Here we go — the next tidal wave of foreclosures is upon us. When the moratoriums are over prepare for shock and awe (again)

see https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/floridas-foreclosure-rate-second-highest-in-the-u-s-filings-increase-as-courts-open

The Wall Street playbook calls for an insidious process of creeping up on you. Within days, in some cases, weeks in other cases and certainly within months, people are going to wake up to the fact that they are already in the middle of a foreclosure proceeding. And the new wave will be just as destructive as in 2008.

Contrary to the party line that has been successfully advanced by Wall Street banks, foreclosure proceedings are NOT the result of non-payment. They are the result of greed.

For non-payment to be a reason to seek redress in court, the claimant must be entitled to receive payment from the person they are suing, and they must be “injured” (financially) by the homeowner’s failure to pay. In al most all foreclosures, contrary to popular belief, these elements are completely absent and no, there isn’t anyone behind  some fictional curtain who is getting the money to satisfy and unpaid debt.

And yet here is what is about to happen:

  • 96% of all homeowners who are served with foreclosure notices will walk away from the biggest investment of their lives and losing a huge asset
  • 2% will attempt to litigate “on the cheap” looking or delay, modification or something other than simply winning against a law firm falsely representing it has a client who is proper claimant and falsely implying that if the foreclosure is successful the money will go to someone who needs it instead of just wanting it.
  • 2% will litigate in earnest and 65% of them will win their cases because there is no legitimate claimant or claim.
  • The courts will largely remain ignorant about the true nature of securitization — specifically that not a single residential loan has ever been securitized.
    • Building on that ignorance, the courts will erroneously accept direct or implied assertions of authority to administer, collect or enforce obligations by law firms who also lack any authority to collect or enforce.
    • Many lawyers will make the same mistake, believing that the self proclaimed “servicer” has been granted any right by any party who paid value for the underlying obligation in exchange for receiving a formal conveyance fo ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
    • Discovery demands, even if properly framed and timed, will largely be ignored by everyone because of lawyers and pro se litigants’ lack fo understanding of motion practice.
  • The CFPB, FTC, SEC and IRS will continue to cover up the largest and most blatant fraud in human history — the creation of the illusion of a loan without any lender and without any loan account on the ledger of any company reflecting payment for the debt, note or mortgage.
  • Once again, wealth will be sucked out of the US economy when it is needed most in the hands of consumers who are the ONLY demographic capable of reviving and stabilizing a consumer-driven economy.

Moral of the story: It’s not capitalism if you are stealing something for the sake of grabbing money. That is and always has been grant theft.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

Maine Decision Presents New Challenges for Hearsay objections on Fabricated Records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

The Key to Winning is Aggressive Discovery and Compliance with Court Orders

I have just received a slew of inquiries about what to do when the  foreclosure mill files evasive responses and objections. Here is the answer. Discovery consists of the following steps toward victory:
  1. Framing your answer, affirmative defenses and/or allegations such that you are challenging the status and ownership of the underlying debt.
  2. Draft your discovery demands such that they all relate to status and ownership of the debt and the right to represent the designated Claimant or Plaintiff.
  3. File a motion to compel answers after you receive evasive answers and nonsensical objections. Get a hearing. Appear at the hearing with a good argument as to why your discovery will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that is relevant to the case at bar. Get an order compelling discovery response.
  4. File motion for sanctions after you again receive evasive answers and nonsensical objections. Get a hearing. Appear at the hearing with a good argument as to why your discovery demands are necessary for your defense and will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that is relevant to the case at bar. Get an order on sanctions in which the court will probably give them one more chance to comply with the rules.
  5. File renewed motion for sanctions after you again receive evasive answers and nonsensical objections. Get a hearing. Appear at the hearing with a good argument as to why the opposition should be found in contempt of court order, in contempt of court procedural rules, and ask for striking their pleadings as long as they are unwilling to provide answers and documents that show proof they paid value for the underlying obligation. Get an order on sanctions in which the court will probably give them one more chance to comply with the rules.
  6. File a motion in limine. Ask the court to limit evidence on the existence and ownership and status of the debt. Get a hearing. Appear at the hearing with a good argument.
Your pleadings should include something like the following:
Opposing counsel has filed a common place boilerplate response to simple requests whose purpose is to reveal the status and ownership of the subject obligation, which is the central or sole issue in the case at bar. Opposing counsel seems to want the court to get distracted into other areas of inquiry or law. The plain truth of the case at bar is that if the designated plaintiff owns the debt and the defendant has failed to pay that debt, then a declaration of default is proper and foreclosure proceedings are appropriate.
*
But the reverse is also true. If opposing counsel cannot confirm ownership of the debt despite lawful discovery propounded in accordance with the rules of court, then there is no case at all. In such event, Defendant is entitled to the finding that any presumption of ownership of the debt has been rebutted and an inference that no such ownership exists. Opposing counsel could come back and produce evidence that his “client” paid for the debt — but only after complying with the rules of discovery. Otherwise a motion in limine would bar any such evidence at trial, thus ending the case.
*

The objections are based upon the disingenuous assertion that the requests are not related to the issues of the case. To be clear, as stated in Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative defenses, the issues raised by Plaintiff and defendant are the same — the status and ownership of the debt that the Opposing counsel seeks to enforce. Either the debt exists and is owned by the designated Plaintiff who is represented by opposing counsel or it does not exist or it is not owned by the designated Plaintiff.

*
If opposing counsel maintains an attorney client relationship with an existing legal entity that claims it owns the underlying debt and has been injured by “nonpayment” then counsel has every right to plead, object and otherwise represent the claimant in court.
*
But if opposing counsel maintains no attorney client relationship with any name included in the designation of Plaintiff, then they have no right to claim any right to represent or pursue any claim on behalf of a third party who is not present in the case.
*
So questions about the true nature of the relationship between opposing counsel and the designated Plaintiff are highly relevant and any objection thereto is dilatory and a complete waste of the time of the court and Defendant’s counsel. Since opposing counsel has also made a demand for recovery of attorney fees and costs, Defendant  is obviously entitled to know the nature and terms of the contract for legal services — and the parties thereto.
*
Further, if the designated Plaintiff — or some name contained within the label of the designated Plaintiff — has not paid value for the underlying obligation, then the action fails for lack of compliance with Florida statutes adopting in whole and verbatim Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code which states unequivocally that as a condition precedent to enforcement of a security instrument, the claimant must have paid value for the underlying obligation. If the designated Plaintiff has not paid value, then the action must be dismissed for failure of condition precedent.
*
Further, failure to have made such payment eliminates the implied (but unstated) assertion of harm since no harm could come to anyone who did not own the debt. This eliminates the foundation for jurisdiction over both subject matter (the claim for unpaid debt) and personal jurisdiction over the designated Plaintiff who has no claim as well as the Defendant who is under no duty to defend a baseless claim.
*
For The sake of justice, finality and judicial economy, such boilerplate objections should be rejected both to stop opposing counsel in this case and so serve as a deterrent in the many foreclosure cases that will soon clog the court system again.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

Tonight! I’m Back! Talking about Motions to Vacate, Motions for Rehearing, Motions for Reconsideration and Appeals 6PM EDT 3PM PDT

THE MOMENT YOU FIND YOURSELF SAYING “BUT  JUDGE, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND,” YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

In my experience most motions to vacate are actually motions for rehearing. There is a huge difference. Failure to understand these differences results in thousands of hours of legal work that are completely useless except perhaps as a delay tactic. In order to score points in this arena you must (1) disabuse yourself of the notion that you’re dealing with a “standard mortgage loan” and a “standard mortgage foreclosure” and (2) know how to use that knowledge to make legal points that cannot be ignored by the trial court or an appellate court.

*

Just because you labeled a pleading as a motion to vacate does not mean that it will be treated as such. Nor should it. Just like an assignment of mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust is not an assignment of mortgage if it does not include transfer of the underlying the debt after payment of value — either on the face of the instrument (making it facially invalid if there is no recitation of transfer of the debt for value paid) or concurrent with the assignment is a separate transaction — requiring actual proof of payment and transfer from someone who owns the underlying obligation.

