GET A CONSULT WITH NEIL GARFIELD
DENY AND DISCOVER!!
INTERROGATORIES: FOLLOWING THE MONEY
PLEASE!!! CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY LICENSED IN YOUR JURISDICTION OR THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BEFORE YOU ACT ON ANYTHING ON THIS BLOG. These need to tweaked to fit your case, but they are a decent first step at getting to the truth:
Interrogatories:
- Please identify the financial institution, contact information and account manager and contact information for any accounts maintained in any checking, savings, or investment account in a demand deposit account or otherwise in the name of U.S. Bank as Principal Trustee for any entity claiming an interest in the subject loan, on behalf of the holders of any certificated or uncertificated interests in J.P. Morgan Acquisition Trust 2–6-CH1, Asset backed Pass-Through Certificate series 2006-CH1 (hereinafter the Pool) with sufficient specificity that fulfills the requirements for you to identify and produce documents or witnesses related to such account(s) upon subpoena.
- Please state whether the Pool is a trust and if so, under the laws of which state the trust was created, registered or otherwise lawfully created.
- Please state the address and phone number for the Pool or its manager.
- Please identify the original document by which U.S. Bank claims to be Trustee for the Pool, including the current location of said documents and the name of the party, person or entity that has current possession of said document with sufficient specificity.
- Please state and identify the source documents that reflect the transactions relating to the Pool as to all receipts and disbursements.
- Please identify all parties or entities that engaged in any transaction in which a guarantor, co-obligor, or other third source of payments was created in any way related to the subject loan or the subject Pool.
- Please identify the person or persons, including contact information, telephone number, address, employer, and email who provided any information that was used to compute the claim of the amount due on the subject alleged loan.
- Please identify the source documents utilized by any party or person who participated in computing the amount claimed as due for the subject loan.
- Please identify the person or persons serving as the record-keeper and bookkeeper for the Pool, including contact information, phone number, address and employer.
- Please identify the name of the auditing firm that reviewed or audited the financial information relating to the subject loan or the Pool.
- Please identify the documents by which the closing agent on the subject loan received instructions, wire transfer receipts, or any other documents or instruments that would show the source of funding for the loan, including the location of such documents, the person who serves as record keeper of those documents, their contact information, address and phone number.
- Please state whether or not the payee on the promissory note proffered by Plaintiff was the source of funding of the loan. The source of funding means the party or parties who provided the actual money that was sent to the closing agent for the closing of the loan.
- Please state whether the source of funding and the payee on the alleged note were the same parties.
- Please state whether the source of funding and the mortgagee on the alleged note were the same parties.
- Please state whether the party identified as the “lender” on the promissory note in the subject alleged mortgage loan transaction performed due diligence in accordance with industry standards for the underwriting of the loan.
- If Your answer is in the affirmative to the previous question please identify the persons who were responsible or who provided services or performed any tasks with respect to performing said due diligence including their contact information, telephone number, address and employer.
- Please state the name and contact information of the person or persons in possession, care custody or control of the underwriting file for the subject loan.
- Please state whether the underwriter, Master servicer, subservicer or any other party relating to the pool received or disbursed any funds relating to the pool, and if so identify the receipts or disbursements by generic type — i.e., payments from borrower, funding from from lending source, insurance, credit default swaps, buyouts, buy-backs,, insurance premiums, fees or costs.
- Please state the name of the person or persons who decided how such third party payments or disbursements should be allocated to or against the pool.
- Please state the policy for treatment of receipts of proceeds from the above-stated third party payments and disbursements as to how such money was or was not allocated to the pool.
- Please describe any insurance policy issued with respect to the pool or the securities issued by the pool including the location, person in custody of said policy and their contact information, phone number, address and employer.
- Please describe any credit default contract issued with respect to the pool or the securities issued by the pool including the location, person in custody of said contract and their contact information, phone number, address and employer.
- Please describe any other contract, policy or instrument that resulted in payments or disbursements with respect to the pool or securities issued by the pool including the location, person in custody of said policy and their contact information, phone number, address and employer.
- Please state whether a current loan receivable account has been maintained by any party with respect to the subject alleged loan other than the subservicer who received payments from the borrower.
- Please state the party or parties to whom payment was directed by the subservicer, when such payments started, and when such payments stopped.
26 thoughts on “A New Set of Interrogatories:”
@joann – If you really want to mess them up, add a motion to your complaint (or answer) requesting sequestration of the promissory note and early discovery of electronic documents under a protective order. If you list documents that need to be protected as those normal business records that show custody of the promissory note, e.g., bailee letters, transit receipts, etc., you may find out about the leverage Neil is talking about sooner than later. At least, that’s the theory of this pro se.
