Category: Trail Objections

Wait! Somebody must have paid something right?

February 7, 2020

How do you know what was paid by whom and when and what terms applied? The whole point here is that money was paid by investors who did not receive ownership to the debt, note or mortgage. Nor did they assign any equitable right to the debt, note or mortgage. Since the value was paid by a party who never received ownership, no “successor” would have any reason to pay value for ownership nor did they do so. * And before you decide to shift gears, the investment bank took in money from investors as a commercial deposit — i.e.

How do I Use Article 9 §203 UCC Requiring Value Be Paid for Debt?

July 11, 2019

Many of you have essentially asked the same question referring to Article 9 §203 UCC as adopted by the laws of your state. There is no known cause of action for breach of that statute although one might be conjured. It is an interesting suggestion. My reference to it is simple: the statute says that a condition precedent to enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust) is that the party seeking to enforce must have paid value for the security instrument. Translating that, it automatically means that if someone paid for it then they paid for the

GARFIELD PREMISES

July 11, 2018

Most people really don’t completely understand our premise when we investigate, research, examine and analyze a case or case documents. We have several premises with which we start and check to to see if they apply. While the answer is short the work behind it is long and complicated. Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 844.478.6774 Ask for a Consult. Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil

The Role of Dynamic Dark Pools in Ponzi Schemes Masquerading as Securitized Loan Pools

May 17, 2018

The bottom line is that there are no financial transactions in today’s securitization schemes. There is only fabricated paper. If you don’t understand the DDP, you don’t understand “securitization fail,” a term coined by Adam Levitin. GET A CONSULT GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released. Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on

Vulture Firms: The Last Step in a Chain of Illegal Paper, with the Debt Long Gone

February 28, 2018

The key element of the paper strategy has been to create the illusion of transfers of assets, thus supporting the erroneous narrative that with all those parties purchasing the loans, a lot of due diligence MUST have been done and therefore the screaming defense of homeowners (attacking ownership) is nothing but a dilatory stall tactic. What is consistently missed, even by people who are completely fed up with the banks and regulatory agencies that have given a wink and nod at plainly fraudulent practices, is that the only “asset” is the paper, and that the debt itself has never moved.

Royal Bank of Scotland Trained Employees on How to Forge Signatures

February 19, 2018

Fraud for the first time in history has been institutionalized into law. It is foolishness to believe that the banking industry is trustworthy and that they have the right to claim legal presumptions that their fabricated documents, and the forged documents are valid, leaving consumers, borrowers and in particular, homeowners to formulate a defense where the banks are holding all the information necessary to show that the current foreclosing parties are anything but sham conduits. Here we have confirmation of a practice that is customary in the banking industry today — fabricating and forging instruments that sometimes irreparably damage consumers

THE CURRENT BIAS: EVEN IF HOMEOWNER WINS, NO FEE RECOVERY

February 13, 2018

The continuing bias in favor of the banks’ fraudulent scheme of mortgages and foreclosures gives rise now to a nutty theory. The logic seems so obvious to the courts and yet it is erroneous. In a nutshell the theory goes, if a homeowner eventually proves that the parties attempting to foreclose have nothing to do with the loan, then the homeowner is barred from receiving fees under the contract. The fact that the foreclosing party represented and fought for status as a party with standing and was entirely dependent upon their ability to enforce contract (note and mortgage) means nothing

What and Who is a Creditor?

February 5, 2018

Practically everyone thinks they know what is a creditor even if they cannot identify who is the creditor. The reason that this is important is that the lawyers for the banks have created a divergence of the money trial and the paper trail. One is worth every cent claimed and the other is worth nothing, but for the repeated acceptance of a claim as proof in and of itself that a real transaction is referenced in the paper trail. In most cases, it isn’t. Let us help you plan your narrative and strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. Register now

Deutsch Bank National Trust Company Was Crushed in Texas in 2015. Why isn't anyone listening?

January 22, 2018

When a judge looks carefully at the record, the bank loses. The use of Deutsch’s name in the style of the case still shows that Judges are considering the Plaintiff to be the named “Trustee” instead of the named (or named, which is frequently the case) Trust. In fact the Trustee has nothing to do with foreclosures. In this case the Judge wrote the following: “Judgment (for the homeowner for declaratory relief) was based on findings and conclusions that Deutsche Bank had failed to prove chain of title back to the original lender, now defunct. The sole proof on which

Wells Fargo "Explains" Securitization

January 18, 2018

YOU NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF BASES AND PLAYERS TO PLAY BALL WITH THESE GUYS: The Trustee controls the trust as trustee. Oops, wait, it is the Master Servicer who has all the control. No, wait again, it is the subservicer who has the right to administer the loan. But actually if there is an alleged default it is the special servicer who has exclusive authority over decision making. Except that the “Controlling Class” has the last say in the matter. But actually it is the Controlling Class Representative who has the last word. I have always felt that there must

Ocwen Admission Confounds Judges and Experts

January 17, 2018

This is a blatant attempt at deception — a deceit without which none of the Trusts would be recognized as legal entities much less the owner of loans. Ocwen is admitting that there is no single owner of the loan it is allegedly “servicing.” “There is no single owner of the account, but rather the account is one of many in a securitized investment trust.” For the uninitiated, this statement might suffice or at least be threatening enough as a challenge to their experience and intelligence to direct them away from the central false assertion that the trusts own any

Wells Fargo, Ocwen and Fake REMIC Trust Crash on Standing

January 16, 2018

What is surprising about this case is that there was any appeal. The trial court had no choice but to dismiss the foreclosure claim. A copy of the note without an indorsement was attached to the complaint. This leads to the presumption that the indorsement was attached after the complaint was filed. Standing must be proven to ex isa at the time the suit was filed. The robo-witness could have testified as to the date the indorsement was affixed but he said he didn’t know. The robo-witness was unable to testify that the default letter had been sent. It didn’t

Fact Check: Robo-witness knows nothing

January 10, 2018

Information is admitted in evidence only after a proper foundation has been laid. If the witness knows nothing about the foundation the evidence should not be admitted as evidence. Appellate courts will usually reverse a trial court’s error in ruling on evidence UNLESS the appellate panel decides that the error would not have made any difference in the outcome. The fundamental fact at the root of all foreclosures is that the homeowner owes a debt to the foreclosing party and has not paid. In the passage below a witness supposedly employed by US Bank displays a lack of personal knowledge

Maine Case Affirms Judgment for Homeowner — even with admission that she signed note and mortgage and stopped paying

December 27, 2017

While this case turned upon an inadequate foundation for introduction of “business records” into evidence, I think the real problem here for Keystone National Association was that they did not and never did own the loan — something revealed by the usual game of musical chairs that the banks use to confuse and obscure the identity of the real creditor. When you read the case it demonstrates that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was not at all sympathetic with Keystone’s “plight.” Without saying so directly the court’s opinion clearly reveals its doubt as to whether Keystone had any plight or

Breaking it Down: What to Say and Do in an Unlawful Detainer or Eviction

December 21, 2017

Homeowners seem to have more options than they think in an unlawful detainer action based upon my analysis. It is the first time in a nonjudicial foreclosure where the foreclosing party is actually making assertions and representations against which the homeowner may defend. The deciding factor is what to do at trial. And the answer, as usual, is well-timed aggressive objections mostly based upon foundation and hearsay, together with a cross examination that really drills down. Winning an unlawful detainer action in a nonjudicial foreclosure reveals the open sores contained within the false claims of securitization or transfer. NEED HELP