*

Tonight we talk about an area of law that is confusing for lawyers, lay persons and even judges. There is a difference between a motion to vacate, a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration. And generally the decision comes down to manifest injustice. Trial court decisions are not corrected on appeal unless there was a clear mistake by  the trial judge that would have resulted or probably would have resulted in a different decision. 
*
Appeals are not about whether the judges on the appellate panel would have decided the case differently. And an appeal is not a forum for rearguing a case. The case has been heard and its final unless there was error and it resulted in a violation of due process where that violation resulted in a decision that would have been different if the violation had not occurred. But even if all that is true, the court will not and may not even consider the issue unless it was timely and properly raised and preserved, without intentional or unintentional waiver, in the trial court.
*

New Look for www.lendinglies.com

Our commercial site which sells services and publications has had a makeover. Please browse it and let me know if you like it.

www.lendinglies.com

 

BANKS ARE STEPPING UP ATTACKS ON THIS SITE

The banks employ a fairly large army of people whose job it is to discredit meritorious foreclosure defenses. Their job is to convince the public and lawyers and judges in general to accept the notion that the “loans” are real, that documentation alone is sufficient to win a foreclosure even if it is challenged, and that the specific facts reported on this blog and others are merely “conjecture” or “hypothetical.”

Such comments are meant to provoke a certain reaction and the banks have been successful at it — 96% of all homeowners served with foreclosure papers walk away from their biggest and maybe their only asset. Unlike myself, none of them worked on Wall Street in any capacity except writing for the investment banks. Unlike myself and the dozens of lawyers across the country that have defeated foreclosures, these “commentators” have no experience in law, trial work, forensic auditing or anything else. they serve only one master — the myth that are directed to propagate.

In effect, they are conveying the erroneous and false impression that lawyers like myself could not possibly have won cases in state and Federal courts because all we have is conjecture and no proof of our irrational “theories.” But our strategy is no theory. If someone is named as the claimant in a  foreclosure case the law requires them to have paid value for the underlying obligation. If they haven’t paid value they fail (i.e., they don’t get the foreclosure order or sale) for two reasons — (1) non compliance with condition precedent in Article 9 §203 UCC and (2) noncompliance with constitutional requirement that only injured people can bring claim for relief.

These shills post comments on this blog and social media to drive consumers away from their only path to relief from illegal, wrong, immoral foreclosures.

Mostly I ignore them.  Most of them, like Bob G below, have no credentials in finance, law, accounting or lending. I, on the other hand, have extensive (50 years) academic degrees with highest honors in securities, accounting and law along with licensing in securities trading and analysis. See my bio. I also am a real live licensed attorney (43+ years) who has won most of the foreclosure cases referred to me and I have extensive experience representing both lenders and borrowers since 1977.

The latest bit of pure silliness comes from Bob G, who, writing for the banks, says

The trustee doesn’t have to buy anything. [EDITOR’S NOTE: TRUE BUT THE TRUSTEE MUST RECEIVE SOMETHING THAT HAS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED VALUE FROM SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT THE ASSET, IN THIS CASE A LOAN]. Only needs to have the beneficiary convey property to the trustee that the conveyor had a legal interest in. [EDITOR’S NOTE: NONSENSE. BENEFICIARIES ARE THE RECIPIENT OF AN INTEREST IN THE ASSET THAT WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE TRUSTEE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND]. Now, I can also give you a quitclaim deed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. I may or may not have a real property interest in the White House. But that doesn’t matter. I can still convey the deed to the trustee. Whether it turns out to be a real asset is another matter to be determined by a court. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THAT DEED WOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE ACCEPTED AS FACIALLY VALID. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS, THE DEED IS VOID. NO PROPERTY INTEREST CAN BE CONVEYED EXCEPT BY SOMEONE WHO OWNS IT.

In the cases that interest folks here, there is a real owner of the mortgage note hiding behind the curtain. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. THE CASES OF INTEREST ARE THOSE THAT INVOLVE FALSE CLAIMS OF SECURITIZATION OF LOANS. IF THE LOANS HAD ACTUALLY BEENS SECURITIZED THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A SALE OF PRO RATA SHARES OF THE LOANS TO MULTIPLE INVESTORS. NO SUCH SALE OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS A REAL OWNER HIDING BEHIND THE SUGGESTED CURTAIN THE PROOF IN FORECLOSURES WOUDL COME FROM THAT PERSON, WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW. INSTEAD THE FORECLOSURE PLAYERS SKATE PAST THAT REQUIREMENT BY RAISING LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS FROM THE FAICAL VALIDITY OF FABRICATED, FALSE DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO OWNER BECAUSE TEHRE IS NO LOAN ACCOUNT HELD AS ASSET (I.E., OWNED BY) ANY COMPANY. THE LOAN ACCOUNT IS EXTINGUISHED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY IWTH ORIGINATION OR ACQUISITION OF THE DEBT.]

Original REMIC trusts are a different matter. There, there is a PSA or trust agreement. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THERE IS ALWAYS A TRUST AGREEMENT WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN BE NO TRUST. PROFFERING THE PSA AS TRUST AGREEMENT IS MISLEADING THE COURT. THE TRUST AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT THE TRUSTEE OWNS NOTHING OF LEGALLY RECOGNIZED VALUE AND THAT THE BENEFICIARIES ARE NOT THE INVESTORS BUT RATHER THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT STARTED THE SECURITIZATION SCHEME.] There is also a named seller and depositor. [EDITOR’S NOTE: COMPLETELY UNTRUE. COMPANIES ARE NAMED AS POTENTIAL SELLER OR POTENTIAL DEPOSITOR FOR FUTURE VENTS. NO SALE IS RECITED IN PSA]. If you try and use arguments propounded on this site to win your case, you are not going to have much success, in my opinion. [EDITOR’S NOTE; BOB G’S OPINION IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE HE LACKS ANY KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE TO OFFER AN OPINION. IT ALSO FLIES IN THE FACE THAT MANY LAWYERS, INCLUDING MYSELF HAVE WON THESE CASE FLAT OUT WITH SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE JDUGE THAT THE “TRUSTEE”, THE “TRUST” AND THE “SERVICER” WERE NOT AUTHORIZED WITH RIGHTS TOE FNORCE GRANTED BY ANYONE WHO OWNED THE UNDERLYING DEBT. JUDGMENT FOR HOMEOWNER].

 

Trusts, Trustors, Settlors and Fake REMIC Trusts

All trusts that are legally recognized as such have the following basic components: the trustor/settlor who (a) executes a written trust agreement and (b) conveys property into the name of the named trustee to hold and manage the conveyed asset(s) for the benefit of named beneficiaries. So the three basic components are (1) property (the res), (2) a trustor/settlor, and (3) beneficiaries. Pooling and servicing agreements when read closely reveal in all cases that they are missing all three components.

*

Trustees only exist in relation to a defined trust. A trust may technically exist if it is written down on paper. But it has no legal existence in court unless there is (a) something in it and (b) that something is relevant to the dispute being litigated in court. If it has no legal existence in court then the presumed powers of the trustee are irrelevant. The trustee’s power over claims or property are only as great as what is legally existing within the trust. That means that someone who owned an asset transferred it to the name of the trustee to hold in trust for the benefit of specific beneficiaries. In no case that I ever examined did such a transaction ever take place in connection with REMIC trusts or residential loans.

*
Several legal malpractice suits have been based upon the failure of the lawyer to advise his/her client that the trust that has been drafted and executed is still completely worthless if the trustor does not transfer assets into the trust. The beneficiaries find out the hard way that the trust may have indicated an intent to distribute certain assets to them, but if there is nothing owned by the trust, they get nothing. It’s like forming a corporation in whose name no business is ever done. It doesn’t matter that the intent of the founder of the corporation meant to conduct business in the name of the trust.
*
The corporation, like a trust, is a legal fiction equivalent (see Citizens United) to a legal person. That legal person cannot legally operate or own a car, directly or indirectly even through employment of a human, unless it legally buys the car and registers and insures it in accordance with state law. If the car gets into an accident then the person driving it is the one who will get sued because unless you can show that the person driving it was doing so at the behest of the corporation that did not own it, the corporation did nothing at all.
*
Going back to the original question, the REMIC Trust exists on paper and is either regarded as inchoate (sleeping) or nonexistent, depending upon state law. Being named as trustee of such a trust conveys no power over anything except for what has been conveyed by a trustor/settlor to the trustee for the express purpose of holding and managing the asset for the benefit of named beneficiaries. While there are several references to things that might happen in the future, no such conveyance is ever recited as an accomplished fact.
*
It therefore follows by simple logic that if a servicer is claiming the right to administer, collect or enforce a debt, it must be doing so on behalf of a legal person who is entitled to such administration, collection and enforcement. If the company claiming the label of “servicer” is claiming it is empowered by the trustee of a REMIC trust, then that trustee must have power over the asset (i.e., debt, note or mortgage or DOT). If a Bank party is claiming to be a trustee over the asset, then the asset must have been bought, conveyed, sold to the t trustee to hold and manage in trust for the benefit of beneficiaries. Conveyance of an interest in a mortgage or other encumbrance requires that the grantor legally own it and that the party receiving it pay value for it.
*
I have read the actual trust agreements that exist far from prying eyes of foreclosure defense lawyers. They specifically acknowledge that the trustee is getting, in name only, a conveyance that is (a) worthless since it does not include conveyance of the underlying obligation and (b) to hold for the sole benefit and subject to the direction of the investment bank that originated the securitization scheme. The investors who buy certificates are unsecured creditors, not beneficiaries.  I remind the reader that no such securitization scheme ever securitized the debt, note or mortgage of any residential homeowner.
*

BOTTOM LINE: ASK FOR THE ACTUAL TRUST AGREEMENT — AND DON’T ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS THE PSA.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

Counterfeit Documents and Lying Lawyers: How to stop the foreclosure

A reader asked me to post this: (It’s worth your time)

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBSXNI0g-Kc

As I have stated for 14 years, they can’t get anywhere if they don’t have the note unless they prove a lost note. They don’t prove a lost note because the elements of a prima facie case for lost note are that the claimant was given possession of the original note by specified person in a specified transaction.. The banks can’t prove that case because there is original note. it was destroyed contemporaneously with origination of the homeowner transaction that is mistakenly referred to as a loan.

And they have another problem” they can’t get the note into evidence as evidence of the underlying obligation unless they have proper foundation testimony from someone with personal knowledge about the original transaction or, as in this case, by getting the homeowner to admit that the fabricated note she is being shown is the original, that she signed it and that she owes the money.

The homeowner in this video, Renee, refused to admit anything and the lawyers responded with all sorts of tricks to get her to acknowledge her signature on the fabricated note that they were trying to get into evidence. But Renee stayed simple and smart. She said I didn’t sign that document.

The plain truth is that if the foreclosure mill had a case they could win without legal presumptions then they would have gone to court saying it doesn’t matter if that is the original note or not — we have the right to enforce granted to us by the owner of the underlying obligation. But they can’t do that because it isn’t true. And they get away with it because the overuse of litigation immunity.

Renee should not be required to pay on any claim unless it is a valid legal claim. But more than that she should not be subject to claims for enforcement of her alleged obligation when the investment banks are not subject to enforcement of their obligation to compensate her for her absolutely required assistance in launching a concealed securitization scheme. A scheme that did NOT securitize her transaction, debt, note or mortgage. So sale occurred.

She appears to be correct in saying that Wells Fargo, a repeat offender for fraudulent accounts and documentation, was doing it again.

Bottom line: Admit nothing make them prove everything — whether alleged or asserted.

Loan Level Analysis might get you into trouble unless it is worded correctly and used correctly

The tricky thing about “loan level data” is that it is easy to slide into unintended admissions, starting with the use of the word “loan.” Sure there was a transaction, but not every transaction is a loan even if it is labelled as such by one party and the other party intended a loan agreement.

*
But if in the end the other party is not the lender or successor lender and there is no loan account receivable on the books of any company, then the transaction may have looked like a loan but it was not. There is no such thing as a loan with no lender and no loan account owned by a party who paid value for the underlying obligation in exchange for a conveyance of ownership.
*

This does not necessarily wipe out the obligation, but it does wipe out enforcement if the claimant does not satisfy the prima facie requirement of owning the underlying debt through payment. Without that ownership, the claimant cannot legally claim loss that damaged the value of the receivable. Because it didn’t own it. And if it can’t claim damage to an asset because it does not own it, then it cannot legally press a claim for redress of a loss that at best would be attributed to someone else.

*
You also don’t want to get caught up in sliding into more admissions when you get into the weeds. “Loan number, Original Balance, Maturity Date, Property State, Property Zip Code, Property City, Pool Number and many more” each have the problems stated above. But the worst culprit is “Original Loan Balance.” We already know that the loan account did not exist in the real world. So that reference alone might trap you into an admission against interest thus establishing that there was an “original loan balance” — because if that existed, so did the obligation to pay it.
*
Sometimes by simply doing a loan level analysis you are erroneously giving life to an obligation that does not exist –at least not without reformation of the total contract that would include adequate compensation to the homeowner who was drafted into a securitization scheme that had nothing to do with ownership of his loan.
*
As I stated in a TV interview in April, 2006, “The real problem is going to be the homeowners who think they know but they don’t. It makes no sense to them that the transaction was not a loan or that they don’t owe the money.  That’s why they keep losing. They are admitting something that is self-evident to them but still wrong.”
*
HINT: Let’s say I come to you and said I have this great securitizations scheme that is going to earn big bucks and I told you that you could get in on the ground floor of this opportunity. I tell you that only need to sign a mortgage and note to start the ball rolling. So far consideration for the homeowner is negative.
*
So the homeowner says “”What is in it for me?” I tell you that you get a payment of money that matches the note and mortgage. Now consideration is zero — neither negative nor positive.
*
Then add a wildly inflated appraisal resulting in an immediate loss to the homeowner if he is buying a new home. Consideration to the homeowner is back to negative.
*
Then add the interest, fees, and other charges and the consideration goes negative again. Then I go out and I sell securities that refer to your execution of note and mortgage. Without you signing it, there would be no securitization. Without the securitization there would be no transaction with the homeowner. Without consideration paid to the homeowner, the transaction is incomplete and leaves the homeowner as a newly labeled borrower in a newly labeled loan transaction that has no lender or any established loan account on the books of any company that owns it. All contracts require offer, acceptance, execution and consideration.
*
I just described your transaction from the point of view of the investment bank. They don’t consider themselves your lender or successor lender but they will insist that they should be able to enforce with the choice or designation of a virtual creditor instead of an actual one. And in so doing they seek only to add to profits that already accrued from the securitization scheme. What does the homeowner get? — The shaft.
*
I know I am in trouble with a lot of people for saying this but I am absolutely certain that homeowners (a) are generally not subject to enforcement of the note or mortgage and (b) are owed compensation from a concealed scheme that was the foundation of the transaction.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

What to do if the foreclosure mill refuses to give you an answer about ownership of the “loan”

Summer Chic write me an interesting email and I wrote back. She poses a question that summarizes the entire situation:
She wrote:

Example: PennyMac claimed that they PURCHASED my loan on May 2, 2019  from someone whom they cannot identify. The financial statements from a non-identified company show that somebody “established a NEW loan” on May 9, 2019. Not a single word about the sale

Here is what I wrote back:
*
As unusual PennyMac (or Ocwen or whoever) claims that it purchased a specific loan (usually in bulk). So we all know that a claim is good for pleading but litigation is not about “because I said so.” It’s about proof as admitted by the judge.
*
In this case the discovery question is simple: who is the party from whom you acquired ownership of the subject loan in exchange for payment of value? They can’t answer that because no such person or entity exists. When you say “they cannot identify” does that mean you have submitted formal court discovery to them and they failed or refused to answer?
*
If you mean that you have asked by phone or standard letter and they couldn’t or wouldn’t say who they paid, that fact — the non answer — will have very little legal probity in the case.
*
If you mean that you asked in a Qualified Written Request or Debt Validation Letter, then you have invoked administrative process. Failure to answer that question is a failure to establish the single most important question of the case — is the claimant the owner of the underlying obligation (because it paid real value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the subject debt, note or mortgage (DOT)? That is, after all their claim if they are claiming ownership or claiming purchase.
*
If the named claimant is the owner of the underlying debt then the claimant is the owner of the loan account and can claim a financial loss resulting from nonpayment by the homeowner. Since they have suffered financial damage they are entitled to redress through the courts and that includes judgment on the debt, judgment on the note and judgment on the mortgage (or all three).
*
If the named claimant is NOT the owner of the underlying debt then the claimant is NOT the owner of the loan account and cannot claim a financial loss resulting from nonpayment by the homeowner. Since they have not suffered financial damage they are not entitled to redress through the courts and they have no right in law or equity to a judgment on the debt, judgment on the note and judgment on the mortgage (or all three).
*
So if administrative process in invoked and they refuse to answer (always the case) then you file complaints with the CFPB and state AG that says, in summary, I am being coerced into a relationship with PennyMac despite the fact that they will not reveal any transaction in which it acquired ownership of my obligation. PennyMac is neither my original lender or table lender nor a successor to anyone who was the original lender or table lender. Its response is required under applicable law. They won’t answer or they are admitting informally that they are unable to identify the transaction except by date but without any information about the “seller” whom they say they cannot identify.
*
Lying to AG and CFPB carries some fairly hefty penalties so the banks try to steer clear of flat out lying to those law enforcement agencies. So you usually will find inconsistencies between their answer to the CFPB complaint and what they have previously sent you. You can use those effectively in court as admissions against interest. There will always be inconsistencies because none of what they are saying is or ever was true. But it isn’t up to the judge to dig. It is up to you as litigant to put these inconsistencies squarely in the face of the judge and be able explain in clear persuasive language why this is important.
*
If you mean that you asked in formal court discovery, that is an entirely different story. That fact that you asked is relevant. The fact that they didn’t or couldn’t answer is relevant.  And the fact that they failed or refused to answer even after the court entered an order compelling the answer is relevant because you file a motion for sanctions asking for monetary penalties and striking their pleadings.
*
Then after they still don’t produce the answer you are in the very strong position of filing a motion in limine — unless the court has already entered an order striking the pleadings of the claimant.
*
You cannot pursue a claim if you are unwilling to say how you got hurt. If you are claiming loss from nonpayment you must show entitlement to payment. Otherwise nonpayment is irrelevant. A quick summary of the law is that if the inferences and presumptions arising from allegations of the complaint or exhibits are properly challenged, the homeowner is entitled to rebut those inferences and presumptions.
*
But the rebuttal does NOT consist of proving that the claimant does not own the debt, note and mortgage. The rebuttal arises when court rules prevent the claimant from introducing any evidence at trial that they own the debt, note or mortgage. So even if they did own it, and even if you did owe the money, they would still lose because they had not obeyed court rules.
*
The fact that a “new loan” seems to have appeared is not dispositive. If there really was change of ownership it is perfectly acceptable for the new owner to change the labels. But more importantly it might be a clue. The new labels might be an indication that the loan data has been included in multiple “portfolios.” Although none of the portfolios consist of anything more than data about the loans instead of ownership of the loans, they all represent different securitization schemes. By challenging the current portfolio and demanding answers to questions about transfers of the loan you can uncover the fact that more than one “implied trust” is being named by underwriters and foreclosure mills as the successor lender.
*
Just remember the paperwork introduced as exhibits to the foreclosure complaint or discovery or at trial in most cases is NOT facially valid because it requires the reader to pursue information that is not in the public record. A big error is NOT challenging the facial validity of a document. Failure to do that either waives many of your defenses or makes it a more difficult uphill climb.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

Tonight! Exposed: Further Bombshells re Chase misdeeds in claiming takeover of WAMU originations

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 3 PM PDT, 6pm EDT Thursdays

 

Bill Paatalo through access to Chase’s MSP system has obtained a so-called transaction codes glossary, and “payee codes glossary”, used by Chase to supposedly board WAMU loans, going back to the Chase-WAMU merger of 2008. Screenshots Bill has obtained or made available show massive fraud in the routine altering of servicing records which alterings are used to create false affidavits and declarations and Chase witness testimony leaking into judicial and non-judicial mortgage cases all over the country.

Bill will also discuss briefly how a Wilmington Savings Fund Society “Trust” at once registered with the SEC and the State of New Jersey as a common law trust, while at the same time disclaiming that they were either an individual, estate, or even a trust–disclaiming the latter to avoid making an estimated gross income tax payment.

Charles Marshall will discuss ongoing developments in the use of video and audio in remote court and hearing appearances in the era of COVID-19.

Challenges in appeals, motions for rehearing, reconsideration and motions to vacate

The hardest part of my job is educating lay people about court procedure. It is incomprehensible and nonsensical to most. But there is a certain logic to it and that is what you need to stay mindful about. I have heard too many stories and complaints from homeowners and lawyers who all essentially say that they tried using my blog articles and they failed. The reason is court procedure. Ignoring court procedure was the cause for their loss. By ignoring that fact, they miss the opportunity to turn it around and they erroneously conclude that the material is worthless.

*
Use this email as a guide and it will all fall into place — with the help of a good litigator.
*
The purpose of a court is to hear and resolve real disputes between real litigants with real claims and defenses. Once decided by any court of competent jurisdiction the matter is litigated — res judicata. While we would all like to see justice done, the express purpose of the court is to end disputes with finality. So once it is decided the courts will make it as difficult as possible to keep on litigating. And they will make it practically impossible to litigate the same issue again. The fact that some collateral vertical or horizontal court might have decided the case differently, allowed more discovery etc., is completely irrelevant in virtually all cases. The doctrines supporting finality are almost impossible to overturn.
*
So let’s take your example about fraud upon the court.
*
The first step in the analysis is whether this matter was in fact raised in a case before a court of competent jurisdiction and where the issue was decided already. That means that we must be able to prove with certified copies from the court file that the court had or had not (a) issued specific findings of facts (b) issued conclusions of law and (c) rendered a final order or judgment that included a decision on whether there was fraud in the presentation of the claim to the court.
*
The next step is whether that final order has become final and whether a motion for rehearing was filed and whether the time for appeal has expired. One fatal error committed by inexperienced lawyers and pro se litigants is that they fail to identify the specific order they want overturned. They usually center in on the final judgment.
*
But in actuality the failure of the court to grant a motion to compel discovery might be the real issue. That order denying the motion to compel became a final order when the final judgment was entered.
*
Without asking the appellate court to reverse the order denying the motion to compel the appellant has failed to establish grounds for appeal of the final judgment. That order, incidentally might be grounds for interlocutory appeal (during ligation) saying that you were being denied due process and maybe equal protection.
*
And depending upon which jurisdiction you are in, if you failed to identify the right order in your notice of appeal, you probably waived the appeal altogether — something that requires appellate analysis within days after the final judgment becomes a final rendition of the decision of the trial court.
*
The motion to vacate and motion for reconsideration will meet with the same resistance based upon the same doctrines. Perhaps you can begin to see why appeals are so expensive. It requires a very high level of analysis — much higher than trial work — and many hours of work drafting and redrafting and reviewing and analyzing the issues on appeal. As appellate lawyers our job is to find the winning path — not merely to give voice to our client’s frustrations.
*
The issues on appeal are simple and direct. And they have the effect of Twitter. In one sentence the clerk for the panel judge either gets interested or not. If not, the judge will either not see it at all or will give it a short shrift. If the clerk (a lawyer) sees some interesting stuff that should be decided — or some error that should not be left standing — then the panel judge looks at it. And then a summary is prepared for other judges on the panel who may or may not read the briefs.
*
And if your issue on appeal, motion to vacate or motion for reconsideration is itself an error confusing substance with procedure it is immediately discarded regardless of how “right” the position of the Appellant.
*
Any successful appeal is always predicated upon intense review, analysis, research and peer consults.
*
So back to your fraud example.
*
We all know that the Bank of New York Mellon has no financial interest in the subject loan, does not receive payments from borrowers, does not receive payments on behalf of borrowers, and has no trustee powers over a trust. But here it is. The bank’s name is being used by lawyers for a foreclosure mill. Those lawyers are hiding behind litigation immunity which shields them from any consequences relating to untrue statements made in court. And with the help of plausible deniability, all the fraudulent players seeking to support the foreclosure are also able to hide behind litigation immunity.
*
Knowing something to be true and proving it to be true are two entirely different things because of court procedure. Besides credibility (which must be earned). Talented use of court procedure is the primary reason why one side wins and the other loses. Court process is not random, allowing any party to bring up any issue in any order at any time.
*
Court process requires absolute adherence to the rules. Failure to comply means you waived your point which often means you just concede victory to your opponent even though your opponent does not have an existing client in the case, and there is no claim for restitution for a bad debt, because there is no loan account held as receivable asset on the books of any company. Judgment will be entered  for Donald Duck as long as court procedure is followed by the foreclosure mill.
*
Screaming “fraud!” may sound good to you but there are many drawbacks to doing that. The first thing is that fraud must be pleaded with greater specificity than other causes of action (lawsuits). What was the statement? Who made it? When did they make it? How did they make it? Why did they make it? Was there reasonable reliance on that statement to the detriment of the listener. Was the listener the current owner of the property or someone else? How did the listener act to his/her detriment? What difference does it make? The list goes on and on.
*
The second thing is that making a claim of fraud either as a claim or as a defense requires a level of proof that is far higher than other types of civil cases. It is called clear and convincing evidence. That is something almost at the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Most civil cases turn on the much lower level of “preponderance of the evidence” or “more likely than not.”
*
The third thing about fraud is that you must show an intent to defraud and generally it requires proof of a pattern of conduct in order to be taken seriously. So while we know that Bank of New York Mellon is never, ever going to see one penny of any payment from an alleged borrower nor one penny from the sale of foreclosed property, you can’t and you won’t prove that ever.
*
But you don’t need to prove all that. You need to be informed by all those things so you know how to conduct discovery — basically ask for things that are essential to the prima facie case for foreclosure and specifically those things that you know they can’t or won’t answer or produce. And if you have not mastered this analysis then it won’t even occur to you to object for lack of foundation or best evidence, much less make a timely objection and motion to strike once your motion is granted.
*
Asking for discovery means nothing at trial unless you have pursued it after they have raised objections or filed evasive answers. That’s motion practice and that is where the meat of the case lies. What the judge does with your motion to compel motion for sanctions and motion in limine will most likely decide your case.
*
And as predicate for all the above you need to file thoughtful answers to the complaint (or allegations in Petition for TRO) that will often split into a yes that Bank of New York Mellon is a chartered bank but no it doesn’t have anything to do with this case. Failure to do that results in waiver of the issue.
*
So then the next issues are whether you are pressing a claim that is subject to statute of limitations or a defense which is ordinarily not subject to statute of limitations — and whether a tolling of the statute has occurred in which the true nature of the transaction with homeowner has been tolled by active and even malicious concealment. Remember statutes of limitation are not defenses to defenses but statutes of repose block all claims because of the aforesaid doctrine of finality.
*
So the problem you are facing is that the judge has already heard the case, ignored your defenses, assumed you were deadbeat, and allowed “relief” to someone who didn’t need it. And you have no uncovered data, information and analyses that have convinced you that you made a mistake in even allowing them to send correspondence, much less notices and a foreclosure summons and complaint. And you are clearly of the opinion that the court doesn’t care — a perception that is most probably true.
*
The judge is going to look for any hook he or she can hang their hat on to avoid overturning a case that has already been decided. And the judge will find that hook in the form of deciding that the  previous orders essentially covered your new claims of fraud or error. Or, in the alternative the judge will say that you could have learned of this information before and that any reasonable person would have or should have and therefore your claim or defense is barred.
*
And part of the reason that virtually all judges do this is because of one simple basic fact: they all believe the debt or obligation is real and that you breached the term of the agreement. And the cherry on top is that they believe that if homeowners win these cases the whole economy will fail. So one immediate thing you must do is emphasize how your defensive strategies are about this case and no others — although it is prudent to ask in discovery for evidence that Bank of New York Mellon ever received one cent of payment in other cases where foreclosure was rendered as final judgment resulting in a foreclosure sale.
*
But the main thing you need to dance around is to raise the spectacle that not only are these claimants not entitled to anything, but that they are cheating someone else who will never see the money and whose path to recovery will be blocked by this foreclosure proceeding. Such creditors are unaware of even the existence of the pending action and therefore have no way to appear to protect their interests.
*
You must raise the possibility (notice I didn’t say prove it) that this foreclosure is being done for fun and profit and not for restitution of an unpaid debt which frankly doesn’t even exist since it was written off contemporaneously with origination of the homeowner transaction —a transaction whose true nature was the launch of a series of securities created, issued and traded by an investment bank who wanted to enter the residential lending marketplace without the requirement of complying with any rule of law regarding lending practices.
*
In other words give up the thread of your argument about being right and start working on a new thread that gives the judge motivation  to want to do something unusual.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER 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.

Is it identity theft or invasion of privacy?

They have stopped calling the certificates mortgage  bonds because they have nothing to do with the mortgages and they are not bonds.

Hat tip to “Summer Chione”

*

This is a very good article that was written as an email. My compliments to the author.

*

However, after additional analysis and reflection I think I have come to a different conclusion regarding identity theft by the banks. The securities that were sold were merely based upon data reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion — meaning the issuing investment bank (masquerading as an underwriter) could say anything it wanted and everyone else (including counterparties to hedge and insurance contracts) were contractually bound to accept such pronouncement.
*
The actual asset that was securitized was the proceeds of a bet about the value of the fictitious portfolio or data arising out of specific events. All this was done under cover of a scheme in which the certificates that investors purchased were originally labeled as mortgage bonds. They have stopped calling the certificates mortgage  bonds because they have nothing to do with the mortgages and they are not bonds.
*
As part of the illegal scheme they pretended to own the debt, note and mortgage of homeowners when in fact nobody did own it. And to corroborate the erroneous presumption that the loans were being acquired through purchase and sale they added personal information about the individual homeowners. So the securities were sold but apparently not the identities. And the identities of homeowners were not actually turned into any sort of commodity.
*
So my current opinion is that, without consent of homeowners, they were name dropping and they were distributing confidential personal information to those who had no actual need to know that information, because the “investors” (i.e., victims) were buying into certificate accounts that conveyed no right, title or interest to any debt, note or mortgage.
*
This means that if a claim exists it might be invasion of privacy. Such a claim would also highlight the fact that securitization of loans does not in fact exist.
*
The following is Summer’s article:
=========================

CoreLogic is much more dangerous than you think. 

 

CoreLogic  is a Grey Lord of Black Knight (Fidelity Financial) and Investment Bank whose duty is to PUSH YOU in foreclosure by any possible means. They also manipulate your data in their system and prepare forged documents in foreclosures. 
Black Knight and CoreLogic are the actual  parties who originates and services your “loan” from money provided them by Investment Banks. 
 
All others are scam. So, don’t try to understand how default debt buyers like Truman Trust or Lone Star or BlackRock got your loan as “default debt”. They never did. 
 
They merely entered their password on Black Knight/CoreLogic’s system where information about your loan is listed as “defaulted” 
 
I use Rubic’s Cube as a sample to illustrate how Black Knight’s system works, just to visualize .
 
Generally, the cube has 6 sides which can rotate in all directions. You can only see the front of the cube – but not the mechanics. 
 
It used to be purely mechanical game, now it was invented electric self-solving Rubic’s cube. 
 
Now imagine that each side of the “cube” is DATA about your loan and other loans. Green side is performing loan; yellow is default, red is foreclosure, blue  are swaps ; white is options; orange are futures or hedge contracts. 
Anyone who has client number and password can get asset to DATA about your loan in its  square  of the cube. But the data always stays inside the cube, only sides are turned into different directions. 
 
Truman Trust  most likely has its client number and password in Black Knight/CoreLogic’s  system where DATA about your loan is shown as  default while Rushmore Servicer has its own password to present you copies of someone’s accounting entries as “evidence of ownership” .
 
This is how all possible players appear in Elle’s transaction. At some point all of them used Black Knight’s DATA about her loan to trade it while ALL transactions and money were handled by Black Knight/CoreLogic who paid insurance and taxes from investors money while Big Banks pocketed your escrow funds. 
 
 

While Black Knight uses its system Empower to originate about 62% of ALL loans since 2015; CoreLogic has numerous platform, one of which called Lending Pad. 

CoreLogic steal your identity, resell it to millions of other people (particularly predatory lenders)  without ANY consent from you or your knowledge; and place you under all possible undue hardships like bogus Flood Insurances – without any FEMA involvement. FEMA agreed to this scam because it means free easy money for them.  