Thanks Neil and Thanks Phred
You can’t receive unless you ask……
Can you file request for production at the same time as the complaint –
not sure but think Jef Barnes does it that way…..
garyinca, on October 16, 2012 at 5:05 pm said:
“If we have no standing to involk or challenge the Pooling and Servicing Agreement because we are not a party to the contract…..what good are these interrogatories???”
The OCC says homeowners are parties to the PSA – see Comptroller of the Currency – Administrator of National Bank Asset Securitization Comptroller’s Handbook November 1997 – Page 8
“Exhibit 1: Parties Involved in Structuring Asset-Backed Securities”
(then there is a chart with the borrower at the top – all else stemming from there) then this paragraph:
“Borrower. The borrower is responsible for payment on the underlying loans and therefore the ultimate performance of the asset-backed security. Because borrowers often do not realize that their loans have been sold, the originating bank is often able to maintain the customer relationship.”
Here is what a federal court in CA said about the PSA ect
re Johnson vs HSBC Bank USA…..Case No. 3:11-cv-2091-JM-WVG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
(all 7 causes action)
Viability of Attack on Loan Securitization
1. Ability to Challenge Loan Securitization
The threshold issue of whether Plaintiff can make any claim related to the loan’s
securitization affects the viability of many of the individual claims discussed below. BOA cites
Rodenhurst v. Bank of America, 773 F.Supp.2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) for its statement that
“[t]he overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon improper
securitization.” However, the discussion cited in that case centers on plaintiffs who claim that
securitization itself violates the agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee. Here, Plaintiff
does not dispute the right to securitize the mortgage, but alleges that as a result of improper
procedures, the true owner of his mortgage is unclear. As a result, he has allegedly been paying
improper entities an excess amount.
Ninth Circuit district courts have come to different conclusions when analyzing a
plaintiff’s right to challenge the securitization process as Plaintiff has here. See Schafer v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., 2011 WL 2437267 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss
declaratory relief claim, which was based on alleged improper transfer due to alleged fraud in
signing of documents); Vogan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 5826016 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
(allowing § 17200 claim when plaintiffs alleged that assignment was executed after the closing
date of securities pool, “giving rise to a plausible inference that at least some part of the recorded
assignment was fabricated”). But see Armeni v. America’s Wholesale Lender, 2012 WL
Case 3:11-cv-02091-JM-WVG Document 22 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 o
603242 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (dismissing declaratory relief, quasi-contract, UCL, and accounting
claims because “plaintiff lack[ed] standing to challenge the process by which his mortgage was
(or was not) securitized because he is not a party to the PSA”); Junger v. Bank of America, N.A.,
2012 WL 603262 at *3 (C.D.Cal. 2012).
Here, the court finds that Plaintiff is not categorically excluded from making claims
based on allegations surrounding the loan’s securitization.3 As in Vogan, and unlike Armeni,
Plaintiff here alleges both violations of the PSA and relevant law. BOA has not sufficiently
demonstrated that violations of law associated with the loan’s securitization can go unchecked
because Plaintiff is not a party to the PSA.
Other cases cited by BOA on this issue are irrelevant or inapplicable here.
@ Phred … I think procedure requires ” Admit or Deny”.. Right? Intresting thing thou … if they deny. They usually Dodge …*Grins*
If you had been given notice prior …. would you take legal action?
@DCB…. re: please indicate when the servicer’s agents 1st became aware thatr the note was a forged reproduction ….
..YEP! YEP! (Especially when notice is given before Legal Action is Taken) Excellent Questions! Its always been about asking the Right Questions….
Possible admissions from a pro se who has seen opposing discovery requests. These are meant to be submitted in CA with forms interrogatories with question 17.1 checked –
Admit you did not have physical custody of promissory note when notice of default was filed
Admit you did not have legal custody of promissory note when notice of default was filed where custody means ownership and possession as a result of assignment for consideration of beneficiary interest
Admit you have no evidence of the transfer of beneficiary interest from (link in beneficiary chain of interest)
Admit the amount of cash you paid for the subject loan was less than the remaining balance of the loan
Admit the deed of trust does not deny borrower the right to sue if question of beneficiary interest is raised by borrower
for trustee –
Admit you did not confirm that [beneficiary named in NOD] had any interest in the Subject Property before you filed the notice of default
Admit you have no evidence that [beneficiary] elected to invoke the power of sale through you as an agent
Admit you have no evidence of an agency relationship with [beneficiary] when notice of default was filed
Admit you have no evidence that the person who signed the notice of default was authorized to do so.
Enraged yes
Being specific
Remember you get to depose them too which is for the record too.
ok–oct 17th report from FHFA–the plan to go after strategic defaulters!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110316878/IF-YOU-WERE-A-STRATEGIC-DEFAULTER-ON-YOUR-MORTGAGE-THE-FHFA-OIG-HAS-DETAILS-ON-HOW-THEY-WILL-COME-AFTER-YOU-FOR-THE-MONEY-OCTOBER-2012
@ neidermeyer. Set it for hearing on the UMC.
DCB,
Isn’t there a limit to the number of interrogatories you’re allowed to submit? I believe the maximum in OH is 36, right? See, here is the problem: because everything must be questioned so specifically, before you know it, you have asked/requested the maximum you’re allowed and you still haven’t scratched the surface.
I don’t know if it really is in the homeowner’s interest to become so specific and detailed that the big picture gets completely blurry. And besides, judges tend to get really pissed when they have to deal with a mountain of interrogatories, requests for admissions and production of docs. Look at what banks do: they allege you contracted a mortgage, they allege you defaulted and they go for foreclosure. Short and sweet. And look at their questions: “Do you admit to have contracted a mortgage?”, “Do you admit to have stopped paying?”, “Do you admit to owe?”. Again, very short and sweet. I happen to think it is the reason they are so successful in court: they look focused, they have allegations and they appear to have documents. In clogged up courts, that’s what judges want to see.
My take on it…
Please describe what type of copy machine the purported promissory note was made on?
please describe the way in which the really good copy was transported to the attys desk?
please explain why neither of the maker’s, nor title agents fingerprints can be found on the purported original note?
please specifify the code section in your state for “uttering a forgery”
please disclose who paid for the reproduction
please indicate when the servicer’s agents 1st became aware thatr the note was a forged reproduction/
there are plenty of very damaged consumers on this site, those in AZ- cant we get together with council somehow and do some pressuring against our state officials, look at what our attorney general did, WE JUST NEED LEADERSHIP TO START SOMETHING GREAT we lost everything he slaps us in the face with “you MAY get $800 bucks” im going to write to him , just as i did to his predecessor. FROM FRAUD NOTHING CAN BE NEGOTIATED UNLESS YOU COMMIT MORE FRAUD AKA COVER UP WHITEWASH AKA LYING TO THE CONSTITUANTS THAT YOU ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS. REALLY IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE I THOUGHT
@ enraged
We are still here, it’s not the first time a person or two clogs up the comment section. I bet others are still reading too.
Maybe they are paying more attention to what Neil has been writing. Really good stuff, no?
Hello everyone. Keep up the good fight.
BSE, send me a fresh e-mail address, buddy.
Nabdulla,
Thank you. We’ve all taken a turn at asking her to leave this site to people really looking for info in foreclosure defense. Have a shot at it.
Because she’s really managed to chase away some very serious sources of info!
~~~ to nabdulla~~~ Its Good to see you! Hope All is Well with You and Your Family! Many Blessings to You!
BK court is worthless,, Banks will not produce documents. Still unable to gain Discovery. Nothign works. The government continues the cover up. This is not about your home . It is about the US dollar and a currency war !
@ All
“lvent, on October 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm said: The entitlement people…..The only thing that I see are those people who have spread and share such ideologies as ….. ALL of the whites screwed the blacks by making them slaves and we owe them reparations….That is part of what this is all about…Black Supremecy. Obama was a member of a Black Supremecist group that hides behind a religion…it is an ideology called Black Liberation theology and it is hidden behind the walls of Reverend Wrights Church”
We are in the middle of a WAR. It’s been long hard years and we still have a long long way to go. We know that the seats of power are not going to easily relinquish that power. The so-called “U.S. Federal Reserve” and the other power mongers are not going to go easily. There’s already been a lot of blood, sweat and tears shed and there’ll be a lot more to come. It’s very important that we keep OUR focus and “eye on the prize” – our country, children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. We MUST re-establish our Constitution and the rule of law in our home. Neil and his family and thousands of others have made and are continuing to make great sacrifices to get the truth out and provide weapons to fight the enemy. We have a job, duty and responsibility to guard this site for it’s intended purpose – to educate others. Let not individuals like “Ivent” distract us and corrupt this “well of knowledge” with their HATE. I ask and pray to Almighty God Allah to help us and to protect us and our home – The United States of America – from the whispers of the Shaitan. As Salaamu Alaikum.
Ivent….you should be wise enough to leave this site and leave us alone. I am not as tolerant as a lot of others here. As Jimmy Cricket would say – “Let your conscience be your guide”.
If we have no standing to involk or challenge the Pooling and Servicing Agreement because we are not a party to the contract…..what good are these interrogatories???
“A judge can deny a motion to compel…you are at their mercy.”
It cuts both ways.
A judge can deny a motion to compel…you are at their mercy.
@danmoss
It’s nothing personal—it automatically bumps you if you post too many links, or some specific website links…
Dear Mr Garfield, You ask to many Questions … *Grins* & *Giggles*
Your comment is awaiting moderation… What is this ALL about and why am, I being censored by this site???
:(…
By filing a… motion to compel? Banks do it and ask for sanctions. i don’t see why pro se couldn’t.
You can ask for discovery all you want … but how do you compel them to answer?