We end up listening to information, not evidence, from lawyers who are not sworn in as witnesses, as to matters that are totally outside their scope of knowledge. And then we end up arguing over giving title to a party who admittedly doesn’t have one dime committed to the transaction and who stands to lose nothing. If the foreclosure goes forward, under their plan, they have the property, the investor has the loss, and the homeowner is homeless. And they never put up a dime.
Lawyers have pointed out some notable failures to sway the Judge, where the Judge didn’t get it or refused to get it and where the law was misconstrued. That is our system. 18 months ago none of them got it, but today there are hundreds of judges and thousands of lawyers who in one form or another are pressing forward, successfully with challenges to pretender lenders and trying to get to the finish line of identifying the real lender and getting the loan re-structured or otherwise settling the case between the true parties in interest — the investor who advanced the cash and the homeowner who got the benefit of SOME of the investor’s advance (the rest having been diverted as fees and profits to Wall Street and main street intermediaries).
Here is my answer to one of those lawyers.
OK. There are going to successes and failures and they will probably come in groups. But more and more judges are getting it and more and more we are seeing the law followed, rules enforced, evidence required etc. Don’t let it get you down. One thing we are experimenting with is a very narrow laser-like appraoch at the very beginning of litigation that basically says — tell us the name of the Lender. We have asked and they haven’t answered. Judge tell them to answer. And we don’t mean the party named on the original documentation we mean the party who today stands to suffer the economic loss if this obligation goes unpaid.
We have federal requirements to seek modification, mediation orders that are usually entered, and the desire to settle and re-structure this loan. None of these things can be accomplished if we don’t know who the Lender is. We end up talking to people who don’t own the loan, don’t have any decision making authority, and in the end telling us whatever deal they “Agreed” to is subject to investor approval. Then they tell us the investor didn’t approve. But we still don’t know who the investor is even at the end because they won’t tell us.
Imagine this claim judge, they are saying that the name of our lender is confidential. When in the history of jurisprudence has anyone made a claim like that and was allowed to proceed? If you make the Qualified Written Request(QWR) for information and/or Request for Verification of Debt( DVL) then you can add that they are obligated by federal law to give you the name of the investor/lender, the phone number and a ddress. They are obligated to state and show you what documentation supports their answer. If they don’t know, they don’t belong in court.
And if we don’t get to speak with the lender, how do we ever get a full accounting for what money was received on behalf of borrower from insurance, credit default swaps or federal bailout. How do we know who has subrogation rights and may have replaced the lender?
In any small claims action the plaintiff must present evidence, not information, that is accepted by the court of proof of the claim along with a register showing the payment history and what is owed. These people, “pretender lenders,” trustees, foreclosure mill attorneys, apparently wish to finesse that requirement because they don’t know all the facts. The accounting they present is only a small part of a much larger picture. We end up listening to information, not evidence, from lawyers who are not sworn in as witnesses, as to matters that are totally outside their scope of knowledge. And then we end up arguing over giving title to a party who admittedly doesn’t have one dime committed to the transaction and who stands to lose nothing. If the foreclosure goes forward, under their plan, they have the property, the investor has the loss, and the homeowner is homeless. And the party getting the property never put up a dime.
So Judge all we want is to be able to identify the Lender, speak with them and see if this obligation can be re-structured, where the title is cleared, the obligation is definite, and the terms and parties are publicly known.