CoreLogic is the one who appraise your property above market place to help banks to trade your identity at the higher price. 

CoreLogic is the one who secretly from you  maintain ALL your data, has access to ALL your credit reports forever. 

Lenders can request an Instant Merge credit report and find the most up-to-date borrower information available from the three major credit bureaus—Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.

HOW Merge Credit can get your information from major credit bureaus and WHY nobody tell you about transfer of your data to CoreLogic???

CoreLogic Flood Determinations are the most widely accepted and transferable Life of Loan Determinations on the market. Backed by more than 20 years of experience, CoreLogic guarantees that its Flood Determinations meet all federal regulatory requirements. Using the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Flood Determinations provide all of the information necessary to determine whether flood insurance is available or required

This is slavery and terror. 

CoreLogic is  a part of First American Title (with whom they purportedly “spun” about 10 years ago. Thus, when you get a property Title Insurance from a smaller sham conduit “Title Company”, you get it from the Mafia. 
 
Either from CoreLogic’s FAM or Black Knight’s bundle of Title companies. Smaller “issuers” merely sell you CL or BK policies which will not cover anything. 
 

CoreLogic Integrates Credit and Flood Services with LendingPad

CoreLogic Integrates Credit and Flood Services with LendingPad

CoreLogic® (NYSE: CLGX), a leading global property information, analytics and data-enabled services provider, to…

Self-Solving Rubik’s Cube

Rubik’s Cube has been around for what seems like forever now, and has spawned an entire subculture devoted to so…

Neil Garfield Show

Find Neil Garfield Show at https://www.blogtalkradio.com/

Thursdays at 6pm EDT 3PM PDT

Show resumes Thursday, October 22, 2020

I’m slightly under the weather today.

But I did want to tell you about something I realized today in speaking with clients. It is something that all trial lawyers take for granted. And it’s something nobody who isn’t trial lawyer could ever understand unless it is explained.

You have all heard me say that it isn’t enough to be right. But I never actually told you why.

S + P + C = J

That’s Substance plus Procedure plus Credibility yields a result that is usually a final Judgment.

Here is how it breaks down:

SUBSTANCE IS ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE.

PROCEDURE IS WHAT IS TRUE FOR THE CASE

CREDIBILITY IS WHAT PERSUADES THE JUDGE

JUDGEMENTS ARE FINAL (AND USUALLY PROCEDURALLY CORRECT) EVEN IF THEY ARE SUBSTANTIVELY WRONG.

The substance of most foreclosure cases is that there is no loan account, there is no legal claimant and very often there is no plaintiff in judicial actions nor a beneficiary and non-judicial foreclosures. The documents are all fabricated, forged and backdated. Every exhibit submitted to the court as part of the prima facie case is substantively invalid, a legal nullity.

So why do homeowners keep losing?

Procedure sets up what is true for the case even if it contradicts real world facts. Procedure is what investment banks use against homeowners to pursue a claim in a case in which they are not even a named party.  Legal inferences and presumptions are procedural. If you can convince a judge that a document is facially valid and get into evidence then that document raises the inference or presumption of validity even if it was manufactured for court and has no relation to real world facts and events.

How do investment banks get away with that?

First they insert the name of a well known financial institution that everyone (including unfortunately homeowners and many lawyers who represent them) believes is the plaintiff, beneficiary or claimant. Then they get a law firm that seems big to file a lawsuit or notice of sale on behalf of the named bank.

Because the financial institution i.e., a bank like BONY Mellon, Deutsch, US Bank etc) has a longstanding brand and reputation the prosecuting lawyers are generally accepted as credible even though the named bank has no idea how their name is being used in any specific case and has no relationship to the homeowner transaction, its administration, collection or enforcement. This is true even if the lawyers have no retainer or even contact with the named bank that was inserted as Plaintiff or Beneficiary.

The credibility of the named bank is presumed until the court is shown that they cannot believe or should not believe that named bank is connected to the case. The fact that the named bank is not really involved makes no difference. And the credibility of the named bank cloaks the lawyers with credibility.

The homeowner on the other hand must establish credibility. It is generally presumed that an individual borrower is more likely to make extravagant claims than a bank with a 150-year-old history.

And there’s the problem. That is how judgment is entered in favor of a name that doesn’t even identify an actual claimant. If you don’t understand the problem then you can’t solve it.

 

Foreclosures in Securitization World: deny everything they have to say and then pursue discovery — but in discovery you focus on the issues that are central to every foreclosure — status and ownership of the debt. 

The danger is in the labels.

I have some devoted followers and readers who have been great contributors — doing research on the real action and dynamics between the homeowner on the one hand and all the intermediaries and people of interest on the other hand. One of the things recently raised was the discovery of who is listed as having paid tax or insurance or other expenses. The danger is in the labels.

The simple basic truth is that the banks are using a shell game that is based entirely on the false use of labels. So when we see something in writing we tend to assume it is probably true. Without that the entire securitizations scheme would have fallen apart before it began.

If you write a check to me for plumbing repairs, that label on the check “Plumbing repairs” does not mean in actuality that you expect me to do plumbing work nor that I will deliver such work. After all I’m a lawyer, not plumber. But if we both agreed to have the check made out in that manner it would be because we were concealing the true nature of the transaction. That still doesn’t mean that any plumbing work is ever getting done.

And, believe it or not, that is not illegal. In fact, just writing the check with that label on it raises an inference or legal presumption that this was payment for plumbing work. So when you walk into court the judge is already assuming that this is a dispute over plumbing work when in fact the agreement between us was for legal work. If some third party comes into the picture and either sues or defends a claim from either of us, they must respectfully challenge the label — “plumbing repairs” even though we all know that no plumbing work was done or intended.

You need to understand that there is a difference between the label on an account and ownership of it. And there is even a difference between ownership and the authority to make deposits and withdrawals.

*

It is entirely possible to direct payments to “Ocwen” for example. The payments are forwarded to an intermediary who in turn forwards the payment (if electronic) or forwards the check to the Black Knight/CoreLogic system we have been talking about. With Check 21 and other practices this is all done in seconds.
*

So your check to Ocwen gets deposited into an account labelled “ocwen” which is owned by Black Knight who has a contract with the investment bank in which it gives the investment bank or its agent full authority to make deposits and withdraw money.

*
Once again the misdirection comes from knee jerk reaction to seeing a label. We are culturally conditioned to assume the label means something when it doesn’t. In the above example, if the transaction was real, the check would be made out and deposited into the account of Morgan Securities, for example. The homeowner/”borrower” of course has no clue about any of this and simply assumes he is paying his mortgage payment on an existing loan account owned by some “investor”. All of that could alternatively be labeled as “Plumbing Repairs.”
*
But Morgan doesn’t want to receive the money directly because there is no business or legal reason it should be received by Morgan. Morgan holds no receivable from the homeowner/”borrower.” It is simply not entitled to receive that money even though it is happening every hour.
*
All such payments are pure revenue that is untaxed because for tax purposes it is labelled as either return of loan or return of capital or it is labeled as off balance sheet and doesn’t show up at all. The real money transfers are recorded in a jurisdiction that asserts taxing authority and then waives all tax. Bermuda was popular when I last looked at this.
*
For foreclosure defense you don’t need to prove any of that. You just need to know and believe it. Because then you can ask questions in discovery that you know they can never answer without admitting to tax fraud, theft, and other crimes.
*
It is their LACK of answers that is the useful tool in this litigation and the law is very clear — if you persist in demanding discovery, motions to compel, motions for sanctions and motions and in limine you will most likely win the case hands down without any right of the foreclosure mill to refile.
*
The banks want you to focus on how wrong the banks were in their behavior so you will make allegations that you will never be able to prove. The real defense is like Karate Kid (“no be there”). Just deny everything they have to say and then pursue discovery — but in discovery you focus on the issues that are central to every foreclosure — status and ownership of the debt.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

More Details on VendorScape, CoreLogic and Black Knight

Hat tip to “Summer chione”

So it is apparent that the banks are responding to discoveries about how orders are transmitted to lawyers, “servicers”, realtors etc.. While it is all the same playbook, they merely change the name of the characters. So internally the name VendorScape might still be used but externally, to the public, they are showing different names and even showing multiple names for the same “service”.

But is always the same, to wit: a central repository of data that has been robotically entered to support misrepresentations of investment banks that massage the data, control the reports, and initiate administration, collection and enforcement under the letterhead of “subservicers” who have almost nothing to do and are merely being kept alive to throw under the bus when this scheme explodes.

For those familiar with the game of Chess, think of the following entities as all being pawns whose existence is to provide a barrier to the encroachment of government or borrowers in litigation — and who can and will be sacrificed when the game explodes.

  1. Foreclosure law firms (“mills”)
  2. “Servicers”
  3. Trustee of REMIC Trust
  4. Trustee on Deed of trust
  5. MERS
  6. Companies that provide “default services”
  7. Realtors
  8. Property  Managers
  9. REMIC  trusts: remember that back in early 2000’s, the same trusts that are being named as claimants today were denied as having any existence or relevance. It was only after failure of naming a servicer or MERS that they fell back on naming the non functional trustee of a nonexistent trust as the claimant.
  10. Every other company that is visible to the investors and homeowners.

And keep in mind that the claims of a “boarding Process” or detailed audit of accounts when the name of one subservicer is changed to something else are totally and completely bogus. There is no transfer much less boarding of accounts. the fabricated accounts are always maintained at the central repository.

The argument over “business records” is sleight of hand distraction. There are no business records. Go do your research. You will see that nothing the banks are producing are qualified business records, muchless exceptions to the hearsay rule. 

It is or at least was universal custom and practice that before accepting  an engagement, lawyers, servicers and realtors needed to have an agreement in writing with their employer. In the wholly unique area of foreclosures, sales, REO and remittances this practice has been turned on its head.

As I have repeatedly said on these pages, lawyers in a foreclosure mill have no idea who hired them. They don’t know the identity of their client. They will and do say that their client is some “subservicer” (e.g. Ocwen), they file lawsuits and documents proclaiming their representation of some bank (e.g. Deutsche) with whom they have (a) no contact and (b) no retainer Agreement.

This is because all that Deutsche agreed to was the use of its name to give the foreclosure an institutional flavor. It is labelled as a trustee but it possesses zero powers of any party that could be legally described as a trustee. It has no fiduciary duty to any beneficiaries nor any right to even inquire about the business affairs of the trust — which we know now (with certainty) do not even exist.

So there is no reason for the foreclosure mill to have an agreement with Deutsche because (a) Deutsche has not agreed to be a real party in interest and (b) Deutsche has no ownership, right, title or interest in any loan — either on tis own behalf or as representative of either a nonexistent or inchoate (sleeping) trust with no assets or business or the owners of non certificated certificates (i.e., digital only). Indeed the relationship between Deutsche and the holders of certificates is that of creditor (the investors) and debtor (Deutsche acting as the business name only of an investment bank who issued the certificates).

So the lawyers in the foreclosure mill are misrepresenting its authority to represent. In fact it has no authority to represent the “trustee” bank.

So the banks have come up with a circular argument that is still erroneously used and believed in court: that because the subservicer (e.g. Ocwen) is the nominal client — albeit without any contact prior to the electronic instructions received by the foreclosure mill — and because the subservicer claims to be acting for either the trustee, teht rust or the holders of certificates, that eh lawyers can claim to be representing the bank, as trustee. In a word, that is not true.

So the foreclosure mill is falsely claiming that its client is the named “trustee” who has no power for a “trust” which has no assets or business on behalf of certificate holders who own no right, title or interest to any payments, debt, note or mortgage executed by any “borrower.”

Instructions from a third party with no right, title or interest that the lawyer should claim  representation rights for yet another party who has no knowledge, right, title or interest is a legal nullity. That means that, in the legal world, (like transfer of mortgage  rights without transfer for the underlying debt), there is nothing that any court is legally able to recognize and any attempt to do so would be ultra vires once the facts are known to the court.

The trick is to present it to the court in such a manner that it is unavoidable. And the best way to do that is through aggressive discovery strategies. the second best way is through the use of well planned timely objections at trial.

All of this is done, contrary to law and prior custom and practice to cover up the fact that all such foreclosures are for profit ventures.

That is, the goal is not paydown of any loan account, because no such account exists on the books of any creditor.

And that is hiding the fact that the origination or acquisition of the loan was completed with zero intent for anyone to become a lender or creditor and therefore subject to rules, regulations and laws governing lending and servicing practices.

They didn’t need to be a lender or creditor because they were being paid in full from the sales of securities and thus writing off the homeowner transaction. Bottom Line: There was no lending intent by the originator or acquirer of the loan. When the cycle was complete, the investment bank owned nothing but still controlled everything.

And the way they controlled everything was by hiring intermediaries who would have plausible deniability because they were using images and records that were automatically generated and produced based upon algorithms written by human hands — programs designed to facilitate foreclosure rather than report the truth.

So let’s be clear. Here is the process. The lawyer, realtor or subservicer knows nothing about the loan until it is time to foreclose. All activity that is conducted under its name is initiated by CoreLogic using the VendorScape system.

So when a lawyer, for example, comes to work, he sits down in front of a computer and gets a message that he doesn’t know came from CoreLogic under the direction of Black KNight who is acting under the strict control of the investment banks. There are no paper documents. The message on the screen says initiate foreclosure work on John Jones in the name of Deutsche Bank as trustee for the CWABS Trust 2006-1 on behalf of the certificateholders of CWABS Trust 2006-1 series pass through certificates.

Contrary to the rules of law and ethical and disciplinary rules governing lawyers, the lawyer does no due diligence to discover the nature his agreement with the naemd claimant, no research on whether the claim is valid, and requires no confirmation ledgers showing establishment of ownership of the debt and financial loss arising from cessation of payments. He/she sends notice of delinquency, notice of default and initiates foreclosure without ever seeing or even hearing about a retainer agreement with Deutsche whom he supposedly represents.

He/she has no knowledge regarding the status or ownership of the loan account. ZERO. By not knowing he/she avoids liability for lying to the court. And not knowing also provides at least a weak foundation for invoking litigation privilege for false representations in court, behind which the investment banks, Black Knight, CoreLogic et al hide. The same plausible deniability doctrine is relied upon by CoreLogic and Black Knight. They will all say that they thought the loan account was real.

But they all knew that if the loan accounts were real, the notes would not have been destroyed, the control over the loan accounts would have stayed close to the investment banks and compliance with lending and servicing laws would have been much tighter — starting with disclosure to investors that their money was being used to justify a nonexistent trading profit for the investment bank, and disclosure to homeowners that they were signing on for an inflated appraisal, immediate loss of equity, and likely foreclosure because after the origination, the only real money to be made off the loan was through foreclosure.

And both investors and borrowers were prevented, through the artful practice of deceit and concealment, from bargaining for appropriate incentives and compensation for assuming gargantuan risks they know nothing about.

This is like cancer and it is continuing. Nobody would suggest that we keep selling crops that were infected with ebola or which contained some tar substance that reliably and consistently produced cancer. The argument that a company or industry might collapse would not fly because in the end we value human life more than allowing companies to profit off of death and destruction. And the argument that allowing the judicial creation of virtual creditors who can enforce non existent debt accounts is going to save the financial system is just as pernicious — and erroneous.

Wall Street banks are merely protecting their profits. Don’t blame them for doing that. It is up to government and the public to stop it and arrive at something other than the false binary choice of either forcing people out of their homes or allowing a “windfall” to homeowners against the interest of all other honest people who make their mortgage payments. The real solution lies in reformation by judicial doctrine or through new legislation — but until that is completed, there should be no foreclosures allowed. Until it is determined how much concealed risk was piled on investors and borrowers, they should not be stuck with contracts or agreements that sealed their doom through concealment of material facts.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.

You might not know VendorScape but it sure knows you

In a somewhat startling admission by CoreLogic, we now have an admission of many facts that might not have otherwise surfaced but for intensive and aggressive, persistent Discovery. I am not publishing the entire letter from them for privacy reasons. But it is worth mentioning that the letter was sent, after careful legal analysis, as a response to a complaint to the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Board — organized by Elizabeth Warren under the Obama administration. The response was (a) mandatory and (b) subject to charges of lying to a Federal agency.

The problem faced by CoreLogic was that on the one hand it IS and was the central repository of all data and electronic records for most residential loans in the United States. The main IT platform running several systems is called VendorScape which is owned, maintained and operated by CoreLogic pursuant to instructions from Black Knight (and perhaps others) who are serving the interests of investment banks who have no legally recognized interest in any of the alleged “loan accounts”.

But they don’t want the government or the public to know any of that because they are designating nominees to serve or pose as “servicers” who can be thrown under the bus at any that that foul play is actually addressed instead of settled (see 50 state settlement).

So here is what they said

Interesting.

image.png
And here is how it breaks down (legal analysis):
  1. VendorScape exists although they deny it is currently accessed through CoreLogic
  2. VendorScape is an “electronic case management system.” Taken in context with customs and practices in the industry in addition to simple logic, it is THE case management system and it is electronic which means that anyone with login credentials can get into it.
  3. VendorScape output consists of the following:
    1. centralized electronic workplace
    2. storage of “documents” — i.e., images not the original documents because they are not a records custodian for anyone. As the centralized place for “storage” it is VendorScape that is the source server from which all records are produced in printed reports that are merely generated from what is in VendorScape regardless of who added or deleted or changed anything.
    3. initiate workflows “defined by our clients”. This is odd wording.
      1. They appear to be saying that clients access the system and are simply using it as an IT platform to conduct business of the client.
      2. But VendorScape initiates workflows, which means that they have admitted that whoever is actually running VendorScape is making the decisions on when and how to initiate any action.
      3. Since the entire purpose of this system is preparation for foreclosure, the only logical conclusion is that it is a system to initiate foreclosures, notices of default, notice of delinquency etc. based upon human decision-making or automated decision making initiated by humans that control VendorScape.
      4. They will of course say otherwise and that seems to be what they are trying to say — that the client determines the definitions and circumstances of workflows.
      5. But dig a little deeper and you will find that the “client” has no right to make such decisions and that the decision is labelled as the decision of a client (e.g. Ocwen) by permission from Ocwen, who is not actually allowed to make such decisions and does not make such decisions. 
      6. So the reference to the  Client making such decisions is circular allowing anyone to say that it was CoreLogic or  VendorScape who made the decision (thus avoiding liability for Ocwen et al) OR to say that it was Ocwen, as they do in this letter.
  4. They admit that CoreLogic is the party who owns and maintains the storage and functions of the VendorScape system while at the same time implying that they have no connection with VendorScape.
  5. They assert that the data is owned by the clients. This is a common trick.
    1. The data is not owned by the clients because it doesn’t consist of any entries or proprietary information placed in the system by the client.
    2. The information or data is placed there mostly through automated systems controlled by Black Knight but operated by CoreLogic.
    3. Nominal “Servicers” (Ocwen e.g.), who are the “clients” actually have no way of knowing anything about a homeowner account until after it is placed in the system by third parties.
    4. This is why servicer records should not be admitted into evidence as exceptions (business records) to the hearsay rule.
    5. The deadly mistake by many lawyers in court is the failure to timely object to lack of foundation, best evidence and hearsay.
      1. A timely objection is one that is raised at the same time the admission of evidence is being considered by the court.
      2. Waiting until the end of questioning is spitting in the wind. It is already in evidence by that point.
      3. And the second mistake is that after the objection is sustained, the failure to move the court to strike the offending testimony and exhibits. That failure is equivalent to a waiver of the objection, thus leaving the offending testimony or exhibits in evidence.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER 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.

Why Antitrust Legislation Should be Applied Against the mega banks

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

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

*

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

*

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

*
The result was an undisclosed reduction of risk of loss for everyone on the “lending” side. But the more pernicious result was that the bank practices also flooded the market with money such that salespeople were selling payments instead of price and the accuracy of appraisals was reduced as a factor in granting loans. This created a second antitrust impact — the price of homes was driven up by cheap money rather than demand for housing. But values remained the same because median income has been flat.
*
The effect on consumers was that they all bought or financed homes based upon appraisals that were based upon the amount of the intended loan rather than the value of the property. So the net effect was that homeowners were forced into deals where they were taking an immediate loss of as much as 65% of the “price” of acquisition of the home or new loan. This was a hidden increase in the cost of credit. Amortizing the likely loss over the likely period of retention of the home increases the cost of credit far beyond usury prohibitions.
*
The overall bottom line is that the big banks acting as unregulated lenders have grabbed a market share for lending that controls more than 80% of the market and heavily influences the rest of the market.
*
Consumers suffer because they are not dealing with a party who could answer for damages resulting from violations of TILA and other lending and servicing statutes and because they are not left with either a lender or a loan account in real terms that is maintained as an asset on the books of any business. They are left with a toxic transaction in which they are strictly on their own when they discover the deficiencies in the lending process. They’re on their own because there is no actual creditor who claims ownership of their debt, note or mortgage.
*
The risk of foreclosure is high, especially on those transactions in which the appraisal is far higher than the value of the home and especially where the transaction is labeled as an option loan in which the homeowner gets reduced payments for some specified period of time. In short, the failure to regulate the securities brokerage firms acting as investment “banks” and then as licensed commercial “banks” has so distorted the marketplace that no borrower can find a source of funds who will admit to being part of the the transaction, much less the lender in any specific transaction.
*

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE 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.
*

Tonight! Piece by Piece — the Truth emerges. Paatalo and Marshall talk about the latest findings and admissions by the real players in foreclosures 3PM PDT 6PM EDT

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

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

It’s getting increasingly hot in the kitchens of the investment banks that cooked up the fake securitization scheme. It has taken 20 years, so far, but now there are clear facts that “contradict” the lawyers who have asserted to the courts that they represent a bank, when they don’t, and that the bank owns the debt, which it doesn’t, or that some certificate holders or trust owns the loan account which they don’t. In fact, the inescapable conclusion is that eh loan account is completely wiped out concurrently with origination of the homeowner transaction.

As you will see in coming days we have uncovered admissions, on record, by CoreLogic about VendorScape and the role of CoreLogic — i.e. as central repository for all images, data and initiation of all actions concerning administration, collection and alleged enforcement of loan accounts that do not appear on the records of any company or financial institution.

Bill Paatalo has obtained intel through his private investigation tools to reveal explosive evidence that WAMU contracted with ACS Image Solutions to destroy loan files in August of 2008, a month before the September 2008 Receivership in BK which WAMU was forced into as a result of the meltdown of their overall accounting balance sheet in the summer of 2008. The establishing of this connection should lead to further legal developments, and we will discuss on the Show how this connection can be used in borrower litigation, both on the Plaintiff’s side and where the borrower is on the Defense side.

The ONLY reasonable or possible explanation for the destruction of what were purported to be original loan files is that they were not originals and they had no relevance because WAMU had long since divested itself of any interest in the debts, notes or mortgages. The contract with ACS might well be a cover for something that had already been done.

Then Charles Marshall will discuss discuss how the COVID-19 eviction moratorium is being used in California’s Alameda County to protect formerly foreclosed Unlawful Detainer (UD) lawsuit defendants literally for a period of months now, and will continue to do so for months into the future.

Smaller Thieves Are Stealing from the Big Thieves on Wall Street

see https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/broward-attorneys-accused-of-foreclosure-scheme-with-convicted-felons/2303306/

Here is another case where failing to ask the question “why?” results in a lack of understanding of the process referred to as securitization of debt.

I have previously written at length about how the proceeds from a foreclosure sale are not going to anyone who is entitled to receive them. The article in the above link shows how those with a criminal mind accurately perceived the gap between entitlement and receipt. By intervening in the process, they made off with several hundred thousand dollars. And now they are going to jail.

BUT nobody is asking how the funds became available to criminal minds. AND the answer is that the funds were left because the complex system involving Black Knight and the investment banks sometimes fails and they forgot to designate a party to receive the funds for deposit into a commercial bank on behalf of an investment bank who neither owned nor controlled the debt.

This case corroborates the facts I have reported. The interesting thing is that these defendants are accused of stealing from parties who had no entitlement to the funds. So where is the victim, the loss and therefore the validity of the claim against the criminals? Having criminal intent is not a crime. And theft can’t substantively occur unless there is a victim from whom the money  or property was stolen.

So if you steal from a thief are you still guilty of theft? Maybe.

%d bloggers like this: