HEARSAY OBJECTION AND LACK OF FOUNDATION: How Lockbox and Separate Processing Agreements Divert Money and “Servicing” Functions to Undisclosed Third Parties Acting on Behalf of the Investment Bank Who Originated the Transaction with the Homeowner.

Posted on February 15, 2023 by Neil Garfield

From LoanDepot quarterly report, 2022: The Company derives income primarily from gains on the origination and sale of loans to investors, income from loan servicing, and fees charged for settlement services related to the origination and sale of loans.

Not one word about revenues or profits arising from the receipt of principal and interest from borrowers.

But people who have done business with Loan Depot (and there are thousands of them) all think they borrowed money from Loan Depot. So when they see a document purpotedly endorsed or assigned from Loan Depot, it make sense. But it is a lie.

Homeowners can get the upper hand if they are willing to look the gift horse in the mouth.

Hat tip to “Eleanor” for providing a copy of a sample lockbox agreement that references and incorporates other agreements’ terms, including processing agreements. Note the language that says that the lockbox contractor is NOT acting as an agent for anyone.

As you will see below, this is why the CFPB in MAy, 2022 reclassified financial technology companies as “servicers.” Their accompanying statement reveals that they consider these companies to be the “real servicers” (my words, not theirs).

The significance of this could not be overstated for courtroom strategies and tactics.

If the witness works for XYZ servicer and XYZ Servicer does not perform any functions relating to emittances, it cannot produce a record of its business relating to receiving those remittances.

Therefore there is no other way to construe the proffered “Payment History” as hearsay that is NOT a business record. It is not a record of any business done by XYZ Servicer.

As such, the Payment History can be and is routinely excluded in favor of the homeowner who makes timely and proper objection on the grounds of hearsay and foundation.

But absent the objection and the ruling, the history is not only admitted into evidence but also can be used to raise the presumption that the unpaid loan account exists and that the payment history is an accurate rendition of the balance due on the books and records of the named creditor, Plaintiff or Beneficiary — none of which is true.

The moral of the story is that litigators should be prepared with their objections and have case law and even a memorandum of law in support of the objection.

A key and critical follow-up is the motion to strike all testimony and exhibits that were introduced on direct examination. The same logic can be used as a motion to strike the affidavits in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment etc.

Note also how there is no provision for what happens if the lockbox and other independent financial technology companies fail to perform according to the terms and conditions of the agreement or in accordance with customs and practices in the banking industry.

Here are some relevant quotes from the sample lockbox agreement I received:

 

3. Customer Remittances. Obligors of the Receivables will be directed by AmeriCredit to forward their remittances to Processor at a post office address (the “Lockbox”) assigned by Processor. Processor, acting for the exclusive benefit of the Trustee, shall have unrestricted and exclusive access to the mail directed to this address. AmeriCredit agrees to notify Processor thirty (30) days in advance of any change in Obligor remittance statements and/or mailing schedule.

4. Collection of Mail. Processor will collect mail from the Lockbox at regular intervals each business day, but not less than two times daily.

5. Endorsement of Items. Processor will process, on behalf of AmeriCredit, checks and other deposited items that appear to be for deposit to the credit of AmeriCredit or its Affiliates in accordance with Processor’s Lockbox Processing Agreement and Instructions, or other applicable agreement and related service terms (individually and collectively, the “Processor Documentation”), as appropriate.

 

6. Credit of Funds to Account.

(a) Processor will process the checks and other deposited items and credit the total amount to the account described below (the “Lockbox Account”). The Lockbox Account will be established at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ABA No.: 122100024) as account number 976484519. The Lockbox Account will be maintained and all banking functions will be provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

(b) Unless otherwise directed by the Trustee, AmeriCredit agrees that all collected funds on deposit in the Lockbox Account shall be transferred from the Lockbox Account within two Business Days by wire transfer in immediately available funds to the following account: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Account No. 0001038377 f/b/o 66117601; ABA No. 121000248 (the “Collection Account”).

7. Processor Documentation. This Agreement supplements, rather than replaces, the Processor Documentation, terms and conditions, and other standard documentation in effect from time to time with respect to the Lockbox or the services provided by Processor in connection therewith. The Processor Documentation will continue to apply to the Lockbox and such services, and the respective rights, powers, duties, obligations, liabilities and responsibilities of the parties thereto and hereto, to the extent not expressly conflicting with the provisions of this Agreement (however, in the event of any such conflict, the provisions of this Agreement shall control). Prior to issuing any instructions, the Trustee shall provide Processor with such documentation as Processor may reasonably request to establish the identity and authority of the individuals issuing instructions on behalf of the Trustee. The Trustee may request the Processor to provide other services with respect to the Lockbox; however, if such services are not authorized or otherwise covered under the Processor Documentation, Processor’s decision to provide any such services shall be made in its sole discretion (including without limitation being subject to AmeriCredit and/or the Trustee executing the Processor Documentation or other documentation as Processor may require in connection therewith).

8. Processor’s General Duties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement: (i) Processor shall have only the duties and responsibilities with respect to the matters set forth herein as is expressly set forth in writing herein and shall not be deemed to be an agent, bailee or fiduciary for any party hereto; (ii) Processor shall be fully protected in acting or refraining from acting in good faith without investigation on any notice, instruction or request purportedly furnished to it by AmeriCredit or the Trustee in accordance with the terms hereof, in which case the parties hereto agree that Processor has no duty to make any further inquiry whatsoever; (iii) it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that Processor has no knowledge of (and is not required to know) the terms and provisions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement referred to in Section 1 above or any other related documentation or whether any actions by the Trustee, AmeriCredit or any other person or entity are permitted or a breach thereunder or consistent or inconsistent therewith; and (iv) Processor shall not be liable to any party hereto or any other person for any action or failure to act under or in connection with this Agreement except to the extent such conduct constitutes its own willful misconduct or gross negligence.

9. Processing of Items. The provision of services shall be governed by the Processor Documentation or other applicable agreements and related service terms, as may be

 

2

 

amended from time to time, subject to the prior written consent to any such amendments of a material nature by the Trustee and AmeriCredit, which consents shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

10. Trust Correspondence. Any envelopes collected from the Lockbox which contain correspondence and other documents (including, but not limited to, certificates of title, tax receipts, insurance policy endorsements and any other documents or communications of or relating to the Receivables) will be sent to the Servicer at its current address. Any enclosed payment(s), coupon(s) or check(s) will be processed and deposited by Processor in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.

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

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: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, hearsay, Motions, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, standing | Leave a comment »

How Foreclosure Mills Win by Misusing “Judicial Notice”

Posted on February 10, 2023 by Neil Garfield

Hat tip to summer chic

Judicial Notice is a rule of evidence in which the court receives a written request to accept a document into evidence as proof of the truth of the matter asserted.

In Foreclosures, the truth of the matter asserted is that there is an unpaid loan account, and the named plaintiff or beneficiary has the right to administer, collect and enforce it. If that is alleged in a form that is allowed by law, and proven in the manner allowed by law, the foreclosure will be granted. I might add, that it should be granted to the extent that there is still an unpaid balance due to the named Plaintiff or beneficiary. But in nearly all foreclosure cases, this is NOT the true fact scenario.

There are circumstances where the trial court either MUST accept a document as evidence or in which the court can accept the document as evidence as to its existence. But unless there is an objection, the court will also presume that what is contained in the document is also true.

I hasten to add that it is highly unusual for an appellate court to accept a document or record on judicial notice if it was not introduced as such in the trial court.

Here is an article that discusses judicial notice at length and presents clear definitions and uses for the request.

https://www.dailyjournal.com/mcle/1034-judicial-notice

Here are some relevant quotes from the article by attorney David M Axelrod in California.

Judicial notice is a means of bringing before a trial or appellate court “matters [that] are assumed to be indisputably true, [ so that] the introduction of evidence to prove them will not be required.”

mandatory judicial notice of “decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law,” government rules and regulations, rules of professional conduct, rules of pleading, practice and procedure, the “true signification of all English words and phrases, and … legal expressions,” and ” [f]acts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.”

permissive judicial notice “to the extent … not embraced within … of laws, regulations, legislative enactments, official government acts, court records, rules of court, international law, and two rather expansive catch-all categories: “[f]acts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute,” and “[f]acts and proposition that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”

2. Judicial notice is limited by relevance and hearsay rules.

a. Courts will not take judicial notice of irrelevant matters.

b. A court cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in a document, unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

c. The hearsay rule also applies to preclude judicial notice of argument or comments by counsel and judges in other proceedings.

4. Judicial notice extends to a broad cat egory of facts that are “not reasonably subject to dispute and … capable of immediate and accurate determination … .”

The attorneys who work for the foreclosure mills often request judicial notice of records.

One example — out of many — is any document that shows a header at the top of the document as coming from the sec.gov website. Unwary lawyers and ignorant pro se litigants usually agree that the document is a copy of a government record.

First you should only accept a copy that is certified by the agency that issued it — not a copy, because copies can be and often are chnged digitally to reflect the desires of the lawyer who works for the foreclosure mill.

Second, without an objection as to content being hearsay or relevance, the admission of the document into evidence usually is taken as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted in the document.

And third, the document is generally subject to both a hearsay and relevance objection. For hearsay, see practically every article I have written on these pages. For relevance, only a litigator will know what I am talking about.

The document is NOT relevant unless there is a foundation (testimony admitted as evidence) that proves the existence of the unpaid loan account due to the Plaintiff or Beneficiary.

This foundation can ONLY be established by one of two methods — (1) admission from the homeowner directly or through his/her counsel or (2) by the records custodian for the named Plaintiff or Beneficiary (e.g. U.S. Bank, as trustee etc.) providing sworn testimony in support of the unpaid loan account or an acceptable report about which he has personal knowledge — not “familiarity.”

Without that foundation, there is no need to consider whether the alleged lien has been transferred, or whether the homeowner has failed to make a scheduled payment. Those issues are irrelevant in the absence of establishing the existence of an unpaid loan account with a balance due from the homeowner. Without that, there is no legally recognized claim.

Homeowners frequently lose their cases and fail to successfully defend foreclosures, simply because they admit the existence of an unpaid loan account due to the named Plaintiff or Beneficiary.

The other way they lose is by failing to object to the “payment history” offered by the attorney, working for the foreclosure Mill. This is irrelevant, and should not be admitted into evidence without first establishing the foundation that

  1. An unpaid loan account exists
  2. An unpaid loan account has a balance due that is unpaid
  3. An unpaid loan account is owed to the plaintiff or beneficiary
  4. The Plaintiff or beneficiary has appointed a company to act as “Servicer” in accordance with the tersms of a servicing agreement that is also produced by a records custodian.

The fact that a witness shows up and is willing to be sworn in as a witness does not mean anything they say is true. Their testimony that their employer is a “Servicer” is a matter of opinion and is usually not true. (see below). Unless they have personally witnessed employees of their employer collecting checks or other forms of payment, they must be requried to define “servicer.” Homeowners lose by failing to do that.

If the lawyer representing the foreclosure mill wants to use the “payment history” at all, he, or she must produce foundation testimony from a records custodian who says the are personally knowledgeable that the record is one that represents business conducted by the company that is said to be the issuer of the report.

No such witness ever appears in foreclosure cases. Instead the witness testifies that the report is issued in the ordinary course of business but it not stated by the witness that the report is a representative of transactions that were accepted, processed or forwarded by the named issuer. This sleight of hand trick is the principal reason for literally millions of false foreclosures.

No witness will say that they know that the records are an accurate depiction of transactions or business conducted in the name of “servicer.”

They won’t do that because (a) that would be perjury and (b) it isn’t true. All payments, processing and disbursements are handled by third party financial technology companies that do not work for the named “servicer.”  The “ordinary course of business” that the witness is talking about is being an actor posing as a company performing servicing functions.

Some witnesses know the misleading nature of their testimony and some don’t. So in most cases you will not get an admission, although I have succeeded at doing that in a few cases.

Mostly you get the desired effect by hamemring at “how do you know that.” Like when the witness testifies about familiarity, you can usually destroy them on cross-examination when you start asking what they mean, what they saw, what they did, and how much they were relying upon statements from people who will not testify in court (hearsay).

These witnesses are put through “training” which amounts to memorizing a script. When they say they saw or witnesses input on computers, ask them how close they were and what they actually viewed. They will never have an answer. Then comes the motion to strike the prior testimony as being without foundation and based on hearsay. (also possibly a relvance objection followed by motion to strike).

In the cases I have won, the judge typically sustained by objection granted my motion to strike the preceding testimony but left room for the case to proceeed. Then the finding of fact and conclusions of law are that the Plaintiff or Beneficiary failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish their alleged claim of right to administer any alleged unpaid loan account, or to collect money — or enforce the putative lien.

===========

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: boarding process, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, hearsay, Judicial notice, jurisdiction, legal standing, prima facie case, Servicer, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

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: , , , | 2 Comments »

FCRA Might Be Fertile Ground for Individual and Class Actions Especially under CFPB Rules

Posted on May 3, 2022 by Neil Garfield

if the CRC does not perform the investigation or performs it incorrectly, you can sue them.

In a world where the ability to access credit matters more than the ability to access savings, nothing could be more important than these provisions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Anyone who read the book or saw the film “The Firm” knows that it is often a boring statute that can take down the worst offenders. It was mail fraud in that story. For more information ask the descendants of Al Capone who died in prison of syphilis after being convicted of income tax evasion. Both bad guys were guilty of murder and mayhem. But what put them away was overbilling clients and evasion of income tax liability and payments respectively.

The Consumer Financial Protection Board is doing a deep dive into both debt collection and reporting under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act). Apparently, someone woke up to the fact that reporting “agencies” (none of them are governmental) are indeed required to perform both due diligence and an investigation when the “debtor” challenges a negative credit report.

I know. It is boring. But you might get more interested when you consider the importance of these provisions. Or to put a finer point on it, you SHOULD be more interested. Most of the value of your home could end up as equity — i.e., the value you can trade on or borrow.

The investment banks need to make sure that programs like the one I created (AMGAR) never get off the ground. That means making it nearly impossible for any legitimate lender to issue a commitment to refinance the so-called loan with the usual customary standard condition — that it gets the priority position for its lien on the subject property securing the new loan transaction with the homeowner. 

This means that the old “lender” or “successor lender” must actually assert and provide confirmation that it is actually the owner of the receivable allegedly due from the homeowner. Up until now, that standard requirement has been ignored and the marketplace has been coercing homeowners to accept title insurance as a substitute for title. Hint: They’re not the same thing. 

The way this “policy” has been enforced is to prevent the homeowner from seeking hard money or other lenders. There is no better way than negative credit reporting. A bad credit report blocks almost any source of funds for the usual homeowner. So the inability of the “old creditor” to confirm the existence of the loan account never becomes an issue.

But there is a mechanism by which homeowners can defeat this strategy that supports false claims for administration, collection, and enforcement of claims and payments from homeowners. The mechanism is contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

see cfpb_supervisory-highlights_issue-26_2022-04

Here is the quote from the latest CFPB bulletin. Remember that the fact that it is boring does not mean that it won’t provide you with tangible benefits that could change the whole trajectory of your life.

2.2.1 CRC duty to conduct reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information The FCRA requires that a CRC must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information to determine if the disputed information is inaccurate whenever the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the CRC directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute.8 In several reviews of CRCs, examiners found that CRCs failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes in multiple ways. Examiners also found that rather than resolving disputes consistent with the investigation conducted by the furnisher, which in many instances would have required correcting inaccurate derogatory information and replacing it with accurate positive information, CRCs simply deleted thousands of disputed tradelines. Examiners also found that CRCs failed to conduct reasonable dispute investigations when they failed to review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in support of their disputes. After identification of these issues, CRCs were directed to cease violating the FCRA’s dispute investigation requirements. [e.s.]

In practice what this means for consumers of all types who partake of the twisted financial products offered under cover of false labels is that if you submit a contest to the credit reporting company (CRC) with an appropriate summary and exhibits and state the nature of the contest and the reasons for it, the CRC must conduct a deliberate investigation to determine whether or not it is true.

And if the CRC does not perform the investigation or performs it incorrectly, you can sue them.

If the “furnisher” (usually a company that has been designated as a “Servicer”) is unable to establish the accuracy of the report the furnisher must withdraw it or the CRC must take it down. That action alone lends corroboration to the defense narrative in foreclosure.

The allegation can then be made that the putative “servicer” and “Creditor” are unable to corroborate their claims for rights to administer, collect and enforce the alleged underlying obligation — despite being contractually bound to do so (FCRA, and bound by the statutory duty to do so (FCRA, FDCOA, RESPA).

So how boring is it when you consider that the place of “creditor” and the fact of “loan account” has been eliminated by Wall Street investment banking strategies? Do you still feel like paying them anyway? Or would you like to know how they are really making money, regardless of whether you pay or not?

PRACTICE HINT: THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF WHY HOMEOWNERS SHOULD OBTAIN A FORENSIC INVESTIGATION REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BEING “CURRENT” IS BOTH IRRELEVANT AND POTENTIALLY DAMAGING IF YOU ARE PAYING ON A NON-EXISTING DEBT FOR THE BENEFIT OF A NONEXISTENT CREDITOR.

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

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 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: CORRUPTION, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, investment banking, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | 1 Comment »

Interpleader Might Be Useful in Revealing the Absence of Any Unpaid Loan Account

Posted on April 28, 2022 by Neil Garfield

One of my constant comment contributors recently informed me and others that she was trying a new tack. She writes “My attorneys are making a demand that any refi money be placed with the Court and that the judge decides who he wants to pay.”

This is very close to an Interpleader action which is virtually unknown amongst laypeople and many lawyers. In an interpleader action, a party says to the court I have this asset and there are two conflicting claims to get it from me. In its purest form, the Interpleader says that he doesn’t care who gets the asset. In a more advanced form, the interpleader might say that he does have an interest in making sure that the asset goes to A rather than B.

The point of all this is that a homeowner could turn the tables on companies who are masquerading as “servicers” (basically all companies who claim to be servicers). [NOTE: YOUR SERVICER IS A FINTECH COMPANY NOT THE COMPANY THAT IS CLAIMING TO BE A SERVICER).

The homeowner’s contract is NOT with the company claiming to be a servicer. The homeowner’s contract was with an alleged lender and then the successor to the originally named “lender” or pretender lender. This point is almost always missed by both homeowners and their lawyers. It leads the homeowner into a black hole.

In order for a company to become a successor to the “lender”, the new company must pay value for ownership of the underlying obligation, the legal debt, the note, and the mortgage (note that each of those has its own set of rules). In the world of securitization, no such sale ever occurs.

And that is why I have been declaring for 16 years that with respect to homeowner obligations, there is no securitization. No sale=no securitization. And that means there is no succession. No succession means no creditor even if money exchanged hands for reasons other than the purchase of the underlying obligation. 

So people are trying shortcuts to quickly end the claim for administration, collection, and enforcement of the promise to make installment payments issued by the homeowner. If it was that easy the entire securitization myth would have exploded 20 years ago.

Attempting to put the refi proceeds into escrow rather than pay the “servicer” can ONLY work if you have a funded lender who conditions payment on the absolute assurance that the new lender will be getting first priority position as mortgagee or beneficiary under a deed of trust.

The typical answer is that there is a title insurance policy to protect against any problems. But the new lender replies that it refuses to fund the deal unless it receives both insurable and actual title free from any possibility of litigation over the issue of the validity or priority over the lien. The new lender position is best expressed in a letter of commitment. This is the AMGAR strategy that I have promoted since 2008. It works but only for people who are willing and able to invest money in the strategy.

If it is a situation in which there is a real new loan from an institutional lender, they will never go along with the plan to highlight these conditions because they are all heavily invested in the securitization illusion. While there is the possibility that a quick surprise suit against the escrow agent could theoretically work contemporaneously with the “closing” it is doubtful that this strategy would work in the real world.

That is a strategy that has been tried in a few iterations and failed.

But it is still possible it could work. It is called Interpleader. But in order for it to work, you need a disinterested third party willing to do it. I think that the disinterested party ought to be a receiver for the asset.

  • The homeowner pays the receiver the monthly payments along with instructions that say to pay the creditor if there is one and if there is an unpaid loan account.
  • The receiver asks the current servicer if it is an authorized agent of a creditor (and to please give the name and contact information so the receiver can confirm it) — i.e., someone who owns an unpaid loan account due from the homeowner.
  • The “servicer” demands payment. The receiver says he. she or it cannot pay until the conditions are met: a creditor with ownership of the loan account. There is substantial law going back centuries that nobody is under an obligation to make payments to a party who is not owed the money.
  • The “servicer” serves notice of default.
  • The receiver files an interpleader action that says he/she it is holding money to pay to the creditor, but the original creditor is not in the chain anymore and there is a new party, a self-proclaimed “servicer”, who refuses to provide adequate assurance that it is the authorized agent of a creditor.
  • The interpleader deposits the money into the court registry and exits. It remains a party until the judges’ order is to pay this one or that one.
Then both sides must plead to show how they are entitled to the money. The homeowner says he/she either wants the money back and he/she wants to terminate the receivership because there is no known creditor and there is no unpaid loan account on the books of any person or entity.
*
The “servicer” (who is now a party, possibly along with a Bank that is a trustee for an alleged REMIC trust) is stuck with the same script in a different context, where it will most likely fail.
*
The plus side of this strategy is that it allows for discovery demands but it shifts the focus from whether the homeowner paid anything to whether there is a creditor who is entitled to collect.
*
WARNING TO ALL HOMEOWNERS: WITH THE HUGE SPIKE IN FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS HAS COME THE TORRENT OF SCAMS. DO NOT PAY ANY MONEY UPFRONT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN A LAWYER AND DON’T DO THAT UNLESS YOU KNOW THE LAWYER’S PLAN TO HELP YOU. DO NOT EXECUTE ANY DEEDS OR INSTITUTE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR ANY STRATEGY THAT PROMISES AN EARLY END TO THE ISSUES. THE END MAY BE SATISFACTORY IF PERFORMED CORRECTLY BUT IT WON’T BE QUICK.
*
IF THE PLAN OR STRATEGY COMES FROM SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A LAWYER IT IS PROBABLY EITHER WRONG OR A SCAM.
====================
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 DONATENeil 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 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: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, Motions, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | Leave a comment »

Notices To and From Servicer Might Mean Nothing at All

Posted on April 18, 2022 by Neil Garfield

In homeowner finance, ALL claims start with notices from third parties with whom the homeowner has previously had no communication. My suggestion is that homeowners start challenging those letters, statements, and notices as soon as they arrive. Such challenges make “tracks in the sand” for later use in litigation.

But the real issue arises repeatedly because the condition precedent to foreclosure about which there is no dispute is that first there must be a declaration of default. And in the world of securitization, there is no creditor, loan account, or any loss or ven risk of loss arising from a homeowner failing or refusing to make a scheduled payment.

A declaration of default usually comes from a disinterested third party who does not represent an existing creditor who maintains an unpaid loan account receivable on its accounting ledgers reflecting real-world transactions in which it paid value. The equivalent legal value of that is you sending a notice of default to your neighbor when you figure out he or she did not make a payment to the utility company. The notice was sent but it has no legal effect. it is called a legal nullity.

So the question arises about what happens when you send a QWRT or DIVL to the company that was named as a servicer. the first thing that comes to mind for me, is that merely sending the QWR or DVL might be construed as a tacit admission that the company really is a servicer.

*

This logically leads to the presupposition that since it is a servicer it is really performing real servicing duties. And that logically leads to the factual conclusion that it is legally and rightfully acting on behalf of a true creditor. And since a true creditor obviously loses money when a homeowner does not make a scheduled payment, it follows that the default can and should be issued.

*

The problem with this analysis is that it leads inexorably to the conclusion that you should not respond to fakers. But since the players are claiming rights of administration, collection, and enforcement, they DO appear to fall under protections for consumers relating to those activities. But that still leaves open the issue of whether the named “servicer” is the only one who should receive the DVL and QWR.

That is the question I answered as follows:

Theoretically notice to the servicer is a notice to all under the regulations. The problem is that the company named as a servicer does not do the servicing. That is one of the subjects that is never discussed.

*

The company named as servicer probably does have some apparent agency or other authority to present the named Trustee of the REMIC trust. But since that trustee never has the right, power, justification or excuse to administer any affairs regarding the alleged loan account (which does not exist) giving them notice arguably is a failure to give notice to anyone who is real party interest. But it IS notice to everyone who is engaged in apparent debt collection activity even if there is no debt.

*
So sending the QWR to all who are “interested” (in a conspiracy to defraud) is probably a good way to go. The real problem is that the laws do not cover this scenario. A legal question is whether the extensive protections for consumers even apply to a company whose name is being used (with consent) to simply put a face on a scheme in which money is illegally collected without any right, justification or excuse? Anyone receiving the QWR is basically put on notice that they may be part of a future lawsuit.
*
The countervailing argument is that some of the proceeds are eventually used to pay off some of the money due to investors (the rest coming from sales of new certificates). But that argument fails because the investors who became “holders” of certificates are merely the payee on an IOU issued by an investment bank in a transaction wherein the investors waive any right, title, or interest to any homeowner payment, debt, note, or mortgage.
*
The bottom line for all this is whether there can be any legal collection activity without a creditor, a loan account or any risk of loss. Even the investors get paid the debt from the investment banker regardless of whether or not a homeowner misses a scheduled payment.
*
===============
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 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: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, Investor, legal standing, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Leave a comment »

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.
================
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 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

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 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: 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: , | 2 Comments »

“Payment History” is not the loan receivable account

Posted on February 2, 2022 by Neil Garfield

The payment history is not the loan receivable account by definition and it is never presented as such. Failure to recognize this obscure fact often results in failure. But those who do understand it, raise their chances of a successful defense from unlikely to very likely.

A lawyer (Scott Stafne) shared with me a case that he is apparently working on.  This case is interesting because the lawyer for the homeowner has filed the final round of motions in the discovery cycle, which is a Motion in Limine — i.e., a motion to limit testimony from the sole robowitness expected to testify at trial. The basis of the motion is that the witness has no knowledge as to the past “servicers” and therefore cannot testify to any balance due.

But the courts have stretched themselves out on a limb to allow the foreclosure mills to introduce evidence that would never be permitted in any criminal trial and would only be permitted in civil trials if there was a proffer of corroborating evidence that would round out the obvious gaps in the testimony of the witness and the completeness of the exhibit.

BULLETIN: The payment history is not the loan receivable account by definition and it is never presented as such. The testimony in court nearly always skips the calculation of prior credits and debits (like disbursements to creditors) on the books of the servicer and the corresponding accounting entry on the books of a creditor. that is because there is no loan account receivable on the books of any party named as a creditor. And if it is not the loan account receivable, the Payment history is not evidence of the balance due as shown on the books of the creditor.

*

The lawyers who say they are representing Chase Bank probably have never spoken with or communicated with anyone at Chase. But they are right in their argument. The current rules concerning business records create a loophole that the banks have been charging through since the inception of false claims of securitization of debt (“Loans’).

*
What is interesting is that the case is now potentially set up to raise an objection, to wit: While the “witness” need not verify the records of previous parties regarding the “loan account”, it is the loan account that must be produced and not just a report on payments. The loan account would have a record of all credits and debits including disbursements to creditors if any. In the absence of a custodian testifying and proffering a copy of the loan account receivable — from the books and records of the creditor — (or the original accounting ledger) the balance cannot be known by the court.
*
Like virtually all transactions with homeowners, this case presents a “private label” case founded on the securitization of the “loan.” At this point, very little money exchanges hands in any transaction with homeowners because the applicants for loans are steered to a common securitization infrastructure. This leads to reports of funding without any money actually exchanging hands assuming there is a prior mortgage.
*
My point is this: the nature of securitization requires that the apparent loan account receivable be extinguished. This event generally occurs contemporaneously with the “closing” of the transaction.
*
The securitization plan calls for the sale of securities that are NOT tied to ownership of any debt, note or mortgage and are not backed by any debt, note or mortgage.
*
By freeing the sale of securities from the necessity of issuing securities representing shares of debts or pools of debt, the investment banks are able to sell multiple iterations of securities and secure a large yield spread premium that arbitrages the difference between the sales proceeds of securities and the transaction cost with homeowners, each time.
*
By steering homeowners toward a common base securitization infrastructure, the cash paid out at the “closing” with the homeowner is vastly reduced, thus increasing the amount of the yield spread premium to nearly 100% of the amount of the fictitious transaction with the homeowner.
*
The homeowners only know that the mortgage lien and note from one “transaction” were “satisfied.” They have no access to information that would inform them that each successive transaction creates a new tree of securitization representing nearly 100% profit for each successive round of sales of securities — this provides them with an average of 1200% return on each stated transaction with homeowners, wherein such transactions are repeated as many as 4-5 times.
*
None of these receipts are credited to any loan account receivable on the accounting ledger of any person or business entity. The credits do not appear because there is no record of a loan account receivable and nobody at any of the companies or entities brought forward in foreclosure has any access to such information.
*
Hence, the success of objections in court to the effect that the “Payment History” is not the loan account receivable that reveals the balance due, combined with the absence of any documents or person verifying that the company named as servicer is acting on behalf of a bank or business entity that claims to own the underlying obligation, frequently results in the objection sustained.
*
And even with a continuance, the lawyer for the claimant cannot produce the loan account receivable because it does not exist. Accordingly, the lawyer cannot argue any actual or imminent financial damage caused by the behavior of the homeowner. And that fact undermines the authority of the court to even hear the case.
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, 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 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 Plus or higher)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO REVIEW AND ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure mill, investment banking, jurisdiction, legal standing, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Getting a piece of the pie: How securitization can work FOR homeowners and not against them

Posted on January 19, 2022 by Neil Garfield

There is no sale of the obligation, note or mortgage and so there is no securitization of debt. By splitting the attributes of behavior from the provisions of the executed documents and changing the description of the behavior, an investment bank could, in essence, sell the apparent debt an unlimited number of times without ever recording the sale of the debt, note or mortgage.

  • In most instances, the “closing” of a transaction with a homeowner results in the issuance of a note and mortgage promising payment that is not supported by any reciprocal consideration. In most of the other cases, the “closing” results in very little money paid by or on behalf of the homeowner despite what is stated on the settlement statement, which is a lie.

*

Like everything in the world of securitization, you need to split the hairs. “Title” to the mortgage does not mean “ownership” of the mortgage, but the two terms are generally conflated as meaning the same thing. Any party that is the last party to receive an assignment of mortgage is the “owner” of “title” to that lien. There is no reasonable debate that can occur with respect to that black letter statement.

*
And any owner of “title” to the mortgage (note the difference between title to the mortgage and title to the property) has the right to enforce that lien according to the terms of the instrument that was properly executed and recorded. But that right to enforce is subject to several statutory and common law restrictions.
*
First common law for centuries holds that no transfer of a mortgage is valid, even if it is properly executed and recorded, if there is no concurrent transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation. This distinguishes the legal treatment of mortgages from other instruments like promissory notes.
*
This is further reflected in the statutes of all U.S. jurisdictions that require the would-be enforcer to have paid value for the underlying obligation. Adoption of 9-203 UCC. And please note that, as the investment banks figured out, it is possible to pay value without paying the value for the underlying obligation and it is possible to have paid value for the mortgage lien without paying for and receiving ownership of the underlying obligation — especially if the parties intended it. (See “splitting”).
*
In fact, splitting hairs further, it is possible to pay value for future behavior of humans relative to the provisions of written instruments without ever buying the obligation, note or mortgage. This is exactly what occurred in the current iteration of “securitization” of debt. There is no sale of the obligation, note or mortgage and so there is no securitization of debt.
  • By splitting the attributes of behavior from the provisions of the executed documents and changing the description of the behavior, an investment bank could, in essence, sell the apparent debt an unlimited number of times without ever recording the sale of the debt, note, or mortgage on any accounting ledger —even while such “sales” are reported and recorded in the public domain. 
  • In so doing the investment banks turned accounting on its head. And the big accounting firms let them do it — along with Federal agencies who knew better.
  • No legal document is valid unless it relates to something that actually occurred or is expected to occur in the real world.
  • The absence of any accounting ledger containing any unpaid loan account receivable due from the homeowner is proof of the absence of the debt — at least without court reformation of the entire transaction. 
  • The single biggest mistake of homeowners and lawyers is the failure to recognize these basic facts. As a result, even judges who are skeptical of the claim MUST conclude that the unpaid loan account receivable exists and that it is owed to the claimant who has experienced a default (financial loss) because they either said it or implied it through counsel who is protected by litigation immunity. 
*
In terms of selling securities, regulated or unregulated, this was the holy grail of investment banking. Selling securities without ever having to turn over the proceeds of securities sales to a genuine issuer. They merely had to invent a name under which the securities were issued and then sell them. This could be done indefinitely with the same homeowner transaction or group of homeowner transactions. The group would be called a “pool” implying ownership but that label was misleading since nobody owned the underlying obligation — thus undermining the right to enforce the terms of the mortgage.
*
The problem with this Wall Street strategy is that none of the securities issued by them are enforceable against or even currently relevant to the homeowner (according to the investment banks and their lawyers). The benefit is obvious. they can sell the transaction multiple times, calling it a “loan,” without ever recording the sale of the debt. But enforcement of the debt is entirely dependent upon the existence of an unpaid loan account receivable under current law. Since no such account exists under the current iteration of “securitization” the investment banks were required to fake it.
*
They needed to manage to convince judges that a designee or nominee had the right to enforce even though it had no such right. They needed to do that because without enforcement, the label of “loan” would be exposed as fake. And the sales pitch to investors regarding the apparent (but never promised) ownership of a pool of loans would also be revealed as fake, thus undermining the principal goal of the entire scheme — the same of more securities (“certificates”). If transactions with homeowners were revealed to be something other than “standard loans” then the certificates would become unmarketable.
*
As a consequence, events occurred on an epic scale that were incomprehensible to the casual observer. The investment banks did not have an unpaid loan account receivable to point to as a reference so they created the presumption of one. By inserting a “servicer”  who appeared to be processing the receipts and disbursements, they used the printed reports allegedly from the”servicer” to constitute a “payment history”.
*
They then, through counsel, convinced judges to accept the “payment history” as a legal substitute for evidence of the loan account receivable. The absence of any evidence of actual receipt of payments or disbursement to a “creditor” has been overlooked by courts for twenty years.
*
Thus far nearly all homeowners and most of the lawyers who are rarely employed to investigate the matter to render an opinion, have failed to understand this process precisely because there is no analog in their lives or education or experience.
*
But for the few homeowners who challenge the premise that there is any outstanding unpaid loan account receivable, they usually succeed at trial or they are paid off in confidential settlements. The challenge to homeowners and their attorneys is to start at the first premise at the earliest possible time because the investment banks, acting through lawyers who have litigation immunity, are building a track record of correspondence and notices starting with the origination of the homeowner transaction.
*
Thus by the time the matter gets to court, most homeowners have done nothing and their defenses look like last-minute hail Mary passes to avoid the “inevitable” foreclosures. 96% of all homeowners faced with false claims of rights to administer, collect or enforce the nonexistent loan account receivable simply leave or even clean up the property before leaving peaceably. In so doing they are leaving behind the extremely valuable property that has no effective lien on it other than the recording of a mortgage that was either invalid, to begin with, or became ineffective because there was no debt.
*
In addition, homeowners are leaving a claim behind that also has high value and which the investment banks are always concerned about. The original transaction was in most cases without any fundamental element of a loan transaction other than the homeowners’ desire to obtain a loan. Except in the earliest transactions in the late 1990s and early 2000s, nearly all such transactions were steered toward a feeder of a common investment bank.
*
Thus the appearance of payments made on behalf of the homeowner at “closing” was an illusion. The investment bank simply used two different originators. Other than cash-out refi’s no money at all was required except to pay all the intermediaries who played the parts of lenders, servicers, closing agents, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, title companies, etc. But each new “transaction” was the base or foundation for a new round of creation, issuance, sale, and trading of new certificates. The investment banks were literally printing money — or cash equivalents.
  • In most instances, the “closing” of a transaction with a homeowner results in the issuance of a note and mortgage promising payment that is not supported by any reciprocal consideration. In most of the other cases, the “closing” results in very little money paid by or on behalf of the homeowner despite what is stated on the settlement statement, which is a lie.
*
By all standards and statutes, the fact that the transaction with the homeowner would not have taken place but for the sale of securities was required to be disclosed to the homeowner. And the claim that the transaction was a loan required the investment bank, acting through its many intermediaries and conduits, to disclose the true nature of the transactions and the compensation, bonuses, commissions, and profits that would be generated from securities sales. (TILA).
*
The entire securities scheme was entirely dependent upon the homeowner signing papers that would be used to create an extra-legal virtual creditor (illegal) with an extra-legal (illegal) virtual loan account receivable rather than the legally required real creditor with a real loan account receivable. Homeowners never received the loan product they were requesting and they were never told about the valuable service they were performing for the investment banks. And therefore they never had an opportunity to bargain for a share of the venture into which they were being lured as the principal issuer of instruments that made the scheme possible.
*
Thus each day, homeowners, believing that they received what they requested, are walking away from property that is legally owned by them free from the enforcement of the mortgage lien that is being used to chase them out. Each foreclosure results in new financial proceeds that are used to pay various intermediaries and conduits (including law firms and “Servicers”) with the investment banks retaining the balance. Although this cash flow should be categorized as revenue it is untaxed inasmuch as it is reported (or unreported) as the return of capital.
*
There is nothing in this piece that is unknown to the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the FTC, the SEC, or the Department of the Treasury. In the words of Timothy Geithner, attempting to justify the payment to banks rather than the bailout of homeowners, “The plane was on fire. We had to land the plane somewhere.”
*
For proof of this narrative look no further than The TARP program and the many cases that have been won by homeowners. In all cases where the homeowner won, it was based upon a finding by the trial judge that the claimant had not produced sufficient evidence to back up its claim—- i.e., that it had an unpaid loan account receivable.
*
But TARP is more instructive. First, it was announced that it was intended to cover losses from defaulting “loans.” Then Federal officials came to realize that the banks were not holding any loans. That produced some head-scratching. If there were no losses on “loans” then why did the banks need a bailout? Then Wall Street came up with a different scenario closer to the truth but still a lie — the “losses” were from the certificates (RMBS) that were issued. The same problem emerged. Investment banks were not buying certificates, they were selling them.
*
But Wall Street was banging the drums for a bailout anyway. They had no losses but they wanted a vehicle by which they could stiff investors and settle for pennies on the dollar. And they wanted the proceeds of hedge bets and insurance they had purchased gambling on the collapse of the “market” (completely controlled by the investment banks) for the certificates.
*
And so was born the Maiden Lane entities and the payments to AIG etc that resulted in companies like Goldman Sachs receiving tens of billions of dollars on a bet that they had made that the certificates they were creating would fail — a bet that was guaranteed by the tranche system. This could only work if “loans” were closed that could not possibly survive more than a few months or years. Wall Street banks thus encouraged the NINJA “loans” with “no documents” etc. It was a bid for a crash.
*
The data on the highest quality “loans” were placed in the highest tranche but that tranche (under the control of the investment bank) bought “credit default swaps” that were disguised purchases of the data relating to the lowest tranche that contained data on the “loans” that were virtually guaranteed to fail.
*
Insurers would not insure the lowest tranche. It was too obvious that the loan data would be reported as non-performing in the near or middle term. So the investment banks asked for insurance on the highest tranche and then created the scenario in which when the lowest tranche failed it took down the highest one thus triggering tens of billions in profits payable not to investors but to the investment banks. And such payments were not credited to the unpaid loan accounts receivable for any homeowner because no such account existed.
*
And to think that all this occurred on the backs of homeowners who failed to receive a single disclosure for the existence of the securities scheme that completely changed the character of the transaction that they requested and that they reasonably believed they had received.
*

So here is the remedy— from the law books — that ought to apply if you stop believing in the threats of armageddon regularly issued by the investment banks. Like Iceland and others, use court process to force the reformation of the homeowner contract to include the securitization portion of the deal, compensating the homeowner reasonably for the share of revenue that the homeowner should have received and compensation for the additional risks in dealing with counterparties who had no stake in the outcome of the transaction or who even had a negative stake in the outcome (If it failed, they win).

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | 5 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 »

THREADING THE NEEDLE: IT IS WHAT THEY DON’T SAY THAT REVEALS THE TRUTH — AND YOU CAN USE IT!

Posted on January 5, 2022 by Neil Garfield

So talk about splitting hairs — here is a statement from a company that is claimed by third parties to be the servicer of a “loan.” Note that the parties making the claim do NOT swear that PennyMac is servicing claims to administer, collect and enforce for them, but rather for some unknown creditor or some other entity that does NOT make such a claim. Think about that. Here is the quote:

PennyMac, who, as the loan servicer, is authorized to accept payments for your loan.

And here is the analysis of that statement:

  • PennyMac IS authorized, although not by anyone who is legally entitled to act as grantor in such authorization.

  • And it is authorized to accept payments — but it doesn’t. And nobody who does “accept” payments is working for PennyMac. PennyMac is not a FINTECH, Lockbox, or processing center for payments made by homeowners nor the recipient or processing centers for the money proceeds from foreclosure sales or sales of REO property. 

  • And notice that it says “accept” payments rather than “receive” payments. I can be authorized to accept your payment but unless I actually receive it my authorization, even if valid, is irrelevant and lacks foundation.

    • And so if you make a payment and direct it to me at an address that is a mail processing center that sends the payments for processing at a lockbox or FINTECH company, the accounting for those receipts can only be performed by people who in their ordinary course of business actually collect and account for receipts.

      • The “Payment History” proffered in the name of such a “servicer” for the payment is also irrelevant and lacks foundation. They’re merely producing a report generated by someone else.

      • In addition, the Payment History proffered in court is not an acceptable or legally admissible substitute for the ledger showing the loan account receivable (see below).

      • This Payment History from such a servicer is neither acceptable evidence or admissible evidence of payments nor of the balance of the loan account receivable owed to a specific creditor who paid value for the underlying obligation. 

    • The Payment History could only be admitted into evidence if there was live testimony from someone with personal knowledge of the ordinary course of business of the company that entered the data and reproduced the report — keeping in mind that this does not include the company named or claimed to be the “servicer.”

    • But the failure to make such objections and challenges invariably results in admission of the report into evidence, which in turn, establishes the existence of the loan account receivable, the right of the servicer to account for the payment history, establish the default etc. 

  • PennyMac IS a “loan servicer” only because the regulations were meant to include anyone who participates in the administration, collection of enforcement of claims arising from alleged loan accounts. But if the loan accounts don’t exist, then they are not a loan servicer under any construction of the term. 

  • And notice they don’t actually say what would ordinarily be said by either the loan officer as a lender or the officer in charge of administration, collection or enforcement of a loan at a servicer who receives, processes accounts for and disburses funds to creditors, i.e., 

    • “You have a loan account receivable arising from your transaction on the __ day of ___, 20__. XYZ has acquired all rights, title and interest to the underlying obligation. the legal debt, note and recorded mortgage.

    • By law, you owe XYZ that money.

    • We have been appointed to serve the interests of XYZ and empowered by XYZ to administer, collect and enforce the right to collect payments of interest and principal as provided by your promissory note and the recorded mortgage.

    • A copy of that authorization, signed by an authorized officer of XYZ is attached or has already been provided to you.

    • Attached is a copy of the XYZ ledger on which your loan account appears showing the balance, payments, and disbursements from inception to the present.”

    • YOU WILL HEVER, EVER SEE SUCH A LETTER OR STATEMENT NOW — BUT THIS WORDING IS TAKEN FROM HUNDREDS OF EXEMPLARS DATING BACK TO THE EARLY 1990s AND EARLIER. 

    • Why don’t they say that — especially when they used to say it and that wording was literally invented by the financial industry? The answer is very simple., they don’t say because they can’t say it without exposing themselves to criminal and civil liability.
    • But they can imply it or have their lawyers argue false factual and legal premises in court with immunity. What is the fix for this gigantic scam? It would be the government doing its job which after over 20 years is a lost cause.
    • That means that homeowners need to invest their time, money, and energy into defeating these false foreclosure claims. And that generally means that groups of homeowners must come up with a way to finance the challenge for each individual homeowner. 
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.
NOTE: It is unlikely that anyone without legal training will understand the legal significance of the points raised in this article. The obvious answer is to show it to your lawyer.
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 PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Motions, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 3 Comments »

Why I Think Homeowners Are Entitled to Receive a Second Payment From Investment Banks

Posted on January 4, 2022 by Neil Garfield
All homeowners who think they have a mortgage loan have received one payment at a “closing” — or a payment allegedly made on their behalf. For reasons explained elsewhere on this blog, such payments on their behalf are mostly fictional where the underlying investment bank is the same “director” of funds.
*
The significance is that a second tree springs up in which the scheme described below is duplicated — with little or no cost to the investment banks. Each time the myth of “refinancing” is employed a new securitization tree springs up with dozens if not hundreds of branches.
*
The purpose of this article is to explain my view that homeowners are entitled to share in the revenues and profits generated by securitization schemes — and why I think that now is the time to demand it in litigation.
*
This claim has been filed early in the course of the mortgage meltdown. In one case the Federal judge held onto it for 14 months before finally ruling that the complaint should be dismissed. It led to my deposition being taken for 6 straight days, 9am-5PM as an expert witness. I was having heart problems at that time and they were clearly trying to wear me down. I did not relent. I did get some stents shortly afterward. 16 banks and 16 law firms each took their turn beating me up.
*
I think we have reached a different era in which these claims should be pressed again. We know a lot more than we did in 2007-2008. Subsequent events proved the basic points, to wit: that the paper trail did not match up to reality, which is why the paper trail consists entirely of false, fabricated, forged, backdated, and robosigned documents.
*
1. Homeowners enter into transactions that appear to be loans to purchase or refinance property at market value. Even if the transactions were actual loans, the determination of market value was legally the responsibility of the lender under TILA. Market value never increased, but prices were grossly inflated because Wall Street flooded the market with money that appeared to be cheap.
  • By lowering the apparent monthly cost, they made the actual price appear to be irrelevant — which is part of the essential element of deception.
  • The common homeowner relied upon the appraisals that were required by investment banks to be inflated in order to complete the loan transaction or the illusion of a loan transaction.
  • The only way securities brokerage firms (investment banks) could sell more and more unregulated securities is if more and more deals were signed by unsuspecting homeowners.
  • Thus the transaction enabled the homeowner to purchase or refinance a home under the mistaken belief that the home had a market value in excess of the principal amount of the “loan.”
  • All such “loans” were bad, from a market perspective.
  • It meant that the homeowners took an immediate loss because market prices were stratospherically higher than market values (i.e., indicating a high known probability that prices would fall precipitously).
  • It also meant that if there was a lender, it also was taking an immediate loss because it could not report the value of the loan at face value since the loan principal was far in excess of the value of the collateral.
  • In addition, all such loans were bad because the impact of this phenomenon was to create an immediate incentive to default on the scheduled “loan” payments apparently due from homeowners.
  • The obvious conclusion is that for everyone except the homeowner, this was not a loan transaction.
2. The transaction was not a loan. If it was a loan, nobody would have been party to it. There was no lending intent. there was no profit incentive to engage in lending under the circumstances described above. Like the “new economy” of the 1990s, the entire housing market consisted of the myth of a new force that would permanently push housing prices ever higher.
  • So what homeowners are missing out on is claiming a share of a pie that almost everyone else got paid.
  • The paper (document) deal basically has the homeowner execute a document allowing for a virtual creditor without a loan account balance in order to create, issue, and sell unregulated securities, regardless of what the homeowner intended and regardless of what the homeowner believed.
  • Because of the undisclosed structure of the deal, the “seller” was able to recover all money paid to the homeowner contemporaneously with the “closing” of the paper transaction. This is true even though nobody made credit entries to a nonexistent loan account.
  • Neither the loan account nor any of its components (underlying obligation, legal debt, note or mortgage) was ever sold in a financial transaction in the real world.
  • This accounts for the ability of the investment banks to conduct multiple virtual sales of hedge instruments or interests in the performance data for the virtual loan.
  • This enabled the investment bank to convert the usual 15% underwriting fee to at least a 1200% profit plus whatever they could get from homeowners in monthly payments and foreclosures.
  • With exception of the homeowner, every person and every business entity that was recruited to participate in the selling scheme to homeowners got paid extra exorbitant fees for their participation.
  • Those were fees that would never have been paid and could never have been paid but for the absurd profits from the so-called securitization scheme.
  • The homeowner provided a service that is undeniable: the homeowner accepted the concept of a virtual creditor even though no such allowance existed under any laws, rules or regulations thus enabling these fees and “trading profits” to be generated without any offsetting entry to any nonexistent loan account.
  • If homeowners had been given the opportunity to negotiate terms for their acceptance of a transaction in which there was no lender, no compliance with TILA, and no stake by a lender in the success of the transaction, homeowners would have had the opportunity to bargain for better terms and competition in the industry would have resulted in better terms (a share of the pie) being offered.
  • We already know that incentives were offered to pay closing costs, the first few months of the “loan” etc. Homeowners occupied a special place in the securitization scheme.
  • Without the cooperation of homeowners, there was no securitization scheme. Other players could have been replaced but not homeowners.
  • So their share of the pie would have been substantial if they had the opportunity (i.e., if there was disclosure) to bargain and better terms would have been offered if there was disclosure and transparency as required by law.
  • In my opinion, there are two benchmarks that should be used to determine how much the homeowner should have been paid: (1) the amount the homeowner received at closing, making such payment a fee and (2) 15% of the total revenue generated from the scheme in e exchange for the issuance of the paper documents (note and mortgage).
    • These two benchmarks overlap. But what it basically comes down to is that each homeowner should have received the benefit of the real bargain: around 15% of the total revenue from that deal which means that in a typical $200,000 loan, with at least $2.4 million generated in fees and trading profits, the homeowner should have received at least $360,000.
    • The $200,000 “loan” might survive upon proper reformation reflecting all the elements of the real deal, but there is still an extra $160,000 that was due to the homeowner at the time of signing.
    • Right now that $360,000 is being shared with dozens of people and companies involved in the securitization scheme and dozens of companies involved in virtual foreclosure schemes — i.e., foreclosures in which lawyers acting under litigation immunity argue or imply that a loan account exists and that they represent the party who owns it.
    • The only reason why homeowners are excluded from that is that it would reduce the size of bonuses received by the existing players, most of whom are doing nothing other than lending their name to a virtual scheme.
    • I said in 2007  that homeowners did not really owe any money to anyone from these paper transactions and that in fact, it was the reverse — homeowners are the ones who are owed money by the investment banks, plus interest from the date of closing.

I think the failure of homeowners to aggressively pursue this line of practical and legal reasoning is largely responsible for the continued drain (anchor) on the U.S. economy, which is still suffering from the unfortunate decisions of multiple administrations to save and increase the profits of investment banks at the cost to and detriment of common homeowners.

Filed under: discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure mill, investment banking, legal standing, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Destroying, Hiding or Fabricating Evidence: Doctrines Regarding Spoliation of Evidence

Posted on December 28, 2021 by Neil Garfield

The latest issue of the Florida Bar journal contains several interesting articles. One of them is entitled “Spoliation of Evidence and Non-party witnesses.” The author is Gary M Glassman, who is the attorney for Daytona Beach.

The major points of the article that I think are relevant to Foreclosure Defense litigation are that (A) spoliation has a very broad meaning and (B) the refusal to produce documents that are relevant to the case at Bar raises an inference in favor of the homeowner, and might even give rise to a cause of action for damages.

Foreclosure lawyers have long relied on the fact that they could stonewall request for information and then use fabricated documentation containing false information with impunity. But a proper document request during an open discovery period can itself be the subject of an affirmative defense or even a claim for damage to the homeowner’s ability to defend.

This enhances the relevance of having previously sent a qualified written request and a debt validation letter, together with a complaint to the CFPB and the state attorney general.

In judicial states, I think that it is possible and even probable that the court would sustain an affirmative defense consisting of both fabrication and spoliation. Combined with an action for damages under the FDCPA (potentially as a counterclaim) the homeowner could claim the inference that the missing documents would show that the exhibits to the complaint are false and fabricated. There is some pretty clear law in both Florida and California supporting this proposition.

In non-judicial states where the homeowner must initiate judicial action, one of the claim should be spoliation, along with fabrication.

The other point is the duty to preserve evidence. It is clear that a party that is used may not destroy or hide evidence and must produce such evidence when requested to do so in formal discovery.

One of the tactics employed by the banks is to hide information about the identity and last known address of relevant third parties like the “employees” or “independent contractors” who supposedly executed the documents upon which the entire foreclosure case rests.

Third parties have no absolute duty to maintain documents in their possession unless they know that the documents in their possession are relevant to pending legal claims and defenses. So the answer is that you want to give them notice and the best way to give them notice is with a subpoena duces tecum. This could include such companies as Black Knight and CoreLogic — not just individuals.

Asking for such information and not getting an answer is evidence of spoliation. Finding the “signor” with a private investigator is often very productive. In many cases, they deny ever signing anything. And they’re probably telling the truth.

The failure to provide such information is part of the doctrines utilized in claims o spoliation and the inability of the responding party to provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce the records raises, in and of itself, an inference that those records would show that the discovery requests establish a negative inference as to authenticity and validity of those documents — but, in my opinion, only if the discovery request is accompanied by requests for admissions that carefully track the request to produce which carefully tracks the interrogatories.

The bottom line is that spoliation is a recognized foundation for asserting that the opposing party has either acted or refused to act in a way that interferes with the ability of the homeowner to prove affirmative defenses or claims which resulted in substantial prejudice to the homeowner. This has not been previously applied to Foreclosure litigation. But I can think of no other area of litigation in which fabrication and spoliation are more relevant.

PRACTICE HINT: There is a significant difference — and  often overlooked —between the “entity” named as Plaintiff (or beneficiary in nonjudicial states) and the entity named or claimed to be a “servicer.”

In the context of this article, one should not assume that a mere request to produce is sufficient. The request to produce only has legal effect against, for example, U.S. Bank, N.A. if it is named as Plaintiff trustee in a judicial foreclosure or beneficiary trustee in a nonjudicial case. First, the request to U.S. Bank should be directed solely at records kept by U.S. Bank in its role of administering the affairs of a trust account in which there is a loan account receivable due from the homeowner. Second, the “servicer” should receive a subpoena duces tecum asking for the same records. All too often the “records” are “produced” by the “servicer” which is a response from a third party and not the claimant as plaintiff or beneficiary. 

*

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. 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 PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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, Eviction, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Motion Practice and Discovery, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case | 3 Comments »

Stop Using the Labels: Homeowners Lose Foreclosure Cases When They Refer to the “Servicer”

Posted on December 27, 2021 by Neil Garfield

You need to challenge the status of the company claiming to be a servicer by finding out what functions they really perform.

*

I know I have contributed to the problem, but I think it’s time to stop using the labels that are promoted by the banks.

*

Companies that are claimed to be the “servicer”, by all accounts, do not perform any functions normally attributed to that label. This it is against the interests of the homeowner or the lawyer representing the homeowner to accept the use of the term unless there is foundation testimony as to the actual functions performed by the company rather than the presumptions arising from the label “servicer.”

*

The actual receipt and distribution of funds, and the bookkeeping and accounting therefor, is performed by third-party vendors (FINTECH) who have absolutely no contractual or other duties owed to the company named as the “servicer.” That makes the “report” presented in court as a “payment history” both fictional and pure hearsay that cannot be admitted into evidence — unless the homeowner waives that objection. 

*

The FINTECH companies also have absolutely no contractual or other duty owed to the named claimant. And the named claimant (Plaintiff or beneficiary) does NOT receive any payment from either the “servicer” or the FINTECH companies — including the money proceeds of foreclosure sales. That is entirely fiction. AND that is why every attempt to obtain corroboration through QWR, DVL or legal discovery is stonewalled. There is no corroboration.

*

Each foreclosure produces money proceeds that go into the pocket of an investment bank as either general revenue or “return of capital” against the fictitious double-entry bookkeeping account. In plain language, the money is NEVER used to reduce a loan account because there is no loan account. That is why you can’t get the loan account even in discovery and even if you sue under the FDCPA. But that fact alone gives the homeowner the upper hand.

*

You need not understand or believe this presentation. But if you want to win your case, you need to assume that this is true and act accordingly.

*
By accepting the label of “servicer” you are also tacitly and unintentionally accepting the “payment history” as an exception to the hearsay rule and an acceptable substitution for the testimony and proffer of the records of the known and named claimant. Once you have done that, you have lost. You need to challenge the status of the company claiming to be a servicer by finding out what functions they really perform.
*
But the payment history is nothing of the sort. It is a report on a report prepared by an undisclosed FINTECH company from data that has been “massaged” as instructed by an investment bank. It is NOT a simple report of the condition of the loan account.
*
Want proof? Show me one “payment history” that contains the beginning entry starting the loan account and showing the current balance as owned by the named claimant. It doesn’t exist. Show me one payment history that shows disbursement of funds received from anyone to any creditors. It doesn’t exist.
*
So if there is no presentation of disbursements to creditors, how would the court ever accept the idea that the company received any money? How could the court ever assume that the company could account for the receipt of money it never actually received?
*
The answer is obvious even to people with accounting or legal knowledge. You would have no record of receiving money that was never received. And that is because nobody would enter any data in any record of any company saying that they personally received the payment as an employee of the company claiming to be the servicer. Making such an entry would be a lie and presenting it in court would be perjury.
*
The other part is the assumption that the company that is claimed to be the “servicer” is somehow working for the named claimant, or is the agent for the named claimant.
*
This is exactly the trap that the banks have set. This is sleight of hand maneuvering.
*
By distracting the homeowner and the attorney for the homeowner to the question of the authority of the servicer, the argument shifts away from whether the “servicer” is performing any of the normal duties attributed to the servicer and away from the issue of whether the existence of a trustee or trust is even relevant since the trust does not own the underlying obligation as required by UCC 9-203.
*
I write this primarily for the benefit of attorneys. Only an attorney will recognize the importance of these issues.
***
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. 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 PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Motions, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 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?
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. 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 PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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.

  1. 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 34th Avenue, Suite 101, Ocala, Florida.  In reality, Mortgage Electronic did not have any business address at that location, and the representation was a falsity.

  1. 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: , | 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.
  1. I doubt that counsel has any written or oral authority to represent Fannie Mae that was granted by Fannie Mae.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
    1. 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.
  4. 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.
    1. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
    1. 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
  14. 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.
    1. 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.”
  15. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
      1. 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).
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
      1. 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.
      2. In such cases, it is enough to establish that the maker of the note failed to make a scheduled payment.
    3. 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.
      1. 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)
      2. 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?
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. 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 PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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: , , , | 3 Comments »

Tonight! Q&A on Prelitigation Strategies — QWR, DVL and Complaints to CFPB and State AG 6PM EST 3PM PST

Posted on December 9, 2021 by Neil Garfield

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6 pm Eastern Thursdays

As a follow-up to our FREE presentation CLE webinar on Prelitigation Strategies and Practices, we offer an open mike Q&A on tonight’s show. Please think about your questions in advance and refrain from long monologues about your case.

As an introduction let me state the obvious premise of this work: If as a consumer you have executed a promissory note and mortgage (or deed of trust) and you think that there is a loan account receivable somewhere that is owned and maintained by some lender or creditor, you are most likely incorrect.

Most homeowners make the mistake of thinking that the QWR and DVL are simply “form letters.” If that were the case, we would provide you with the template and you could send it out yourself. And back in the old days (pre-1995) that would be entirely appropriate for settling any disputes regarding the proper allocation of payments or any other issues.

*
The statutory foundation for the creation of the QWR and the DVL was designed to resolve potential disputes between the debtor and the creditor.
*
Today, the situation is different. We already know that there is no valid claim against the homeowner and that there is no valid claimant. We also already know that any company that is claimed to be a “servicer” neither has any legal authority to act as such (from anyone) nor does it perform any functions that are normally attributed to a company claiming to be a servicer.
*
So while the legislative intent for providing consumer remedies in RESPA and the FDCPA was designed to resolve disputes, the procedures contained within those statutes are now used by homeowners to start a dispute — because, without a history of disputing the claims made to administer, collect or enforce any alleged obligation due from the homeowner, it is much harder to mount an effective defense.
*
So the idea behind the sending of a QWR and DVL is to identify specific issues that you already know will not be answered — which gives you the right to file a lawsuit for violation of RESPA and FDCPA. In order to do that effectively, the homeowner needs to distill the case analysis down to the points that are relevant to those statutes. Although this is not exactly the same as preparing a lawsuit, the drafting of the QWR and DVL requires research, investigation, and very careful wording.
*
Some homeowners have been able to do it themselves, but most are unable to do so because they lack the experience, knowledge, and resources to present direct questions concerning the existence of the loan account receivable, the status of the account, the ownership, and the authority to administer, collect or enforce any monetary obligations arising from the alleged existence of the account.
*
Most of this is confusing to homeowners because they have never been to law school, received any practical training in trial practice nor have most of them ever been involved in any litigation. When most homeowners send the QWR or the DVL and they fail to get a direct answer or proper response that answers the specific questions asked in those letters, they consider the entire effort a failure and a waste of time — when in fact they just had a win. They have established that the parties seeking to make claims about administration, collection, or enforcement of the alleged obligation are unwilling or unable to provide any corroboration of such claims.
**
IMPORTANT PRACTICE NOTE: When the QWR or DVL is used as a general discovery device or is used to pontificate about disputed views, it is generally dismissed by both the recipient and any court reviewing it as an unqualified written request under RESPA and not a demand for debt validation under the FDCPA. This is where the homeowners get themselves into trouble. The general attitude is that the “you know what I mean” argument is sufficient. It isn’t.
**

Filed under: burden of persuasion, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

“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?
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. 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 PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
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.
  • 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 »

Magna Bank, N.A. as Trustee for registered holders of certificates issued under the name of the Macandcheese Acquisition Trust, Inc. an inactive corporation, for a nonexistent trust, series 2022-XL-1

Posted on December 6, 2021 by Neil Garfield

So a friend of mine left her phone in my car. Here is what I wrote to her:

Thank you for leaving your phone in my possession, which as you know is 9/10s of the law. That means that even though you paid for it and you received ownership from the seller, I can now claim it as my property. So by possessing the phone I was able to issue and sell several certificates based upon the possible rental income I would receive from you for access to the phone you already own.

*
I told the buyers you had scheduled payments of $100 per month, even though you had neitehr signed nor even acknoweldged any agreeemtn to make the scheduled payments on the nonexistent obligaiton.
I told the investors that I would make quarterly payments to them equal to 5% of their investments in perpetuity. I will be able to make those payments as long as I am able to continue selling certificates either on your deal or other deals with other ignorant consumers. If you don’t make the payment I will have the option of withholding part or all of the payments I promised to the investors. If you do make payments on this nonexistent obligation, that will make it easier for me to pay bonuses to everyone involved in this scheme.
*

So far I have received $2500 from these investors and my salesmen are just getting started. I am returning the phone to you in exchange for a signed receipt that refers to a document that is referenced as describing the scheduled payments. If you don’t make the payment I will repossess the phone and get a judgment against you for the balance due under the lease, which is $15,000. If you wish to modify this obligation you will need to admit to a default and we might then offer a “modification” in which you agree that the deal is valid.

*
Servicing of this nonexistent account has been assigned to financial technology (FINTECH) companies who will communicate with you using the name of Joe’s Screw and Die Company (JSDC). The FINTECH companies will assert aqht JSDC is your new servicer ven thouhg it performs no functions.
*
The FINTECH companies will publish and send to account statements and payment histories under the letterhead of JSDC. Your telephone communications and correspondence will be forwarded to a call center or correspondence center operated by Black Knight Rising, Inc. who works for me.
*
If you ask any questions or if a legal action is initiated to collect on this nonexistent obligation the creditor will be named as Magna Bank, N.A. as Trustee for registered holders of certificates issued under the name of the Macandcheese Acquisition Trust, Inc. an inactive corporation, for a nonexistent trust, series 2022-XL-1.
*
And no, I will not reveal the identity of the holders of those certificates nor the content of the certificates. Not ever. But I will instruct lawyers to imply — but not directly state — that the action is brought on behalf of investors or a trust and that it doesn’t make any difference whihc one.
*
Despite the fact that you never signed any document that memorializes any agreement by you to these specific arrangements I assure you I can and will enforce the nonexistent obligation against you — because I can.
*
Reports concerning your credit status will be sent under cover of the name JSDC to the Credit Reporting Agencies. My name won’t be mentioned so if you ever prove that the report was false, it will be difficult if not impossible for you to attribute liability to me. You will get a judgment against JSDC which is a thinly capitalized entity designed to go bankrupt in the event that many people like you start winning in court.
*
Failure to make scheduled payments on this nonexistent obligation will result in increased expenses incurred by you for use of credit in the future in addition to loss of your phone, and a judgment against you that is presumptively valid once it is entered in any court record in a court of competent jurisdiction.
*
Should you choose to contest this claim you will most likely win — but only if you are willing to spend considerable time, money and energy in doing so, while negative credit reports are issued against you. Thus even though the claim is false and based upon illegal and possibly criminal premises, you might as well pay.
*
Although you might consider this arrangement to be theft, based upon coercion and intimidation, we call it free-market capitalism. Thanks to tens of millions of consumers just like you I now have a private jet, and palatial estates in 14 countries. I am also a very large contributor to philanthropic causes, and a prolofic collector of mastperpiece artworks — which gives me great credibility in the press, even though I am a common thief.
*
On a final note, you might ask whether you could or should be a participant in this scheme receiving some of the prodigious revenue from sales of certificates or even some revenue from other consumers like you. While we recognize that the entire scheme is dependent upon the existence of your phone and the receipt you sign to get it back, the answer is no, we will not share in the revenue.
*
Just to be clear, I am not your creditor. I neither own nor maintain any accounting record on which data entries are made at or near the time of any financial transction with you and neither does JSDC. However because anyone can sue for anything, I will continue to assert nonexistent authority to collect money from you.
*
As further clarification, when I have generated more than the stated lease balance of $15,000 you will neither be notified of that fact nor relieved of any pressure to continue paying. You will not be able to prove that the revenues      generated exceeded any amount asserted as your obligation because there is no such record keeping track of that.
*
And in an abundance of caution let me clearly state that you have no debt or obligation owed to me or anyone else under this arrangement. Any payment you make is purely voluntary and without any impediment to your ability to access professional advice which you probably won’t use. What is wonderful for me is that even if you did go to a lawyer or other professional (except perhaps a diligent accountant) they most likely would not understand this deal even if they read this email. Such professionals might ask you questions like “well, you got the phone didn’t you?”
P.S. My friend won’t return my calls now.

Filed under: Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, prima facie case, securities fraud, sham transactions, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | 3 Comments »

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: