common. It is listed as a financial consultant on the internet.
“Wilmington Trust” is or at least was a registered legal business entity whose common shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange (WL).
- Wilmington Trust is one of the top 10 largest American institutions by fiduciary assets. Wilmington Trust was a provider of international corporate and institutional services, investment management, and private banking. It was acquired in 2011 by M&T Bank.
- M&T Bank Corporation is an American bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. It operates 780 branches in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut. It is not known whether the Wilmington Trust entity has survived the acquisition in any way indicating that there are operations.
- In 2018 and 2019 several executives of Wilmington trust were convicted and sentenced to prison for issuing misleading reports about the status and ownership of various loan accounts — both residential and commercial. As with Wilmington Financial, the use of the name continues but more as a corporate veil for asserting claims of rights to administer, collect and enforce loan accounts.
- There is no evidence and no assertion by any officer of of those entities that any loans, loan accounts or obligations were ever acquired by Wilmington Trust nor were any acquired by M&T Bank.
“Wilmington Savings Fund Society” is a Federal Savings Bank that primarily operates under the name of “Christiana Trust” which is now listed as a subsidiary of Wilmington Savings Fund Society but was previously advanced by lawyers pursuing foreclosure as a legal entity. Christiana Trust is neither a trust nor a subsidiary as far as we have been able to determine. It is a veil for pursuing claims without liability for pursuing false claims.
- There are filings with he SEC that indicate that there is a relationship between these entities and Wells Fargo Bank — i.e. as “initial authorized representatives.” see https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1574593/000114420413025523/v343177_ex10-6.htm
“WSFS Bank” WSFS Financial Corporation is a financial services company. Its primary subsidiary, WSFS Bank, a federal savings bank, is the largest and longest-standing locally managed bank and trust company headquartered in Delaware and the Greater Delaware Valley. Christiana Trust Company of DE is a Delaware limited purpose trust company that offers Delaware Advantage trust services, including directed trusts, asset protection trusts and dynasty trusts.
Cypress Capital Management is a registered investment advisor with a primary market segment of high net worth individuals offering a balanced investment style focused on current income and preservation of capital.
Powdermill Financial Solutions is for ultra-high net worth families, entrepreneurs and corporate executives.
WSFS Institutional Services, a division of WSFS Bank, offers owner and indenture trustee services for asset-backed securities, indenture trustee for corporate debt issuances, administrative and collateral agent for the leveraged loan market, as well as custody, escrow, verification agent and independent director services.
- WSFS Wealth Investments provides insurance and brokerage products primarily to WSFS Bank’s retail banking clients.
- West Capital Management offers fee-only and fully-customized investment, tax, and estate planning strategies to high-net-worth individuals and institutions.
- WSFS Mortgage, a division of WSFS Bank, is listed as a mortgage lender providing a wide range of mortgage programs in the Delaware Valley and nationally. Arrow Land Transfer is a related title insurance agent serving communities in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
“WSFS Financial Corporation” WILMINGTON, Del., Nov. 02, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — WSFS Financial Corporation (NASDAQ:WSFS), today announced the formation of a new trust company, Christiana Trust Company of Delaware. The new trust company will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of WSFS Financial Corporation and will supplement the existing WSFS Wealth businesses, including; WSFS Wealth Investments, Cypress Capital Management, West Capital Management, Powdermill Financial Solutions and Christiana Trust, which is a division of WSFS Bank.
“Wilmington Finance” is listed as a mortgage company. The Company underwrites and sells mortgages. SECTOR. Financials. INDUSTRY. Financial Services. SUB-INDUSTRY. Incorporated in 1994.
“Wilmington Financial Group, Inc.” is listed as a financial consultant that may have some connection to one or more of the above entities

Your case needs research, analysis, and strategic analysis.

****

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

Click

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, 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 TO 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)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, Presumptions, trustee | Leave a comment »

Why You Need to Perform Investigation of Real Facts in the Real World

Posted on December 22, 2021 by Neil Garfield

I state with great confidence that among those homeowners who perform and achieve a slam dunk win over the foreclosure lawyers, the great majority enjoy that victory because they did the investigation and hired a lawyer who knew what to do with the information (as opposed to slinging it at the judge and expecting the judge to make sense of it).

Question received from one of the readers of this blog: “I’m trying to understand how a house in NJ. Is alleged to be notarized in Florida and recorded by a company in Idaho (whose Name of course, is not even in business any longer).”

SImple answer — none of that happened. I don’t know your case but in all probability, Black Knight fabricated a false document on instructions from a central source controlled by an investment bank. An investigation will reveal whether that statement is applicable in your case. I am willing to bet $100 that it IS true.

CoreLogic and/or other vendors (probably affiliates of Black Knight) affixed the signature, the notary signature, the notary stamp, and where necessary for local recording rules the signatures of witnesses electronically using direct electronic signature or mechanical pen.

The name of the company or person was selected by an algorithm based on instructions from the same source. It does not matter that the company is not in business because inserting ANY name makes the document look like it is facially valid. But the document can be challenged as NOT being facially valid because ti is a matter of public record that the corporation’s charter expired, was dissolved or that the company went bankrupt.

The content of the instrument is false since it most probably states that it is an assignment or an allonge. The rule adopted by all states, and supported by centuries of precedent in statutes and case law, is that a transfer of the mortgage or deed of trust is ineffective (i.e. a “legal nullity”) unless the underlying obligation is also transferred from the same grantor to the same grantee. The fact that someone or some company is named as a transferee does not make them the status of a legal grantee.

Some people, like Chic, have gone to the trouble of investigating the musical chair scenario that emerges from the use of false or dead-end addresses for what appears to be major businesses, enterprises or even banks that are Federally or state-chartered.

They have discovered and taken pictures of the locations in which the companies were asserted to exist — although often not directly — by implication from return addresses. Nobody ever says that the letter is coming from the company on the letterhead or that there is any warranty or even assertion of title in such documents.

It is all implied so that the perpetrators can later claim plausible deniability, to wit: we didn’t do it. That was done by some outsource vendor of Joe’s Documents, LLC and we knew nothing about it. Joe has a recurring source of residual income because he has agreed to let his company name and address to be used even though the address is a loading docket licensed to a private investigator.

The moral of the story for homeowners is that unless you are in this for entertainment purposes only, you need to act on your suspicions and hire private investigators like Bill Paatalo to actually locate the signors and notaries, track down the supposed addresses, and confirm by fact — not opinion — that the document could not have executed by the party named as grantor and that the grantee was not a legal entity.

This isn’t divorce court where lawyers makeup facts and hurl accusations. This is a real court where the judge is bound by the evidence. Your opinion is not evidence.

But I state with great confidence that among those homeowners who perform and achieve a slam dunk win over the foreclosure lawyers, the great majority enjoy that victory because they did the investigation and hired a lawyer who knew what to do with the information (as opposed to slinging it at the judge and expecting the judge to make sense of it).

See below for an example of allegations that can be made after an effective investigation. Most people have neither time nor the skills necessary to perform such investigations. That is why you need a licensed private investigator to come up with real facts revealing the fake story used as part of a false national narrative with false labels on documents, persons, and business entities that may or may not even exist as registered business entities in any jurisdiction. Yes this is boring work but it is what usually makes the difference between winning and losing.

***

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

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 TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Here are a few examples of investigation that yielded some interesting results:

The purported “Ocwen Loan Servicing” address traces back to an industrial concrete-block windowless warehouse building with truck docks, of 14,233 sq. ft., internally a self-storage unit building operated by “Security Connections, Inc.” and crafted, as are all other “Ocwen” locations, as blind alleys intended to obfuscate and confuse, leading to dead-ends.

The true picture of 240 Technology Drive, Idaho Falls, showing an industrial warehouse, is incorporated herein:

The falsified and fraudulent papers crafted as purported “Assignments” and filed on the Stamford Land Records are and were designed by the actors for the purpose of obfuscation and slander of title, and contain inherent false statements such as the claim that Deutsche Bank maintains offices at “1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida,” when if act it does not, and never has.

William Erbey subsequently re-incorporated Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., his latest vehicle for mortgage fraud and abuse, in the British Virgin Islands, claiming a registration address of Waterfront Center, Suite A, 72 Kronprindsens Gade, PO Box 305304, St. Thomas VGB. That address comes back to the “Trident Trust Company,” a Virgin Islands “brass plate” corporation accommodation address provider, wherein a brass plate screwed onto the door is sufficient to establish corporate existence. The actual address used by Ocwen in its representations to the public and the courts sources back to a tourist souvenir knick-knack stall located at the foot of the cruise ship dock in the British Virgin Islands. The souvenir stall is currently boarded up.

The “588 Assignment” represents that Mortgage Electronic had a place of business at 3300 SW 34^th Avenue, Suite 101, Ocala, Florida. In reality, Mortgage Electronic did not have any business address at that location, and the representation was a falsity.

The signature undertaking on the “588 Assignment” represents that it was signed by one “Paige Helen” as Vice President of “Mortgage Electronic as Nominee for NetBank.” Despite this representation, the notarial undertaking declares that Paige Helen was in reality an employee of “IndyMac Bank, FSB.”

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Judicial notice, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: Black Knight, Core Logic | 3 Comments »

You Can Use This As a Template for How I Would Respond in a Discovery Dispute — Especially with Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae and Wachovia as the Originator

Posted on December 14, 2021 by Neil Garfield

In a dispute between the attorney for the homeowner and the attorney for the alleged “lender”, there are a number of devices that are nearly universally applied across the country in order to ridicule and defeat the homeowner. The more you are aware of them, the better you will be prepared to deal with them.

Opposing counsel is instructed to accomplish several things (winning being the last of the things on his or her menu). First, the idea is to undermine the confidence of the homeowner and to undermine the confidence of the lawyer for the homeowner in any defense to the foreclosure. They do this by several tricks.

The main one is offering cash for keys. This says “You know we will win and you don’t have a chance, so get out now and we will pay you a couple of thousand dollars.” By doing that, they give the impression that the case has been evaluated and that the offer is somewhere within the realm of reasonability given the probable outcome. It isn’t and all my cases start this way — especially the ones where the judgment was entered for the homeowner.

The next one is offering modification which is basically saying “OK, if you recognize this transaction as real, we will offer you different terms.” The initial offer of different terms is virtually no change at all in the original terms but it gives hope that there will be a breather between now and when they return to foreclosure mode. It is about as attractive to the homeowner as the cash-for keys deal.

If you stick to your guns the offers will improve; most homeowners end up not resisting an offer that they think gives them enough relief that it isn’t worth proving or revealing that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence in the form of testimony on person knowledge, documents or receipts that support the apparent facial validity fo the documents being used to fabricate a claim against the homeowner on a non-existent loan account receivable.

Just be aware that acceptance of any offer in most instances is doing business with a thief in exchange for returning stolen property. From the point of view of the thief, he or she worked hard for that property and is entitled to compensation for the work performed. Anything less than that is a loss and if given the chance they will even sue for it. None of that is law but anyone can use legal process, even to make false claims. Such claims are deemed true unless properly contested.

So in a situation where the case is almost over the lawyer representing the homeowner is still hammering away at enforcing discovery.

The opposing lawyer is characterizing the effort as a desperate attempt to escape a legitimate debt and a using the lawyer and the homeowner of vexatious litigation —- i.e., using legal process improperly to gain an undeserved legal advantage. in other words, the attorney for the financial industry is accusing the homeowner, who has virtually no resources, of doing exactly what the foreclosure lawyer has done is continuing to do because he or she has the full backing of companies with infinitely deep pockets.

Discovery has been served and the response was objection and motions for protection. The homeowner’s lawyer filed a motion to compel compliance with the rules of discovery. The foreclosure lawyer filed a response saying that the homeowner was trying to relitigate the case, in a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable loss of possession of the property using vexatious litigation strategies.

Here are my notes, with some edits:

I see several issues with the response filed by opposing counsel.

I doubt that counsel has any written or oral authority to represent Fannie Mae that was granted by Fannie Mae.

Fannie Mae would not hire the law firm unless they were making the direct rerpesentation ot the lawyer that they were in fact the owner of the properrty which title had been legally acquired. Since Fannie knows taht its name is being used in vexastious litigation against homeowners that reuslt in forecloure sales wherein the money proceeds are never paid to Fannie {same as REMIC trustees}, it would not make such a declaration and it would therefore never directly hire the law firm.

And if push came to shove, I am virtually certain that anything represented in court to have been on behalf of Fannie Mae would be subject to Fannie claims of plausible deniability.

But it is extremely difficult to raise this issue and get any traction directly. If there is a mediation Conference you may have an opportunity to ask about authority and then file a motion for sanctions for failure to appear. But I don’t think that this is possible at this stage in litigation.

There is a growing national use of the attempt to squelch challenges by accusing the homeowner of vexatious litigation. These are actually being taken seriously by judges who are anxious to move cases off their docket. You need to be very careful about this issue. There is a recent case where the vexatious litigation issue was defeated by the homeowner without the assistance of counsel in California. But there are plenty of cases out there and which judges referred to a vexatious litigant which in all cases means a homeowner or the lawyer for the homeowner. Vexatious is anotehr word for annoying, so you need to reframe that. This idea exists because of the presumption that the conclusion is already known and is inevitable. That conclusion is based upon a faulty and erroneous understanding of financial innovation from Wall Street that occurred 25 years ago.

The pleadings filed by opposing counsel follow the playbook for the nation. It contains a recitation of facts or implied facts that only exist because of legal presumption arising from the apparent facial validity of documents that are uncorroborated, together with the effect of the presumptive validity of court orders that have previously been entered.

Although we should always be careful about picking our battles, we should never accept or even suggest that we are accepting or ignoring the recitation of facts that are untrue and unsubstantiated.

The first thing you need to deal with is that you are entitled to discovery and the discovery is intended to reveal rather than obscure relevant issues. But it is opposing cousnel’s instruction to obscure and refuse to reveal anything. As usual they will accuse the hoemowner of doing exactly what they are doing.

It might be worthwhile to articulate that the defense narrative is based upon in-depth investigation, research, and analysis from experts in the securitization of debt — And that they have expressed the definite opinion that nearly everything assumed by opposing counsel in his opposition to the motion to compel discovery is not only uncorroborated but also untrue.

The entire case presented against the homeowner rests completely on uncorroborated presumptions regarding the existence and transfer of an alleged obligation owed by the homeowner to Wells Fargo bank and then Fannie Mae.

While there is ample evidence of a merger between Wells Fargo Bank and Wachovia, the originator of the transaction with the homeowner, there is no evidence whatsoever that Wachovia ever transferred any interest and the transaction that had been conducted with the defendant homeowner.

The fact that there has been a merger does not mean that we know the terms of the merger or that anything relating to the defendant homeowner was included in the terms of the merger.

There is nothing corroborating the presumption that Wachovia was the owner of a loan account receivable on accounting ledgers owned and maintained by Wachovia at the time of the merger, much less that Wachovia intended a transfer of ownership of the loan account to Wells Fargo bank.

Indeed, the experts report that it is a common practice of Wells Fargo bank to assert its ownership over the loan account at the beginning of a foreclosure action and then to admit later that it is only a servicer.

But its role as a servicer is also uncorroborated and probably untrue. The fact that it produces reports does not mean the data or the report was generated as a result of receipts and disbursements by Wells Fargo bank to or from any debtor or creditor.

And obviously if Wells Fargo employees did not actually receive and disburse money relating to a loan account receivalbe, they could not have recorded such receipts or disbursements with personal knowledge. These are the issues that are being explored by the demand for discovery.

If the defendant homeowners defense narrative is correct, then the fact that she had lost in litigation, is merely an assertion of conclusions previously reached by a court that had been misled by counsel.

Opposing counsel seeks to argue that the defendant homeowner is not entitled to any answers because of the production of documents. But those are the precise documents that defendants experts assert as memorializing nonexistent transactions. Defendant hoemowner is merely testing them through disvovery. If they are not true they should never have been presented and a fraud has been committed upon the court. The foreclosure porocess, sale and now demand for possession must be dimsissed and vacated as the may be.

The unwillingness of opposing cousnel to provide a direct response to direct discovery demands is a tacit admission that counsel is unable or unwilling to provide corroboration that transctions supposedly emorialized on the documents presented to the court and relied upon by the court

Opposing counsel keeps referring to a “mortgage loan” when he should be referring to mortgage documents. Defendant homeowner admits to executing mortgage documents, but now, based upon factual investigation and research, denies the existence of a loan account at any time material to these proceedings.

Opposing counsel seems to be aware of the problem and is attempting to curate by constantly referring to “the mortgage loan” rather than “The mortgage documents.”

Experts for the defendant homeowner have revealed that Wachovia was primarily engaged in the origination of transactions with homeowners and perspective on motors for the exclusive purpose of supplying data to investment banks for the sale of securities. In this process, the loan account was retired because it was paid off contemporaneously with the closing of the transaction with the defendant homeowner.

If the loan account was not retired in a securitization process then defendant homeowner concedes that the foreclosure was properly executed. But if it was retired then the foreclosure was not properly executed.

The supposed presence of Fannie Mae gives rise to the presumption that the transction is and was always subject to claims arising out the issuance of securities, d epsite the fact that such securiteis offered now ownership in any alleged liability, obligation or debt owned by the homeowner.

There is no evidence that Fannie ever paid value in exchange for ownership of the underlying obligation as requried by statute as a condition precedent to enforcement. This is also required for jurisdicition (see below).

The discovery demanded by the defendant homeowner seeks to clarify this issue. If in fact the alleged obligation was purchased and sold on the secondary market or otherwise subject to a transaction in which no loan account survived on an accounting ledger of any company, it follows that nobody suffered any financial loss arising from ownership of such an account, despite various attempts to collect money from the defendant homeowner.

Such a true fact pattern defeats the constitutional requirement for case and controversy and the jurisdiction of any court to hear the case much less dedicate anything. It also follows that no party claiming to represent or implying representation of a creditor owning the nonexistent loan account, could have any authority to declare any default, nor any authority to claim the right to administer, collect or enforce any alleged obligation arising from the nonexistent loan account.

Opposing counsel is correct when he refers to the desperation of defendant homeowner. She is anxious to retain possession and to regain title to a homestead that was putatively taken based upon false and misleading representations made to her and the court. Anyone faced with losing their homestead or their property and their lifestyle would be desperate to foil the attempt. It is up tot he court to rasie cofndience that if the attemopt succeeds it will be to pay a party who will receive the proceeds of forced sale and then apply those sums to reduce the loan account receivable. This is not the case at bar.

Defendant homeowner merely seeks answers to the most relevant questions that could possibly exist in a foreclosure action. Was there an existing loan account receivable maintained on the ledger of Wells Fargo bank or Fannie Mae at the time that the default was declared and the action for Foreclosure was commenced? If the answer is no, then the court was misled and entered orders and judgments that are voidable or subject to being reconsidered and vacated. If the answer is yes, then the dispute is over.

Opposing counsel is concealing his contempt for court process by clever wording accusing and characterizing the attempts by the defendant homeowner to reveal the ruth as repeated attempts by the defendant homeowner to relitigate the case based on the same facts. This is not true.

Defendant homeowner wants to reveal that there were no corroborated facts presented in support of the claims against her and that in fact no such facts could have been presented because they did not exist.

She seeks to determine the nature and status of the transaction that was originated in 2006, and the claims arising from implied transfers that were never documented but are presently argued before this court.

Not even teh merger agreement has been proffered (much less ordered and accepted) into evidence nor any testimony or affidavit from any witness with personal knowledge that the alleged merger effectively and intentionally transferred the ownership of the subject alleged transaction balance (i.e., the loan account receivable) from Wachovia to Wells Fargo.

Opposing counsel absolutely refuses to simply say or even argue that Wells Fargo was the creditor who owned the loan account receivable or that FNMA had any financial interest in the transaction as owner of the transaction conducted with the defendant homeowner in 2006.

Dodging the question does not make the question wrong. Nor does it imply that that answer is obvious. Opposing counsel is arguing a narrative that has no corroboration in any evidence consisting of testimony from any competent witness with personal knowledge, or any document that can survive any scrutiny when tested for validity as to representations of a transaction such as purchase and sale of the alleged underlying obligation as required by Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code adopted verbatim under state statutes.

The alleged possession of the promissory note is in fact, as opposing counsel has argued consistently, sufficient to obtain a money judgment on the note.

It is also sufficient for the court to infer that the holder of the note is the owner of the underlying obligation for purposes of pleading in a foreclosure action.

But in the proof of the matters asserted, it does not rise to the level of a prima facie case establishing such ownership when the court conducts a final hearing on the evidence.

Possession of the note is an exception to the rule that the holder may obtain judgment without any financial loss to the note holder being stated or proven.

In such cases, it is enough to establish that the maker of the note failed to make a scheduled payment.

But the Article 3 UCC exception does not remove the basic underlying Article 9-203 condition precedent to enforcing a security isntrument (mortgage). The mortgage may not be enforced without paying value for the underlying obligation. The protection of homestead rights is inviolate and may (under current law) only be subject to forfeit in the event that the owner of the underlying obligation is the complaining party.

In the case at bar, the complaining party neither (a) alleges nor proves such ownership of the underlying obligation nor (b) alleges or proves that anyone is or was a holder in due course — which would mean by definition that it had paid value for the underlying obligation (or at least the note)

The legislature has spoken and this court has been led to believe that the statute has been satisfied. Upon solid information and belief nobody who has been represented as being the complaining party either did or could have satisfied the condition precedent in state law adopted Article 9 §203 UCC. This was concealed from the court and from the homeowner. If it isn’t true then no judgment, no sale, and no demand for possession should be granted.

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

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, 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. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, jurisdiction, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: Fannie MAe, vexatious litigation, Wachovia, Wells Fargo | 3 Comments »

“Black Knight”: Banks Are Peddling A False National Narrative of Declining Foreclosures

Posted on December 7, 2021 by Neil Garfield

I’m busy today so I can’t publish my usual long analytical article. But one thing that is constantly staring at me is the fact that the national press and news releases are in basic conflict with local media. And the fact that local media is going out of business isn’t helping.

Black Knight is a company whose size and reputation is entirely based upon preparation, presentation, and use of false documents and information that were forged, robosigned, and back-dated. Those were the days when it was called Lenders Processing Services in which DOCX was used to produce the false documents. Lorraine Browne, President of DOCX took one for the team and was the only person in the entire 2008 crash who went to jail. Neither DOCX nor other divisions of Lender Processing Systems were ever retired.

In fact, Black Knight is now expanded in some sense because it operates as the front for lockbox and electronic payments made in the name of companies claiming to be servicers. Concealed from homeowners is the fact that those payments are never actually received by the company claiming to be a servicer nor disbursed by that company to anyone claiming to be a creditor.

It is all a ruse. There is no creditor because there is no loan account receivable (LAR). There is no loan account receivable because the investment banks are selling what would have been the LAR multiple times without crediting any LAR — hence, no claim, no creditor. But because all of that is confusing, consumers continue to pay on nonexistent accounts that do not in fact exist and were never intended to be maintained. They pay and they are victims of “enforcement” because of a false national narrative about securitization.

Here is the simple truth: there is no securitization of debt. And all claims regarding eh existence of the LAR. and authority to enforce, administer to collect money for the LAR are false. That is not an opinion. It is a fact under current law that nobody can legally collect on a debt that does not exist — even if the named debtor believes the false claim that the LAR exists.

The “Payment History” is almost always accepted as a substitute for a copy of the actual loan account receivable —which until the last 25 years has ALWAYS been a basic staple of anyone who wanted to get a foreclosure judgment or sale — even if it was uncontested. If you didn’t produce that, along with an affidavit or testimony from an officer of the actual creditor or lender, you could not get the judgment or the sale. I personally witnessed myself and many other lawyers going to court with part of the foreclosure file missing and being told that the motion for summary judgment was denied — without any appearance or opposition from the homeowner. (I didn’t always represent the consumer).

But is the consortium of financial technology companies (FINTECH) including Black Knight that produces a report that is labeled as a “Payment History” because it is the FINTECH companies working for the investment banks that process that data. The report is pure hearsay that is not admissible in court but because homeowners and lawyers fail to test the report, they fail to reveal the fact that the “servicer” never was party to any transaction that it would then enter as data on its own bank accounts, accounting ledgers and books of record. None of that happened.

So the report is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule thus allowing companies like Black Knight to carry water for the investment banks who want to collect money from payments of homeowners or on the sale of their homes so they can pay out bonuses without any attempt to account for the proceeds as a reduction in any loan account.

So it is in that position that Black Knight became a central repository of data about any transactions that are falsely defined in the national narrative as mortgage loans. That data is at best questionable and obviously false when tested in litigation. And because Black Knight functions almost exclusively at the behest and is subject to the influence and control of investment banks who are book-running securitization schemes, it reports what they tell Black Knight to report.

So you get articles like this:

https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/black-knight-foreclosure-activity-nears-pre-pandemic-low

But lawyers like myself have our phones ringing off the hook now that foreclosures are spiking. And local media outlets that are still in existence, are accurately reporting the sharp spikes in new foreclosures, new evictions, and declarations of default. Both political parties are idiots, believing that foreclosure is no longer an issue. Tell that to the people who are losing their homes to fake creditors who are merely seeking profit. It’s another case of politicians being completely out of touch with realities of events on the ground — because they are listening to sources of information that come ONLY from Wall Street.

To its credit, the Biden Administration is attempting through the new legislation to preserve local media which tends to report facts and actual events rather than the current trend in national media to posit possibilities and then spend all their time analyzing what those possibilities might mean if they ever happened. Most investigative journalism is dead, which is why things have gone so wrong in this country.

Fact check: current events are not talking heads in boxes on TV. They’re real things happening to real people. That is “news.” The rest is pure speculation for purposes of producing revenues from the entertainment value of that speculation. It is now the national pastime to accept such speculation as news. It isn’t.

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

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 TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure mill, forgery, hearsay, investment banking, legal standing, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions | 2 Comments »

The fallacy of construing negative decisions as bad decisions for homeowners

Posted on November 29, 2021 by Neil Garfield

It’s not the job of courts to save litigants from their own admissions.

Here is a simple rule: if you admit the existence of the loan account receivable and you admit the rights of the servicer and the currently named claimant, you have no viable basis to challenge standing or enforceability. “Yes, but” doesn’t count in court.

Here is the other rule: if you challenge the existence of the loan account receivable and deny the rights of the servicer and the currently named claimant consistently, starting with the first notices and correspondence that you receive after the apparent “closing” the transaction, AND if you aggressively pursue statutory and discovery demands, your opposition will be unable to prove a case against you.

Amongst the people out there who would like to see better decisions for homeowners in the courts, there are those who continue to point to decisions against the homeowner at the trial court level, the intermediate appellate level, and even at the supreme court level. And in keeping with the high level of conspiracy thinking, many people assume that such decisions are the result of corruption, and then come to the conclusion that the government is corrupt.

I suggest taking a different view. The decisions in court are perfectly rational and proper if you accept the facts that have been recited. Given those facts, the courts had no choice but to rule against the homeowner.

I get in trouble for saying this, I think the problem is with the homeowners and not with the courts. And specifically, I think the problem is that the homeowners believe in the national narrative and labels used by the banks. Virtually all homeowners believe that they established a loan transaction merely because they applied for one.

Virtually all homeowners believe that notices of transfer of ownership and servicing are true. And virtually all homeowners will admit those facts in telephone conversations, correspondence and pleadings when they go to court.

Here is a simple rule: if you admit the existence of the loan account receivable and you admit the rights of the servicer and the currently named claimant, you have no viable basis to challenge standing or enforceability.

Here is an exchange I just had with a client and her lawyer regarding ar recent decision from the 3rd DCA in Florida. Yes, it is annoying, but if I was sitting on that court I would have ruled the same way. It’s not the job of courts to save litigants from their own admissions.

This case is another good example of starting off on the wrong foot and then compounding the error. The trial court and the appellate court were proceeding based upon an assumption of facts, none of which were true. But the homeowner had admitted those facts and the expert for the homeowner had reinforced the admission. It is virtually impossible that the named originator of the transaction was an originator or lender. It was merely a placeholder for the purpose of creating the illusion of a loan transaction. It did not provide any funds to the homeowner.

*

The initial recitation by the court that this was a straightforward foreclosure action is also completely wrong. But given the fact as they were recited by the appellate court, their decision was completely correct.

*

I obviously don’t know what happened in the trial court, but the judge signed an unusual order. This is frequently caused by the judge having a stack of proposed orders in front of him or her combined with the desire to get out of the office.

The bottom line is that none of these cases are “straightforward foreclosures.” In fact, when you scratch the surface, they are not foreclosures until the judge signs a final judgment of foreclosure.

*

At the beginning (i.e., at time of filing), they are mere attempts to abuse the legal process for profit, masquerading as some recognized cause of action but without any true facts or authentic, valid documents to back up their claim. They (the law firms) win most of the time because nobody has the courage to challenge the basic claim and thus they don’t use available discovery rights to defeat the ability of the claimant to prove a case. The main mistake, therefore, is in thinking that because the case has been pleaded in a satisfactory (or apparently satisfactory) manner, that the basic elements of the allegations are true., They are not.

*

And the law firms, proceeding under both plausible deniability and litigation immunity, or making allegations about the existence of a client and a claim that are completely false. The law firm in most cases (nearly all) has had no contact with the named plaintiff, beneficiary, or claimant and maintains no contractual relationship for representation in court. In fact, if you demand acknowledgment from an officer of the named claimant, you will never get it — because that’s not part of the deal for allowing their names to be used as the plaintiff, beneficiary, or claimant in a judicial, non-judicial, or bankruptcy proceeding.

*

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

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 TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: appeals, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, legal standing, originator, Pleading, prima facie case, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 3 Comments »

Who gets a QWR or DVL and When?

Posted on September 21, 2021 by Neil Garfield

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

After some reflection, legal research and analysis I have come to the conclusion that a very good way for homeowners to put tracks in the sand that they can use later with success is to use the following protocol — subject to the opinion of local counsel:

Send QWR and DVL to “servicer” and nobody else. Under statutes, service to one is service to all anyway.
In cases where the creditor is either asserted or implied to be a bank as trustee for a REMIC trust, send a second QWR and DVL to the trustee expressly demanding that they acknowledge that they are in fact the creditor who purchased the alleged underlying obligation and that they have a record of such purchase.
After receiving an evasive answer, file an FDCPA suit against the trustee only alleging that it is renting its name to third parties who are using it to collect money on the fake premise that money is owed to them.
1. As an alleged debtor, if there is a change in who is allowed to collect the debt, the debtor is entitled to receive direct notice from the old creditor that they are not the creditor anymore and that the new creditor has been identified. You never received that notice from the old creditor. You went the extra step of asking for it. You still didn’t get the answer.
2. For transactions in which the homeowner is treated as current, you want to deposit the money into the court registry until they comply with the statute. ANd you want fees, costs and statutory damages.
In judicial states, file a motion for summary judgment (not an affirmative defense) along with an affidavit that asserts that the bank trustee and the trust have failed to produce any proof of payment for the underlying obligation and an affidavit from the homeowner stating failure to receive notice of change of creditor and failure to receive notice of appointment of the servicer from the old creditor or the new creditor. An unsigned notice that comes from the servicer is not notice from the old creditor — by definition. It is a company proclaiming itself to be the servicer without identifying its authority to make that announcement.
In all cases after a Notice of Default is issued, litigation should include declaratory and injunctive relief to declare the notice invalid and enjoin the would-be servicer from issuing such notices absent acknowledgment from an officer of the bank that serves as a trustee of the REMIC trust that the bank maintains a trust accounting ledger on which the debt from the homeowner is reported as an asset of the REMIC trust —- and in which the Trustee has appointed the “servicer” to act as servicer and that the servicer does, in fact, handle money receipts and disbursements of payments from homeowners such that the servicer is the actual recipient of such funds and is the actual disbursement agent of such funds.
In nonjudicial cases, the same protocol would be appropriate in my opinion.

The object of this protocol is to undermine the premise that the proceeds of foreclosure sales go to creditors who are reducing an asset that they paid for and to offset the loss from failure to receive scheduled payments. You don’t have to believe it or understand it. Just use it!

PRACTICE HINT: Do not attempt to prove an allegation that the debt does not exist or that the parties seeking to enforce have no authority to do so. Limit the attack to the ability of the foreclosure mill to produce required proof of payment that is required when a debtor makes the challenge. Do nothing that puts the burden of proof on the homeowner. Make no allegation of fact except that you asked and failed to receive the notices you were supposed to get.

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

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)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, Servicer, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trustee | 1 Comment »

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ON WEBINAR ENDS 9/22/21

Posted on September 16, 2021 by Neil Garfield

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

What to Look for in Examining an Assignment
How to Successfully Litigate the Issues
How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit.

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
Why Make the Challenge?
How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
How to prevent evidence from coming in
How to get admitted evidence out
How to undermine the admitted evidence
What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
- Timing
- Complete names
- Verified names
- Direct signatures
- Indirect/derivative signatures
- Robosigning
- Dates
- MERS
- Recital of consideration
- Identified subject (asset) of transfer
- Warranty of title to asset
- Notices from creditor
- Derivative notices from creditor
- Notices from “servicer”
How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
- Admissions Against Interests
- Motion to Dismiss
- Discovery and Definitions
- Motion for Summary Judgment
- BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
- Motion to Compel Discovery
- Motion for Sanctions
- Motion in Limine
- Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
How lawyers can make money in this niche
Q&A for lawyers only
Follow up conference call 2 weeks later

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

Sponsor: APON
Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
Course Number 2106918N
Provider # 1030277
2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
Level: Intermediate
Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
Presenter: Neil F Garfield
Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Filed under: evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Leave a comment »

What Happened With Your “Loan” — By admitting that you received a loan you lose.

Posted on December 16, 2020 by Neil Garfield

The plain truth is that homeowners are losing their cases through assymetry of information. They think they understand when they do not have a clue. They are admitting the obvious, which turns out to wholly untrue. In so doing they give the court no choice but to enter judgment aganst them.

ApplicationForLoanProcessAndFundingOfServiceFees

I am experimenting with new ways to present this. If you click on the above chart you will see that the application process is actually a dead end. Nobody actually agrees to lend any money. Nobody does lend money.

Money arrives later at the “closing” table but unknown to the borrower it is not a loan. Contrary to popular belief which is based on ignorance of the actual process, no loan is sold. No obligation is sold. Nobody ever becomes the owner of any loan or obligation. Nobody records a purchase of any loan obligation. And nobody maintains any loan account receivable.

Whether it is described as a loan broker or “loan originator” (for which there is no legal definition) it is there for the fees. It is not present to participate in any loan nor does it receive any profit from making a loan. It does not share in any profit from making a loan because there is no loan. There is no lender. Calling it a lender does not make it a lender.

But you can reverse that (and lose your case) by calling it a lender in your conversations, pleadings, motions, memoranda or argument in court.

As soon as you have done that, for purposes of that case, you have admitted the existence of the loan.
In so doing you have tacitly admitted that the loan broker or the originator was the lender.
In admitting that there was a lender you have identified the lender as the loan broker or originator.
By doing that you have admitted that the originator had ownership of the underlying obligation.
By admitting that, you have admitted that the originator or broker paid the money that appeared at the “closing table.”
By admitting that you have also admitted that the lender — or its “successor” — suffered an actual economic loss that was proximately caused by the “nonpayment” of the homeowner.
And so by admitting that you have admitted that the action for foreclosure is valid.

Just a word about “successors.” You will often find the word used. Sometimes “MERS and its successors.” Sometimes “MERS for XYZ and its successors.” A successor is a company who has purchased the obligation or who has purchased the company that owned the obligation. In residential transactions, there is almost no instance where such an event has occurred.

There are no successors. There are no companies even willing to pose as successors unless they are sham conduits — thinly capitalized to be thrown under the bus or thrown into bankruptcy. The way this is done is clever. Sometimes the sham is actually just a trade name masquerading as a company or a “trust.”

Trusts do not exist for legal purposes unless there is something of value entrusted to a person or company for purposes of administering that thing (res, in Latin) for the benefit of beneficiaries.

The place where many lawyers get hung up on that is that there exists an “allonge” or assignment of mortgage” or “assignment of beneficial interest” to, for example, U.S. Bank, as trustee for ABC-2006 certificates.

If you dig deep enough in discovery just under the surface you will find a “trust agreement.” The trust agreement never grants any powers to the administration of any affairs to the named trustee. So U.S. Bank is actually prohibited from doing anything with the paper that is assigned to it. In fact, you will find that it lacks the right, power, or duty to even ask what is happening in “the trust.” So labeling it as trustee is merely window dressing and does not describe any trust relationship or position. But you can change all that and lose the case simply by your own reference to U.S. Bank as a trustee, which in turn admits the existence of a trust etc.

Note that the paper “entrusted” to the trustee is not for benefit of investors who, by the ay, are not beneficiaries of the trust. the securities broker is the beneficiary. And note also that the paper transfer of an interest in a mortgage is a legal nullity in all jurisdictions unless there is a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation. This is further amplified by Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all US jurisdictions, that requires payment of value as a condition precedent for filing any foreclosure action.

Please also take notice of the fact that the purported delivery of the original note is mostly fiction since the original note was most likely destroyed shortly after the “Closing.” But even if delivery of the original note is deemed to have occurred, the possessor is neither a holder nor anyone else entitled to enforce it unless they received a delivery from someone who owned the underlying obligation or note.

This is where the Wall Street brokers have snookered the courts, the lawyers, and even homeowners themselves. A holder is someone who has possession and has the right to enforce. The case for foreclosure fails on this point unless, here it is again, the homeowner admits delivery or fails to contest it and allows the assumption of authority to enforce to operate without rebutting that presumption through discovery.

So when U.S. Bank or Bank of New York Mellon says it is appearing “not on its own behalf” you should take them at their word. They have no interest. Treating them as though they do have an interest only leads to the same series of conclusions described above causing the court of law to conclude that your defenses are both technical and dilatory. You have already admitted the case against you — so why are fighting it? That isn’t bias. It is the standard operating procedure. Courts are not exhibiting bias when they do that. They are following orders based upon centuries of legal precedent and statutes.

I have many followers who are adhering to the untenable notion that the courts are acting out of bias or even malice. They are not — even when the judge appears irritated. You must get off that tack which will gain you nothing and lead nowhere and get on board with a defense that actually does work, based on the facts and existing law. Getting angry with me for saying that homeowners are losing their cases rather than “banks” winning the case is a failure to recognize the fact that few people are able to make sense out of the process called “securitization” — a process that never actually happened in residential transactions with homeowners.

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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.

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write it. 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 fee you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Click

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)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, education, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | 4 Comments »

Think You Have a Loan? Think Again! Don’t allow the Wall Street “investment banks” to steal back money that was earned by homeowners.

Posted on December 11, 2020 by Neil Garfield

What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it.

Without knowing it, you are probably doing business with a Wall Street securities brokerage firm calling itself an “investment bank.” You didn’t know because they were never disclosed. And the money they paid to you was not a loan — at least not for them it wasn’t. They didn’t treat it that way on their own records and neither should you. That means they are attempting to collect back the money they paid to you even though it wasn’t a loan.

So what did they pay you for? When you issued the promissory note what were you buying?

The plain truth is that without an extensive background in investment banking — and all the experience, training, and education that requires — you have no way of understanding the nature of the transaction. So I’m breaking it down into its simplest components here — useful for litigation but not a complete description.

You asked for and thought you received a loan. After all, you did get the money, didn’t you? When you applied for a loan, you thought you had identified the lender with whom you were doing business. After all, the money came after you signed the “closing documents”, right? So when the judge asked if you received the loan, you say “yes” believing there is no way you could deny the “obvious.

And that is how Wall Street has been winning for 20 years. What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it.

Here is what you didn’t know (in nearly all cases):

Yes, you asked for a loan, but the application you submitted was not to a lender.
Contrary to the laws governing loan transactions many things were not disclosed to you.
In most cases, the intake for the application for a “loan” is performed by a loan broker, who doesn’t care what the transaction is called as long as he/she gets the commission.
The loan broker gets paid if you sign the closing documents. By signing the promissory note you have created an obligation — but is it enforceable? The answer is yes if it really was a loan transaction.
The loan broker then forwards the information on the “loan” application to an IT platform that is controlled by a third party platform which in turn is acting for a securities firm preparing to issue and sell securities to investors. As far as they’re concerned they would prefer to pay you $1 rather than $200,000. But then how could they get you to sign a note for $200,000?
The securities that are issued and sold are not a conveyance of any interest in your transaction. They are bets based upon reports issued by the securities firm. The prices of those securities are unrelated to the total amount of your transaction or any part of your transaction. So they can sell these securities indefinitely until the market is saturated (no more demand).
On average, the dollar volume of revenue generated by the securities firm selling the securities is $12 for each $1 of your transaction.
The amount they paid you was, therefore, on average, around 8.5% of the total revenue. It was a commission, not a loan. But you didn’t know that.
You received a payment that was dressed up as a loan. You never thought to bargain for reasonable compensation for entering into a transaction that was the keystone of all the sales of all of the securities. And you never thought about whether you wanted to be part of a business venture whose purpose was to sell betting rights based upon reports about your transaction and whether you were making scheduled payments.
Collection and enforcement of the obligation you created when you executed the promissory note is the act of taking back the commission they paid to you. And because they want all of it back plus interest that leaves you with negative compensation for initiating a huge business venture and allowing the use of your name and reputation. (They get all the benefits, you get the shaft).
And even at the point of collection and enforcement you still don’t know that you are actually dealing with a securities firm that has no financial interest in your transaction. You don’t know because nobody is telling you that. They insist on calling it a loan and since it looks like a loan, everyone (including you) thinks it is a loan.
When they get money from you or from the sale of your property they have no place to put it. They can’t debit an account receivable that reflects ownership of your obligation because there is no account receivable on the ledger of any company. Your payments constitute a return of the commission they paid to you — an amount that they deemed reasonable. That means that their payment is evidence of the amount of commission to the homeowner that the securities firm deemed reasonable. Ask any lawyer what that could mean.
In court, they seek to increase their profits by forcing the sale of your house. But that can only be done legally if the forced sale is granted by a court because the action is a foreclosure. But it isn’t a foreclosure if the claimant is not the owner of your obligation. And they can’t be the owner of your obligation unless they paid value for it — which is why there would be an entry on the accounting ledgers of some company if anyone paid for your obligation and received a conveyance of ownership of your obligation.
In every loan, there is the lender and a borrower. You intended to be a borrower but you never made the journey. The biggest problem in foreclosure defense is the fact that homeowners and their lawyers (and the judges before whom they appear) believe that you did make the journey.
That is because your counterpart was not a lender, had no means or intention of being a lender, and was seeking to avoid being called a lender at all costs — because they didn’t want to be held responsible for violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and other federal and state law governing lending, collections, and enforcement.
The borrower has every legal right and legal expectation that the party representing itself as a lender is doing the underwriting of a loan with due diligence. That means they have a stake in the outcome of the transaction. It if its a loan, their revenue, profit, and assets are dependent upon repayment of the ”loan.”
In most cases, your transaction was conducted by the securities firm acting through sham conduit intermediaries. The sole purpose was to start the sale of securities. Some of those securities were bets against the performance data of your loan.
So they had an incentive and a vested interest in seeing your “obligation” fail. That is why they inflated appraisals, granted no doc loans, granted NINJA loans, and offered “teaser” terms that were guaranteed to fail when the scheduled payments were reset. The securities brokerage firm was betting on a sure thing.
In addition, the riskier the loan the higher the interest they could charge. That’s because everyone (except the Wall Street firm) thought it was a loan. And the higher the interest the less they had to pay out from the fund of capital generated by selling securities to investors. So if you had a $200,000 transaction where the securities brokerage firm set a price of 10% “interest,” they were receiving around $400,000 from investors to cover that “loan” (which was actually a commission). That is why there is no loan account receivable on the books of anyone — not even the securities brokerage firm that funded it out of investor capital.
Everyone on the “securitization” team got paid without exception. There is no debt.

So here is the message to homeowners, lawyers, regulators, law enforcement, and lawmakers:

Don’t allow the Wall Street “investment banks” to steal back money that was earned by homeowners.

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)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Investor, Mortgage, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 3 Comments »

Maine Decision Presents New Challenges for Hearsay objections on Fabricated Records

Posted on November 2, 2020 by Neil Garfield

see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Shone, 2020 Me. 122 (Me. 2020)

the record keeping shortcomings of some members of a particular business sector should not drive our interpretation of a rule of evidence that applies to the records of all businesses and, more broadly, as Rule 803(6)(B) indicates, to the records of any “organization, occupation, or calling.” If the records kept by mortgage lenders or loan servicers in particular are categorically unreliable, more stringent proof requirements might be appropriate. [e.s.] But there is no good reason to require in every case testimony based on personal knowledge of the practices of the business that created a record when the business that received the record can meet the integration, verification, and reliance criteria of the integrated records approach.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Shone, 2020 Me. 122, 17-18 (Me. 2020)

So the bottom line is that in the musical chairs game currently labeled as “servicing” it is common to have a company claim to be the servicer for an unidentified or unconfirmed creditor. That company in turn sends a witness to court who knows absolutely nothing about the case. But the witness is trained to say that the payment history report tendered to the court as evidence constitute normal business records that have a presumption of credibility. Note that it is never said, asserted, alleged or sworn that the subject records establish the debt as an asset on the books of any creditor who paid value for the underlying obligation (see Article 9 §203 UCC).

This decision from Maine says that the records MIGT be admissible even if they include “integration” of data from a previous source. And foreclosure mill lawyers are going to be quick to point to this decision and to use it to steamroll over some hapless homeowner to get a foreclosure sale for profit instead of restitution for an unpaid debt that was liquidated contemporaneously with origination of the transaction.

But the court took special pains to point out that they suspected that some players were not as credible as others. The court pointed out specifically that so-called lenders and servicers might have record keeping shortcomings. Indeed they do since they don’t actually create, maintain or report on data or transactions and instead merely maintain call centers at which people are hired to access screens that are managed by third party vendors working for the investment banks.

So this is the same as any other document that might make it into evidence. It is cloaked with a presumption but you can rebut that presumption by asking pointed questions and taking the deposition of witnesses who are said to have knowledge about transactions that nobody in their company actually handled or participated. You can do this administratively through a QWR or DVL or you could do it in discovery which is more easily enforceable. But answers to QWR and DVL often conflict with prior correspondence and notices, which is helpful.

REMEMBER THIS: THE BOARDING PROCESS DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST. THE ASSERTION OF A BOARDING PROCESS IS MEANT TO INVOKE THE INTEGRATED RECORD-KEEPING EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. IN OTHER WORDS WHILE THEY COULD NEVER HAVE SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE ORIGINAL RECORDS INTO EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF LACK OF COMPETENCE AND LACK OF FOUNDATION THEY CAN NOW OFFER INTO EVIDENCE THE RECORDS OF A NEW “SERVICER” WHO TESTIFIES THROUGH AN IGNORANT WITNESS THAT THE RECORDS WERE INTEGRATED FROM A PREVIOUS SOURCE, INSPECTED AND VERIFIED, AS WELL AS RELIED UPON BY THE CURRENT COMPANY IN ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS.

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. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: boarding process, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, forensic investigation, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | 2 Comments »

Why Antitrust Legislation Should be Applied Against the mega banks

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Neil Garfield

Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it

I believe there is a very strong case for applying antitrust legislation against the big winners in the securitization game because they could and did apply multiple incentives to borrowers to accept loan products that were clearly losers from a business perspective. This blocked competitors who wanted to make real loans with real lenders and raised the risk of loss to consumers without any disclosure to the consumer, to government regulators or anyone else. All of this was performed at the same time that the risk of financial loss was entirely eliminated on any transaction with homeowners that was characterized as a loan.

The big securities brokerage firms acting as investment “banks” were able to fund loans and then sell securities that were completely dependent upon data released by the same securities firms about the performance of the data, as announced by the securities brokerage firm in its sole discretion. Effectively and substantively they sold the same loan multiple times. But nominally there was no reduction in the loan receivable account because there was no loan receivable account.

This effectively forced small community banks, credit unions and other lenders into the position of not competing — if they had offered the same incentives on real loans to homeowners, they would have suffered catastrophic loss. So they had to step out of lending, which would have been catastrophic or originate loans “for sale.”

The result was an undisclosed reduction of risk of loss for everyone on the “lending” side. But the more pernicious result was that the bank practices also flooded the market with money such that salespeople were selling payments instead of price and the accuracy of appraisals was reduced as a factor in granting loans. This created a second antitrust impact — the price of homes was driven up by cheap money rather than demand for housing. But values remained the same because median income has been flat.

The effect on consumers was that they all bought or financed homes based upon appraisals that were based upon the amount of the intended loan rather than the value of the property. So the net effect was that homeowners were forced into deals where they were taking an immediate loss of as much as 65% of the “price” of acquisition of the home or new loan. This was a hidden increase in the cost of credit. Amortizing the likely loss over the likely period of retention of the home increases the cost of credit far beyond usury prohibitions.

The overall bottom line is that the big banks acting as unregulated lenders have grabbed a market share for lending that controls more than 80% of the market and heavily influences the rest of the market.

Consumers suffer because they are not dealing with a party who could answer for damages resulting from violations of TILA and other lending and servicing statutes and because they are not left with either a lender or a loan account in real terms that is maintained as an asset on the books of any business. They are left with a toxic transaction in which they are strictly on their own when they discover the deficiencies in the lending process. They’re on their own because there is no actual creditor who claims ownership of their debt, note or mortgage.

The risk of foreclosure is high, especially on those transactions in which the appraisal is far higher than the value of the home and especially where the transaction is labeled as an option loan in which the homeowner gets reduced payments for some specified period of time. In short, the failure to regulate the securities brokerage firms acting as investment “banks” and then as licensed commercial “banks” has so distorted the marketplace that no borrower can find a source of funds who will admit to being part of the the transaction, much less the lender in any specific transaction.

Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it, while at the same time pursuing foreclosures and other enforcement or “modification” processes in which they have been successful at pretending the loan account exists, that a party owns it, that a loss was sustained as a result of the homeowner’s “failure” to make payments on a nonexistent loan account.

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial 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. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

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.

Filed under: bubble, CORRUPTION, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, originator, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions | 2 Comments »

It’s Not a Default If You Stop Paying — Unless Someone owns Your Debt and Can Prove Financial Loss

Posted on July 27, 2020 by Neil Garfield

NOTE: BE AWARE THAT WELLS FARGO AND OTHERS MAY HAVE PUT YOUR TRANSACTION IN A FORBEARANCE PROGRAM WITH UNKNOWN TERMS.

========

I think that the banks have unfairly benefited from assumptions regarding the connection between the cessation of payments by homeowners and the existence of a default.

I think that there are elements of a default that we have never had to think about before.

The first element, in my opinion, is that somebody must have suffered a loss or injury

The second element is that the loss or injury must be the approximate result of a breach of Duty

The third element is that the Duty must be owed to them by the person who breached the duty.

If you don’t have both elements, I don’t think you have a default, nor do I think that anyone has the authority to declare one.

When this thing began we didn’t know if cessation of payments has actually produced an injury or loss. now we know.

There is no correlation between cessation of payments and any injury or loss to any party. In fact, my analysis reveals that no such loss or injury occurs.

Going further, my analysis strongly indicates that payment has been received directly and indirectly multiple times without being credited to any asset account in which a homeowner obligation is held as an asset. And the reason is simple — there is no such account anywhere. How can there be a default?

One thing you may not know about me is that long ago I literally taught auditing under generally accepted accounting principles when I received my Masters in Business Administration. A guy by the name of Abraham Briloff wrote a book called Unaccountable Accounting back then. I actually have the right to republish it granted by his daughter. He accurately predicted this situation because of changes that were being allowed in the rules. But some things don’t change and haven’t changed.

Perhaps because of my background on Wall Street I have always seen this as an accounting problem more than a legal problem. In accounting, the approach is very straightforward.

If a company wants to claim ownership of an asset, it will have an entry on its balance sheet either for that asset or for a category that includes that asset. If the company does not report that item as an asset it is not legally claiming ownership of it. And if it does not claim that item as an asset it has no account to post deductions as a result of payments or offsets.

And if the company makes a claim anyway in court or out of court it is making a false statement. While there is probably nothing to prevent it from alleging the claim, and there may be presumptions that theoretically could support the claim, they cannot legally recover on the claim if it is challenged. There are several legal reasons for this result: lack of jurisdiction, failure of condition precedent etc.

There is only one way for an item to appear on the balance-sheet of any person or company. There must be a transaction on the general ledger in which the company has paid for the asset. Under Double Entry bookkeeping, this would be shown as a deduction from some other asset like cash in exactly the same amount as the addition of the new asset. In the world of securitization no such transaction exists. And the reason that it doesn’t exist is because nobody wants to be called the lender because that would result in potential liability for violation of lending and servicing laws.

The purpose of an auditor is to determine whether or not that asset exists in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as now published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Unless the auditor finds objective proof is that a transaction occurred on the general ledger which is backed up by actual proof of payment, sales receipt Etc, the posting of the asset on the balance sheet by management will be removed or the auditor will refuse to issue a clean bill of health for the audit, stating that the financial statements do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles.

Go back to the default. If no such account exists in any company or person, then no company or person has actually experienced a default. accordingly there is no reason to declare a default on behalf of such a company or person. The fact that the company or person knows not a homeowner I stopped making payments to a party that he was otherwise paying, makes a witness not a creditor.

Legally I think we have all committed a grave error by admitting or ignoring the allegation of a default and not challenging it aggressively, we are inherently admitting the status and ownership of the debt and therefore inviting the inevitable foreclosure result.

Starting in 2006 I said that the expert that people needed was not a securitization expert like me but a CPA who specializes in forensic auditing. This is a person who could specifically state that the loan was not an asset on the books of the claimant and that the claimant suffered no injury or loss as a result of anything that the homeowner did or didn’t do. I had some extensive talks with the prestigious accounting firm in Tucson Arizona which almost resulted in the marketing of these services. They backed out when Bank of America retained their services and created a conflict of interest.

Filed under: discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, sham transactions | 1 Comment »

Who is PennyMac and Why Was It Needed by Wall Street Banks?

Posted on July 17, 2020 by Neil Garfield

I received an email from one of my most prolific contributors that I am republishing here because virtually everything in it is entirely correct. I especially approve of her point about the fact that servicer advances are funded from proceeds of public offerings of stock that were all purchased by the Wall Street banks who did the underwriting. Substance over form: the banks were giving PennyMac the money to make servicer advances. The banks were using the investor sourced money supply to buy the fake stock offering. None of it was real.

The end result is that all roads lead back to one thing, to wit: all of the money trail and all of the paper trails lead back to a handful of Wall Street banks who had “successfully” created a void between the real parties in interest — investors and homeowners — and the found a way to create the illusion of filling the void that cut out the financial interests of those real parties in interest.

The banks were only intermediaries. They successfully posed as the real parties in interest when they were trading and issuing derivatives. But at the other end of the stick they maintained their position as intermediaries who had no interest in the debt and therefore could not be defined as lenders subject to the obligations and restrictions imposed by statutory and common law governing lending, consumer practices, servicing or anything else.

All of the fabricated documents that ensued were designed to cover up the fact that there was no person or entity that owned the underlying debt of any homeowner. Hence nobody could claim financial injury — a basic requirement for getting into court or making any claim.

who is PennyMac (PM) and why are they needed.

I think we need to look back at the PM history to answer this question.

PennyMac is a renamed Countrywide Financial which now operates at least 4 (four) known to me organizations.

1. PennyMac (one of most criminal, with Kurland and Spector)

2. Caliber Home Loan Inc, a middle-level intermediary, operated by Chris Mozilo who pass money from table pools to homebuyers via Black Knight (originator) and smaller “Lenders”

3. BAC Home Loans

4. LandSafe Appraisal (purchased by CoreLogic) . In 2014 BOA sold a very similarly named system, LoanSafe to VA which is now handles all appraisals; plus CoreLogic gradually purchased most smaller appraisal companies*

Why Bank of America needed PennyMac to appear as a Large Lender and a Biggest servicer?

For the same reason why Countrywide needed American’s Wholesale Lender; and Fidelity National needed two (2) DocX,LLC and LPS – to create an additional corporate curtain to cover for the real parties.

Plus to use PennyMac and other “Servicers” as recipients for new bailouts.

If you take a closer look at PennyMac’s finances, here are nothing even close to $368+ billions worth of mortgages financed and 2 million homes serviced by PennyMac.

Moreover, if you see their Prospectuses, you will find out that the underwriters of PM securities (issued by PennyMac) are the same Stockbrokers who purchased PM’s securities, leaving about $29 million in fees to Penny Mac. I doubt is BOA or GS actually “purchased” anything from PM under this “offering” which they issued under glimpse of PennyMac.

But according to the legend, PennyMac now has to pay pay “servers’ advances” to “investors” for four months from their “own funds” until GSE’s (who sold their bonds to Fed. R. in advance) who cover these MBS, will step in and pick up the payments on “behalf of taxpayers – while GSE cannot even identify any Trusts where mortgages were pooled.

These GSE SOLD their unsecured bonds to Federal Reserve who buy about $30 Billion per WEEK from GSE beginning March 2020 to present time. Note that no Trusts were involved in these sales and no one homeowner was informed about the cage of ownership of their “debt”

I don’t know which “Servicers’ advances” and to whom PennyMac “pays” now, when the ownership of the “MBS” bonds was passed to Federal Reserve. At least Federal Reserve keeps it secret.

Apparently Kurland and know all risks involved and decided to steal some data from BK to create more money for themselves.

On May 2, 2019 they sent me a letter that “servicing” was transferred to them – but not mentioned by whom.

On May 3, 2019 PM sent a letter to BK informing them that PM is not going to extend their contract.

soon after Black Knight claimed that they “noticed some irregularities of use” their system by PM – apparently after I brought it to their attention. This is why no assignments were recorded reflecting the “sale” of my loan to PennyMac who cannot identify the Seller.

Since Oct. 31st BK terminated PM as a client .

In Complaint filed by PM against BK, they insist that the owner/investor is Ginnie Mae (who sold their MBS to Federal Reserve) – but continue to lie to me and DIFS that PennyMac is “owner/investor” in my loan.

The bottom line, as Neil said – these “servicers” and “lenders” are nothing. They are thin-capitalized clowns for hire and nobody sold any loans to GSEs because loans were destroyed at the beginning to create “manipulated data” in Black Knight system which Big Banks sold as unsecured derivatives which GSE either sell to Federal Reserve or obtain payments from Stockbrokers directly, like FHFA v. Goldman Sachs

“GSE’s ownership” is the same myth to force people paying a long-time non existing “debt”.

So-called “universal income” proposed by Democrats is a camouflaged attempt to make Big Banks pay royalties from trades to people .

Of course the Government cannot disclose the Truth since it will reveal that during last 40 years they allowed Stockbrokers to destroy property Titles to virtually ALL homes in America; plus create a slavery never existed before, where a small group of people enjoy tax-free profits from free servitude provided to them by the rest of the Country – plus income from stolen homes.

*Lagow worked at LandSafe, Inc., an appraisal company owned by Countrywide Financial and ultimately acquired by Bank of America, from 2004-2008. According to his unsealed complaint, Mr. Lagow observed widespread disregard for laws that regulate Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting and home appraisals.

Specifically, he claimed that Countrywide conspired with LandSafe and homebuilder KB Homes to inflate the appraised value of homes, boosting the size of the lending giant’s loans to homebuyers. In order to accomplish this, the lending giant allegedly used a number of strong-arm tactics to pressure appraisers to report favorable home values.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. 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 TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TILA, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: Pennymac, TRUTH | 1 Comment »

How to Use the Business Records Exception to Hearsay Rule to Keep Out “Servicer” Records in Foreclosure Cases

Posted on July 2, 2020 by Neil Garfield

Fundamentally you must understand that the investment banks want you and everyone else to look only at the payments history — not the debt, who owns it and whether anyone suffered a loss resulting from any lack of payment by the homeowner.

Their strategy is to get the court to presume that in the absence of payments someone must have suffered a financial loss since the debt was clearly established in a transaction in which the homeowner received money and issued a note and mortgage. In the present securitization era that paradigm is wholly untrue but not obvious because the banks turned “lending” on its head. The homeowners took what they thought was a loan but the banks were not lenders and had no intention of becoming lenders.

The problem is that most homeowners believe the myth promulgated by the banks because they don’t understand what really happened in what the banks call “securitization.”

The truth is that nobody has suffered a financial loss from “nonpayment” by the homeowner.

Everyone has already been paid as to the principal obligation.

Collection efforts directed at the extinguished obligation are pure business strategy designed to increase already astonishing profits achieved through “Securitization” which like everything else is not in substance what the label conveys, to wit: the homeowner obligation was never sold to investors and therefore cannot be said to have been securitized.

One of my most prolific contributors points out how Fannie Mae uses a company who to this day incredibly remains out of the limelight despite being the only company whose division president, Lorraine Brown, went to jail for falsifying documents. It wasn’t really her fault. There were no transactions that fit the mold required to have an enforceable claim in foreclosure. But the banks wanted the money anyway. So they invented the appearance of transactions even though nothing had happened in the real world.

It isn’t just Fannie Mae. Most homeowner transactions are established on LPSDesktop.

The banks, in their never ending quest to send us down rabbit holes only present the “servicers” and their “business records”.

They do that to (a) avoid the hearsay rule because someone comes in without knowledge and says he has knowledge that these records were created in the ordinary course of business and they were created at or near the time of the transactions — which is only partially true and (b) to avoid the pesky problem of presenting details about the transaction that could show that the debt and the role of the creditor were extinguished in the process they’re calling “Securitization.”

Practitioners would be wise to keep in mind two things:

(1) the “servicers” are not servicers in the sense that anyone thinks of a servicer. They do process payments from homeowners but they do not process anything else. — The “servicer” records do NOT show where payments were forwarded, which would identify and confirm that the claimant or Plaintiff in foreclosure is in fact the owner of the debt.

(2) the payment record from the “servicer” reflects only those payments received by that servicer (and perhaps an unaudited compilation of prior payments reported through LPS Desktop). The payment history might be admissible in evidence but only as to the record of payments, about which the practitioner should object for lack of foundation. — Without testimony or other evidence that (a) the debt was established as owned by a specific creditor anad (b) that the payment history is part of the records of the creditor, not just the servicer, the payment history should be excluded.

(3) A subpoena issued to Black Knight fka Lender processing Systems, aka LPS, demanding records relating to the subject debt, note or mortgage will be met with a barrage of objections, which if properly litigated will probably result in a favorable decision for the homeowner.

(4) The object of litigation of foreclosure defenses is to show that the debt was removed from the chain. You accomplish this by relentlessly and aggressively pursuing the identity of the creditor. there isn’t one where any REMIC is involved.

(5) Without a creditor there can be no delegated authority to enforce, collect or even administer the loan. “Authority” does not exist in a vacuum. there must be a source of authority. And the source of authority must be someone who legally owns rights to the debt over which he can delegate, as owner, the rights to enforce.

see Black KnightÕ latest innovation: LoanSphere supports entire loan lifecycle – HousingWire

FREE REVIEW:

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing | 2 Comments »

Why Reformation Makes Sense as a Response to Illegal Claims of Servicing, Collection or Enforcement of Homeowner Mortgage Obligations

Posted on June 18, 2020 by Neil Garfield

In the world of pretend REMICs, there can be no debate that investors who buy “certificates” are unsecured creditors of the investment banks and that investment banks are not legally creditors of homeowners. So why are we allowing investment banks to administer, collect and enforce homeowner obligations?

This has been my point from the beginning in 2006 when I started writing and appearing on TV and Radio. The “Securitization” never happened. Investors became unsecured creditors of the investment bank (IB) not secured creditors of homeowners. In turn the investment bank also wanted to avoid accountability and liability as lender so the IB never accepted any legal document saying that it had paid for and it owned the underlying homeowner obligation.

But for purposes of enforcement through foreclosure the IB designates a non-creditor to initiate foreclosure proceedings. There is no basis in law for this behavior and it is both illegal and inequitable for this conduct to be allowed.

The claim that the action is brought on behalf of or for the benefit of investors who own certificates is false.
The implied assertion that whatever deficiencies exist in the presentation of parties and documents in foreclosures, the granting of a foreclosure will result in payment to a creditor who would otherwise have suffered a loss is also false.

That leaves nobody to own the debt. Under current law, absent a contract that says otherwise, nobody can administer, collect or enforce a debt without owning it or representing someone who owns it. Since nobody owns it nobody satisfied that condition precedent as set forth in Article 9 §203 UCC.

In the absence of a creditor the obligation can only be enforced by a designee or nominee that is accepted by the debtor.

It will take a court decision to decree that since there is no alternative remedy at law, the homeowner is consenting to the designation of a party to enforce who then becomes the lender for purposes of accountability or liability under lending and servicing laws.

There is no contract that says otherwise unless and until a court declares it under the rules of reformation, quasi contract and quantum meruit.

So in all homeowner transactions arising within the scope of claimed securitization, homeowners lost their access to any party who claimed to be a lender or creditor except the originator who was not lending any money and who was in most cases thinly capitalized such that penalties for lending and servicing violations would simply result in bankruptcy and no relief to homeowners.

And in the underwriting process, despite the obvious and expressly stated requirements of law no lender was left who had any stake or risk of loss in ensuring the validity of the appraisal or the viability of the loan.

They might call it a loan transaction, but it wasn’t. It was deceitful process for obtaining the homeowner’s participation in a highly profitable securitization scheme. A scheme where the profits were neither disclosed as to existence or amount and that withheld consideration from the homeowner for his/her participation.

As such the apparent “loan agreement” was simply a cover and a vehicle for concealment of the true nature of the transaction with the homeowner.

FREE REVIEW:

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, forensic investigation, forgery, hearsay, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, originator, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES | Leave a comment »

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Pages

Spread the word

Like this:

(Once again, because of minor medical issues I decline to do the Neil Garfield Show. I offer this instead)

It is easy to get lost in the weeds. Don’t make up your own words or definitions because your definitions have no relevance to your case. Do hold the accusing side to their words and to the legally accepted definitions of those words as contained in statutes and cases.

But above all, start at the beginning — a rookie mistake made by nearly all young litigators and pro se litigants who skip over the gold to pick up a few pieces of copper. They exclaim “How could I lose, I have the copper!” And all the court wanted was the gold.

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

It’s not the job of courts to save litigants from their own admissions.

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

How lawyers can make money in this niche

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

Curriculum:

Spread the word

Like this:

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it.

Don’t allow the Wall Street “investment banks” to steal back money that was earned by homeowners.

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW:

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW:

Spread the word

Like this:

FREE REVIEW:

Spread the word

Like this:

Living Lies Services

Follow LivingLies Blog

Recent Posts

1 Links to Related External Sites

CALCULATORS

economics

foreclosure defense

Glossaries