Tonight! How the bad guys get fake stuff into evidence and what you can do about it! 6PM EST 3PM PST

Apr 22, 2021

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

Most people give no thought to the elaborate scheme in which documents are created exclusively for use in civil court actions. The fact that such a statement is true is reason enough to exclude such evidence, but the failure of almost every homeowner and lawyer to timely and properly object is the reason it comes into evidence anyway.

No document prepared solely for court can be admitted into evidence in the court record. The reason is simple: it obviously is not a document memorializing or giving evidence of the existence of a transaction. It is, instead, a document reporting the existence of a transaction by a person who by definition is knowledgeable about and has an interest in the outcome of litigation but who has no interest in the outcome of the nonexistent transaction — other than the fee or salary paid for preparing, executing or testifying about the false document.

But once proffered, the court must accept it unless it is obvious that the document is plainly absurd and irrelevant to the issues before the court. And the presence of such evidence in the court record requires the judge to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to the claimant, who probably does not even exist.

Given the fact that there are no business or monetary transactions in the real world, how does any document get admitted into evidence when it purports to be a memorialization of nonexistent events between either nonexistent or disinterested parties? How does the foreclosure mill get such a fabricated, forged, backdated, and false document into evidence? More importantly, how does the homeowner prevent such miscarriage of justice?

In foreclosures, the point is NOT whether there is a loan or whether the homeowner owes any money. The point is whether the named claimant (plaintiff or beneficiary) can prove that they own the underlying obligation because that claimant paid value in the real world in exchange for ownership of the underlying obligation. The issue is not whether the “loan” was in”default.” The issue is whether the claimant has any legal basis for receiving any relief.

Laypeople and lawyers who are not experts in the law and rules of evidence fail to object or fail to properly state the grounds for objection for allowing the document to be entered into evidence. The trial judge is then REQUIRED to accept the proffer into evidence. And that one event is usually the point where the homeowner has lost and the fakers have won. And as I have repeatedly said that result is not biased. It is the result of bad litigating.

Posted in Uncategorized |