Keystone Fraud by Banks: Business Records Exception to Hearsay Rule

Practice Note: Hearsay is not evidence and should not be used as the basis for any conclusion of facts that would support any conclusion of law. While the banks are extremely vulnerable to having all testimony and documents barred by the hearsay rule, this is ONLY true if the proper objection is made at the proper time — and objections should be made when opposing counsel makes reference to the content of those records as though they were already established. Although representations by counsel are not evidence, the attorney’s failure to object to the representation is a failure to bring to the Judge’s attention the fact that you contest those assertions. The objection could be phrased that counsel is attempting to get his own representations on record based upon facts that are in dispute and not in the record. A good record of those objections — including the use of a court reporter — is the basis for appeal. Without that record the Judge is inclined to do whatever he or she wants and while it is possible to re-establish the record in the absence of a court reporter it is very difficult and time-consuming. The reviewing court looks only to the record. If the objection does not appear, then the reviewing court has no choice but to affirm the lower court decision. An appeal is NOT an opportunity to retry the case. on substantive grounds. It is primarily a vehicle to contest the procedures and rulings in the court below as to procedure and the admissibility of evidence.

see http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/hawaii-federal-district-court-applies-rules-of-evidence-bonymellon-us-bank-jp-morgan-chase-failed-to-prove-sale-of-note/

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Analysis: Business records are ALWAYS hearsay and barred by the hearsay rule in state and Federal courts. The question is not whether the business records are hearsay but rather whether the records are deemed reliable enough to waive the requirement of testimony from those with knowledge of the facts offered to prove the case of the proponent of those records. If they are deemed reliable by the Judge then they are allowed to be admitted as evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted in those records. The tests for reliability are in the statutes of each state and the Federal rules of evidence that allow for exceptions to hearsay in order to allow the business records into evidence, which ARE hearsay and otherwise barred as evidence, under the “business records exception.”

The general rule is that evidence consists of testimony from a knowledgeable witness competent to testify as to the matters asserted. Competency of witnesses is determined by oath, personal perception of events, memory and the ability to communicate the facts as personally experienced, viewed, or heard by the witness. The business records exception requires the custodian of records to provide the foundation for asserting the business records exception. This is the starting point.

The custodian of records must be established by foundation testimony and should not be allowed without testimony that demonstrates the witness’ scope of employment, knowledge and authority. Objection should be made when the leading question is asked “Are you the custodian of the records?” An objection is required that the question is leading and lacks foundation — showing the facts and circumstances under which the witness should be accepted by the court as the custodian of the records.

The records must be from a source that is relevant to the proceedings. If the party seeking foreclosure is an asset pool, represented by a trustee, then the business records of the trustee are the only thing that is relevant unless the foundation is laid by opposing counsel to show that the records of the servicer matches the records of the trustee.

TESTIMONY OF THE SERVICER: Without the custodian of records for the trustee, it seems impossible to establish the proper foundation showing that the trustee asserts that the records of the trustee are the same as the servicer. And if that is true, there may be no reason for the servicer to testify as to the business records since it is only the trustee who can account for all money paid out and all money received, directly or indirectly on account of the subject loan.

[NOTE: THE TRUSTEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST THAT OWNS THE SUBJECT LOAN AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE SALE OF THE LOAN TO THE TRUST OR ASSET POOL. REMEMBER THAT A SALE REQUIRES CONSIDERATION AND THUS THE RECORDS SHOULD INCLUDE A RECORD OF THAT SALE, THE AMOUNT PAID, AND THE DOCUMENTS MEMORIALIZING THAT TRANSACTION.]

The witness who testifies for the proponent of the documents sought to be admitted into evidence must be competent to testify as records custodian that the trust has been and still is the owner of the loan. The banks will vigorously oppose your effort to hold their feet to the fire because all indications are that the trustee has no records and doesn’t even have a bank account for the “trust’ or asset pool, much less evidence of the amount paid for the loan, and the documents memorializing the “transaction.”

In many cases, the case for ownership or foreclosure collapses completely because in fact the trust or pool never did acquire ownership because there was no sale and the trustee never had any records showing the money paid by the homeowner or other parties who may have paid down the loan under non-subrogated obligations to payoff the debt. The creditor only being entitled to recover once on the debt, must show that there were no mitigating payments received by the trustee or anyone on its behalf as agent, servant or employee or affiliate.

In truth the relevant records are either wholly within the records of the MASTER SERVICER and neither the subservicer that the proponent wishes to offer nor the trustee has a complete record who who funded the origination or purchase of the loan. Thus while the business records of the sub-servicer might eventually be admitted over objection of the homeowner, it can and should be argued that this is only a partial picture; this accomplished on cross examination or if possible voir dire, where the witness is questioned as to what they don’t know, to wit” the details of the origination, purchase or funding of the loan together with all receipts relating to the loan account directly or indirectly.

Having started with the question of whether the witness is in fact a records custodian, the question then becomes whether the proffered witness is the only records custodian. At one trial recently conducted the witness was (a) not a custodian, (b) declared that the records came from numerous “clients” and other departments, the identity of the custodian of those records never being mentioned.

[Practice Note: When the witness is from the “loss mitigation department” or some similar division or department, they are by virtual definition not the records custodian, and cannot be a competent witness to testify as to the records. On voir dire conclusion the objection should be made that the witness is not the records custodian for any or all of the records sought to be introduced and is therefore not competent to provide the foundation for the business records exception to the hearsay rule.]

The first requirement (see Florida statutes below for example) to test the reliability of the records is that the the record entry be made at or near the time of the event.

If the servicer is testifying, then the servicer cannot testify as to the either the origination or sale of the loan, both having preceded the involvement of the servicer virtually by definition. While the impulse of the court is going to be presume that the closing was completed, this is overcome by the denial of the homeowner that the closing was in fact completed because the named payee on the note and mortgage never fulfilled their obligations — to fund the loan. It is not enough to be the party who caused the loan to be made —- that is a mortgage broker who obviously has not rights to ownership or foreclosure. This leaves the proponent with the requirement of proving up the completion of the initial transaction showing the funding by testimony of a competent witness (custodian of records of the relevant parties) to show payment and receipt of the funding of the origination or sale of the loan.

The second test relates to competency of the witness which is that the person offering the testimony or even the affidavit must show that they are a person with personal knowledge sufficient to be either the records custodian or a witness to the event.

The banks in Florida will attempt to get around this problem by offering a certification, but the certification must contain sworn statements as to the personal knowledge of the person who executes such certification. The requirements of testimony on the stand are NOT waived by virtue of submitting a certification. Without establishing the competency of the person to be admitted as a witness custodian of the records, the certification is a sham. And such certification should be determined before trial in a motion in limine before trial begins or objection to certification (see below).

The “certification” must contain the same required statements of fact that would otherwise be required on the stand as a live witness. Timeliness of objections is the key to trial practice. Failure to object and take the offensive on this issue will result in documents being admitted into evidence that establish a prima facie case when no such case exists.

If a certification is intended to be used, the homeowner must receive notice of such intent, the identity and contact information for the person signing the certification and an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the statements contained in the certification and the authenticity of the documents itself given the constant practice of robo-signing and surrogate signing.

Discovery is appropriate to require the proponent of the certification to show the employment record and other indicia that the person is indeed a custodian of all the records and that all the records sought to be introduced at trial are within the custody of the witness. A trick often used in court is that the witness will testify as to custody of one document and without an alert objection from the homeowner, the rest of the documents, which are hearsay, are then admitted into evidence without the certification or the foundation because the homeowner failed to object.

Failure to give notice of the intent to use certification in lieu of live testimony is fatal at trial — if the homeowner objects. Certification should ALWAYS be met with a well written objection — and fee free to plagiarize anything in this article. In most cases in an abundance of caution, the Judge will require live testimony in lieu of certification.

Conversely, failure to object to the certification may well leave the homeowner in the cold, because by the time the trial begins all acts necessary to the prima facie case of the proponent of foreclosure or ownership of the loan will have already been established.

Florida Statutes 90.803 et seq: in pertinent abstract is as follows:

(6)  RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY.–

(a)  A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

(b)  Evidence in the form of an opinion or diagnosis is inadmissible under paragraph (a) unless such opinion or diagnosis would be admissible under ss. 90.701-90.705 if the person whose opinion is recorded were to testify to the opinion directly.

(c)  A party intending to offer evidence under paragraph (a) by means of a certification or declaration shall serve reasonable written notice of that intention upon every other party and shall make the evidence available for inspection sufficiently in advance of its offer in evidence to provide to any other party a fair opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. If the evidence is maintained in a foreign country, the party intending to offer the evidence must provide written notice of that intention at the arraignment or as soon after the arraignment as is practicable or, in a civil case, 60 days before the trial. A motion opposing the admissibility of such evidence must be made by the opposing party and determined by the court before trial. A party’s failure to file such a motion before trial constitutes a waiver of objection to the evidence, but the court for good cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.

(7)  ABSENCE OF ENTRY IN RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY.–Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda, reports, records, or data compilations, in any form, of a regularly conducted activity to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness.

(8)  PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS.–Records, reports, statements reduced to writing, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth the activities of the office or agency, or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a duty to report, excluding in criminal cases matters observed by a police officer or other law enforcement personnel, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show their lack of trustworthiness. The criminal case exclusion shall not apply to an affidavit otherwise admissible under s. 316.1934 or s. 327.354.

About these ads

48 Responses

  1. The only trusts set up were the direct deposits from the treasury department. What went on after that was a lot of fraud, counterfeiting, forgery & gambling with our securities.

    An attorney told me “there has been a coup de tat here.”

    Time to throw the investors out. No one should have never been allowed to invest in our Securities. Anything that could create a conflict of interest regarding our Life, Liberty and Property should have never been allowed.

    If they disclosed they were going to do that, I would have walked out.

  2. All for the benefit of their investors carie. I for one, won’t back down. The law is the law for everyone or the law is the law for no one.

  3. “NOTE: THE TRUSTEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST THAT OWNS THE SUBJECT LOAN AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE SALE OF THE LOAN TO THE TRUST OR ASSET POOL. REMEMBER THAT A SALE REQUIRES CONSIDERATION AND THUS THE RECORDS SHOULD INCLUDE A RECORD OF THAT SALE, THE AMOUNT PAID, AND THE DOCUMENTS MEMORIALIZING THAT TRANSACTION.”

    Hmmm….well—I asked my servicer repeatedly for the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and the Mortgage Loan Schedule…I was ignored…why? Because there never was any of those things because there never was a funded loan.

    And the judges don’t give a damn…it’s all about some fake, made up “debt”—unsecured or not.

  4. The title company dumped the mortgage public….for the vultures to devour. That means the banksters created so much debt by counterfeiting & forging my autograph that the mortgage & notes are now worthless. They did all of that without my knowledge or consent. They owe me a ton of money and clear title and I will accept no less. They also cross collateralized my residential property with my commercial property without my knowledge or consent & set me up to fail. For that they should pay.

  5. Allow me to clarify I asked the Recorder of Deeds clerk who is public…?

  6. I asked the clerk who is public when I discovered Chicago Title & Trust dumped the mortgage into public. The clerk said “it could be anybody.” The same title company agent “Patricia Picard” has been on all of the paperwork since our original purchase in 1982 up until a refi that she was “a witness” to in 2007. Then the “CITI MORTGAGE” was dumped into public. I never had a mortgage with CITI….there is a name of a trust on the mortgage called Verdugo Trust….mwahaha….they are all crooks. I never could locate Patricia Picard to this day. The closing attorney swears she exists but I can’t locate her.

  7. It’s all about the robbery….the credit lending and investing in everything we pay for by the banksters. That is how they rob & control all of us Charles. That is what many fail to see. That is why everything is a rigged game. The title company agent is appointed trustee for our property from the Origination until they dump the banksters fraud after they destroy the security and the title company dumps the fraud into a public trust.

  8. It is all about stealing our wealth & property Charles. There are foreign imposters who have open access to our wealth and invest in our properties that we pay for. We pay for everything upfront at the Origination. The banksters create debt from what we lend them & hand us the bill. They collect all payments as usury and they don’t lend a dime.

  9. The title company is the agency for the peoples bank/trust, the U.S. TREASURY DEPT.

  10. The title company agent sets up the direct deposit escrow account from the Treasury Department Charles. The account is held open for deposits & transfers.

  11. stripes I am not sure what your talking about bank having escrow account with the title companies and the bank are defaulting on the account.

    First the title company handles the purchase or refi, but the monies are paid to the seller or are used to pay off the existing loan. There no need to have a escrow account for the bank because there is no debt on the loan by the lender.

    You cannot place into a pool a loan that got a debt owed against it by the lender. The lender cannot be in debt on the Note and then relinquish it for collateral in another transaction.

    Money are put into escrow account if the funding is received early, but the title company is not handling monies for a bank because an bank is a bank with handles monies and escrow accounts!

  12. Big Pharmacy & the healthcare industry are the devil in disguise. The banksters are all invested in our demise. Those pharmaceutical commercials should be the first clue. This is all an evil plan.

  13. Believe me, I have witnessed what hospice does and it is not humane at all. It is a horror show. These sickos make Kevorkian look like a saint. Their hospitals have hospice floors that cover up for malpractice by doctors. My husbands aunt was in her 70s and healthy and had her colon ripped by a negligent doctor and they euthanized her. God as my witness. They almost killed my 50 year old neighbor the same way. A word to the wise, don’t ever let them give a coloniscopy to the elderly. Never ever.

  14. So go ahead…re-establish the massive debt of these crooks…keep being their slave and doing their evil bidding by doing business with this corp of maniacs. Keep sending these murderers your money because they love controlling everyone from behind the government and corporate logos. Then when you are all used up & considered by them to be a useless eater, they will send hospice in to put a diaper on you and slowly starve and poison you to death in front of your loved ones. Keep eating their garbage food that rots your insides…go ahead and plant your garden in their polluted chemtrail droppings. The banksters are planning on wiping out most of us by poisoning our food & the environment. The evil culling plan is in the Codex Alimenterius

    http://natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html

  15. It is a lot worse than the contracts not being executed properly. They overissued investments in our Securities to the tune of $700 trillion dollars. Nothing cures or secures that massive debt. The banks are overleveraged way beyond what is considered a healthy risk. They are simply robbing us blind. One attorney found there was 607 investors in his clients one mortgage security. The banksters succeeded in destroying our Securities by defaulting on the original agreements and overissuing investments in our autographs to the tune of $700 trillion dollars in mortgage and derivatives fraud. That is why we don’t owe them another dime, the bankster Corp in fact owes us GAZILLIONS, and clear title to everything. They are why the economy sucks and the banksters can go piss off.

    This was an evil plan by the foreign controlled multinational bankster corp to take America over without ever firing a shot. They can all go to hell. They want a lifetime revenue flow from every aspect of our lives by investing in everything we own and by investing in everything we own, that is how they control all of us. That is what HILLARY/OBAMACARE IS ALL ABOUT….There are 9000 pages of laws being imposed by these imposters with that fascist piece of legislation.
    That is all the more reason for these Nazis to make everyone sick and treat illnesses they already have the cures for. These are not only imposters who are control freaks, they are sick sadists. They believe in causing human suffering, bondage and sacrifice gives them everlasting life. They are really sick bastards.

  16. Is it a wonder Bill Clinton is now called “President of the world” jet setting around representing the U.N. and Hillary got the big Secretary of State job? It was all payback from the international bankster Corp for HILLARY/OBAMACARE, the fake repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA, and so on. They all belong in the State pens.

  17. What the banksters did was sell gambles and gamble on our securities with no skin in the game. The GSE’s were allowed to buy into the game for pennies on the dollar and hold bonds/stocks to our property for their biggest shareholder/investor the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

    Nice huh? Treason at the highest levels. Those greedy bastards in Congress & the Senate made untold millions off the backs of all of us. Bill Clinton got an $86 million dollar payout from the banksters for throwing We The People under the bus in his second term.

  18. It is not initially unsecured. That is true, the deed is conveyed to us for safe keeping once the deposit is made by the Treasury Dept. into an escrow account set up by the title company. The problem came into play after the Issuer took fraudulent control of the loan and did whatever they wanted with it without depositing payment into the escrow account set up by the title company. That was when the Issuer, the FED, defaulted, AKA the Origination Fraud and all subsequent transactions were fraudulent. That is when they altered and destroyed the original contracts and pocketed all of our payments as usury. CNBC reported Wall Street made $60 trillion dollars in 1999 selling mortgage derivatives. The total value of all U.S. property…$12 trillion.

    CNBC also reported recently the banksters have since 2008, been bailed out to the tune of $60.4 trillion in U.S. TAXPAYER money and have stolen 20 + million dollars in our properties with no skin in the game. They are wanton felons and this is grand theft larceny.

  19. iwantmynpv let say your right that this money is their to make more money off of money, but your argument is base on after the fact that homeowners are purchasing the house that they want, no matter were the money is coming from and we did not ask, and if we did we still would want the American Dream!

    However in order to be actual screwed a default occurred to what we thought was the agreement that we signed. So when we throw all this they did not fund the loan correctly or that they just wanted to make more money after the fact has what to do with why you did not pay the payment based on $100,000 balance at 6% for 30yrs.

    The argument has to be singular in the fact that the contract is not executed correctly between you and the alleged lender, and in the case of the pooling how the Note not even a Note because the debt is not purchase.

    I think the best thing was the settlement for the modification mess because it take off the tale a confusing issue most people did not understand in the first place. Now people can focus on what I think is the winner all along and that is “No Standing” and is why that issue was not address because it a loser for the mortgage industry.

    Big different going to the Judge saying I was never behind on my loan because the fact is the payment was never due because it did not exist because the contract was void as it does not address anyone because its BLANK, oppose to telling the judge that they did not get this money I think illegally because they wanted to make additional money after the fact.

    So if I am judge and I have investment that are making even more money reinvesting but adding no additional cost to the original transactions what the big deal? Where does the problem come into play as over 90% of households have not lost they homes? It when the payment stop arriving!

  20. I can’t really speak to your argument about being part of the contract or not. Try it Mincore and see if you can get any mileage. I would be interested in knowing about that. As for the swap proceeds being treated as a trading profit, that would just go to show that the Bankster’s bought credit default swaps not for the benefit of the portfolio and certificate holders, but merely as Side bet that they knew Had a high probability of paying off. However, if they used investor proceeds or the debtors money to buy the swaps, then that is an altogether different story.

  21. @Bob G, If the assignee did not provide the actual funding for the loan,and merely provided a desk and the collateral package forwarded from an investment bank,using their underwriting guidelines, credit grading etc… than you may just be a part of that contract. It is called originated to be securitized”

    Stop looking at individual loan fundings as a single transaction. This was a case of money seeking Obligors.

    As far as anyone believing that this form of leverage was created as a good thing that turned bad, you are sadly mistaken. There was never any intention of this being good for borrowers or investors. the pools are leveraged to the brink, and the parties with the residual interest used illogical / fantasy discount rates to keep siphoning off the cash flow produced by the loans.

    If it was not intended to pass the losses to the borrower, certificate investors and taxpayer (i.e. GNMA, FNMA, FRE,FRC, FHLB, FDIC, etc…), why do the NA’s take the swap proceeds as a trading profit versus a hedge on a portfolio. The balance sheet tells the whole story, and the rest is make-believe to sell products, websites, modification services etc… One thing that is always a familiar pattern… Banks stealing… and attorneys on all sides of the argument generating a living trying to convince other lawyers (some with a black robe), and still others with a million dollar smile, known for baby kissing, glad handing, self serving direction, who routinely sway between public opinion polls and cash contributions.

    “When the gusts of liberty blow hard in the face, it eventually suffocates those who know not of it”

    This is the 100,117 comment on this site. “That, and two bucks will get me on the bus”. Oh yeah… I like chicken!

  22. NO NOTE ASSIGNMENT OR PROOF OF DELIVERY?
    NO PROBLEM

    Thank you Neil, for this important article. It addresses an issue that a homeowner must deal with when fighting a foreclosing trustee/loan servicer during a bankruptcy proof of claim, a motion for relief from stay, or in other situations. I agree that proper objections to the declaration are essential. If the Court finds the declaration is sufficient and the documents (even if disputed) look even remotely valid, the homeowner loses–at least in stay lift, where the merits of instruments are not adjudicated.

    QUESTION:
    Why would a judge include the untrue statement that a note assignment exists in the record, when it does not exist at all?

    As I recently witnessed in a motion for relief from stay, the Court found that the note is “payable to Movant by assignment” and Movant is the holder of the promissory note. The Court lifted the stay.

    The primary bases for the ruling were:

    >a NON-EXISTENT NOTE ASSIGNMENT– the Court stated the note assignment was in the record and even named the docket and page. Not only was there NO such note assignment on that page, but the ENTIRE RECORD is DEVOID of ANY NOTE ASSIGNMENT including prior motions by U.S. Bank N.A. in the case.
    >a disputed loan servicer’s “bankruptcy specialist” declaration,
    >a disputed second version of a note that had 2 blank indorsements, both from the SAME originator (an impossibility)
    >a disputed deed of trust
    >a disputed assignment of the deed of trust
    >a disputed summary of payments owed

    Did U.S. Bank N.A.’s standing as real creditor, or holder, depend upon MORE than merely having a NOTE INDORSED IN BLANK, called BEARER PAPER?

    Is it important to seek an appeal, if only to undo the res judicata effect of the Court finding that U.S. Bank N.A. is the “holder”?

    ______________________________________________

    THE LOAN SERVICER’S DECLARATION
    Often, the loan servicer shows up “as attorney in fact” “or servicing agent” for the phony trust that does not contain the loans it professes to contain. The loan servicer is often the second loan servicer since origination.

    In such a situation, the loan servicer merely follows the cookie cutter declaration that the Court has set forth in other rulings, where a loan servicer was instructed as to what the court would like to read. Some such statements are: that the loan servicer’s declarant “saw the note” and that “the records are kept in the regular course of business” along with other key statements.

    In the above motion, the Court ignored disputed servicer declaration issues such as:
    >no mention of when or from whom it received the records,
    >the loan servicer is not the document custodian,
    >the declarant has not stated any contact with the custodian
    or named the custodian
    >that it did not have access to the loan origination records when they were created
    >did not state knowledge of and could not possibly know, the record keeping policies or practices of the originator, the trustee, the custodian, or the previous loan servicer
    >it failed to name any source for the records that were transmitted electronically to the servicer,
    >how or when or from whom the loan servicer acquired the “original note” or any other “original” documents.
    >no mention of what was paid for the loan or if anything was paid at all (consideration)
    >failure to produce a loan servicing contract to support the loan servicer moving on behalf of the supposed creditor

  23. Do you think these banksters are ever going to pay their bills? Hell no. So why should we cooperate with deadbeats like them…? That is the definition of insanity.

  24. The FED defaulted. Screw these GLOBALIST crooks. They aren’t getting another dime from me. Their debt is fraud & slavery and I’m not falling for any of it.

  25. stripes it not initially unsecured because there is money being borrowed to purchase a home and you don’t have to title the debt as long as you still hold the debt and can title it at any time and even if the Note is sold does not eliminate the debt but its just not secure.

    It only when these pools don’t pay for the debt that thing go wrong!

  26. Yes Charles, that debt the banksters created from overissuing investments in our autographs is not only unsecured because of the Origination Fraud it is astronomical and can never be repaid.

  27. stripe I get what your saying and you are 100% correct that there is not a Note and it what I been saying also because a Note is only a Note if it has a debt attached to it and clearly in those cases when the Notes are signed in blank and without any consideration of money it is relinquish your right.

    Now I don’t have enough knowledge with all the situations with Fannie & Freddie and the different vehicles they have, but Ginnie Mae only got one. And your right there is no valid assignment because there is no “holder in due course”.

    So I apology if I was misunderstanding what you were saying, but I believe we are on the same note?

  28. I’m curious if the judge merely accepts the claim from the Trustee that they are the Trustee. The PSA or Trust Agreement should be brought in to prove they are, in fact, the Trustee (or a successor). Once the court recognizes the PSA or TA , the homeowner should explain that the Trustee only wants the Judge to look at those terms and conditions of the PSA or A which are beneficial to the Trustee and to ignore the Trustee violations of the PSA or TA.

  29. The mortgage contracts & notes no longer exist Charles. The Supreme Court ruled without the assignment, the former & the latter are a nullity. This is one giant multifaceted conspiracy. When you investigate fraudclosure you are lead to many places. It is all connected. These thugs owe us a ton and clear title to all.

  30. stripe I do understand would the Fed represents however at this time we cannot cloud the issue on this one front. When you go from one conspiracy to the next, your strong argument get loss in the UFO file. But I am saying there are not UFO but that for a different spcae and time.

    It does not matter were the money can from if you cannot prove it, but we can prove with court title records and the Note as to who is owed what or not owed. If the Note does not have the entity calling the Note due on the face of the Note they got “No Standing”!

    I do believe that thing are very similar to the Great Depression and the sons of the same players are at work, but I don’t have the documentation to prove it.

  31. There is undeniable proof Charles, this was an evil plan. Nothing with Government ever happens by mistake because they are control freaks who are ran by control freaks. WW III was planned well in advance. 1914 was the year this hundred year plan to control the world & it’s people began. The malefactor knows his time is short to get everyone on his team.

  32. stripes I don’t think it was started with the intent to deceive at the start with borrower who took regular loans, but as a byproduct of the loss of jobs made that many foreclosures a game changer and fraud as a result of that.

    As long as people where making payment they don’t even see or care about the crisis because there mortgage loan is working as agreed. Now as for we who are caught up in the mess, have come to uncover actual how this mortgage business works.

    I understand what position Ginnie Mae is now in and will have to be made to admit the truth, but I see how the program was set up was not done to hurt anyone, but with the number of foreclosure you got $1.1 trillion invested and a few people on the bottom who are the victims with attorneys and judges at the beginning of this mess alone with President Obama calling us all deadbeats.

    I don’t think it was planned but it happen and then the criminal element came into play with Ginnie Mae. I am not talking about subprime lending.

    We started out borrowing money from somebody and when you don’t acknowledge what most everybody else in the home buying chain knows then your argument falls flat, because everybody knows you borrowed the money, and you know you borrowed the money at a set rate and term. However stripe that not the issue, because you cannot prove if the fund came from another than what on your contract, but that really does not matter. What matters is did they violate your contract, and I say they did and can prove it when it come to Ginnie Mae pools, and that is my area of expertise.

  33. As long as good people know the truth and fail to speak it, we will be a nation in peril by these imposters.

  34. The FED were the borrowers Charles.

  35. The same could be said for the entire loan mod fiasco. The mortgages were destroyed upon the issuance of those fraudulent bills of credit. We never borrowed any money from the FED. The Treasury knew the FED defaulted and they knew their debt was unsustainable and could never be repaid. We were duped by these financial sheisters & their financial weapons of mass destruction.

  36. They destroyed the contracts & the notes when the misrepresented who they were & what they were doing. They fraudulently induced those contracts Charles. They never notified us of their Default, that an alteration had been made upon issuance of those checks. Besides they already cashed them under false pretenses that we were the borrowers when they were in fact the borrowers. Intent to Deceive is criminal in the U.S.A …Esp when it intends to harm the other party.

  37. Investment is not ownership if the Issuer of the Original bill of credit did not create the Security. They were investing & gambling with our autographs on every aspect of their Securities Fraud. They were even gambling on things that never existed like credit apps. The banksters have a sick gambling problem.

  38. stripe your wanting there to be no Note/Contract but at every closing there was a Note signed by the borrower. Now where the monies came from with dealing with large lenders are hard to track down because they have a trillion dollars in assets, and the monies are quickly replaced when the loan are pooled in the form of advancements of the sale of the MBS.

    It works the same way for for smaller bank brokering loan to bigger banks as the money could very easily be floated the 15 or 20 days for for the loan to be purchase. Look funding a few $200,000 loans is not going to break a bank.

    I am not saying that the Fed not the money man, but the way it set up is to make it appear that the money from the Fed by way of investor came after the fact. Not criminal but slick and is done all the time in any financing as money is floated. Now if the bank is taking the fund from a area where they are not suppose too that a different story but what judge is having this audit just to have an audit, it you don’t know what dept the alleged thief is suppose to be in.

    Hman what I address is Ginnie Mae situation because there are only a couple moving part and as I requested the Note, I knew it had to come back blank because Ginnie Mae could not be on the document because Congress does not authorize the money for the non-lender to purchase home mortgage loans as it is an insurance company.

    All Ginnie Mae pooled loan will be the same because they have to be in Ginnie Mae possession as they don’t have any actual proof of ownership and cannot participate in phony sale to other party because they any proof they should be in possession of something they did not purchase. Once Ginnie Mae gives over possession they got nothing. The Notes must remain the same as the day they are placed into the pool because there is no logical way Ginnie Mae can dispose of the blank Notes as they cannot sell the Note, and without a sale of the debt and the purchase of the debt the Note is not actually a Note!

  39. Charles if there are no contracts, there are no notes. The money came from the trust for the peoples money……the U.S. Treasury Department. The Fed cashed the notes/checks and defaulted on their contract by not creating the Security and then overissued investments in our autographs to the tune of $700 trillion in derivatives fraud. They also insured themselves on the risk they created. The initial stakeholder (our) investment was $12 trillion dollars. The banksters created and owe us an innumerable amount of money & clear title. We The People were the only entity who had skin in the game. There is no law in equity for a non existant contract. I would not pay them another red cent & no one should.

  40. @Charles

    The original “notes” were put into false default by the GSE’s in 1999-2000—and charged off—the notes that were RE-created in the subprime (in order to facilitate/create derivatives) were a complete lie.

    This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

  41. @Bob G.

    The PSA “contract” is a load of bull. So it doesn’t matter. If no funded mortgage loan was ever transferred to the MBS—which they weren’t—then there is no enforceable contract. What they “enforce” is a lie…on paper.

  42. Charles,

    I have a question. What about when your note follows the chain in the PSA. The first copy I was given by my loan servicer (Aurora at the time) was in blank. Later Aurora gave me a “correct” copy of the note that went from A-D with a separate Allonge listing them as the agent for Deutsche the trustee.

    Yes it’s BS and probably photoshoped but can you prove it? & how does it even matter when the note isn’t required to be presented as part of the trustee sale process in several nonjudicial states? How the F&%$ does MERS still have the ability make assignments. Are they they the “principal” of themselves?

  43. stripes there are Notes because when you purchase you home the money to purchase the home came from somewhere to pay the seller of the home, who not connected to the bank. So to say there are no Notes that would not be the case.

    However after the fact when pooling these loans is were the ownership of the debt gets lost. I know I just basically talking about Ginnie Mae, while everyone else is referring to Fannie & Freddie.

    As I heard of some lender burning the Notes but not in the case of the GSE because I don’t believe that to be the case. But I know that the Notes are going to be the offense for homeowner because they are not later executed per law.

    That is why I keep going back to Ginnie Mae who cannot purchase the debt but is an insurance company owed by the Federal Government, that must have a have a Note because they got nothing but a blank Note for alleged underlying collateral for $1.1 trillion Mortgage Backed Securities.

    There are Notes as I requested and received my Note, and that one Note I believe collapses the Ginnie Mae system because it shows without a doubt the Note did and still does have this blank endorsement but is now out of Ginnie Mae possession if they ever even had possession!

    Ginnie Mae cannot prove that they had possession of my Note now, because its impossible and is the reason in the first place to have blank Notes to keep secret which rancher own what. However they was a unrecorded bill of sale between the two ranchers, and not this no exchange of monies Ponzi Ginnie Mae has got going on!

  44. What are we trying to achieve? If the Note is retrieved after the foreclosure and it still blank the party foreclosing on that property has got the burden of why the Note is blank and how did the they come to be in possession of the Note.

    In the case of a Ginnie Mae pooled FHA, VA or USDA loan there is no proof of a purchase to the pool that the Note were required to have been relinquish to Ginnie Mae.

    As Ginnie Mae is suppose to be in possession there is no sale to a Trust because the Notes demonstratives this fact as the Notes today are and must be blank. Discovery which is going to get helped by Sen Warren in her request of the IFR files.

    However as the OCC is the regulator of these banks, the borrower should as I did be able to have the OCC request a current copy of the Note. Now I believe these clowns have smarten up and will probably not grant the request to obtain the Notes because it exposes just how stupid the regulator has been.

    However what should end the entire “No Standing” issue is the Note which for Ginnie Mae cannot have been burned or lost, because there is no proof of purchase to back up a Standing claim. Your Honor I don’t have any proof I purchase the Note which by law I could not originate, purchase or sell but believe me I am owed a debt?

    Believe me this issue is over as far as Ginnie Mae because they are trap by the written possess, and the servicers have no leg to stand on as they with MERS presented false claims to the court that bank A was the “holder in due course”!

  45. The mortgage contracts and notes don’t exist. It was all a giant scam by the banksters who lied about everything. Everything is the polar opposite of what we were taught to believe. It is a fraudulwnt business model and there is no fixing fraud.

  46. Bob G.

    Will you please define the Assignee & Assignor? Is the Assignee the Mortgage broker or MERS? or is it someone unmentioned in the chain of title. Is the Assignee the Mortgage servicer or the Trustee that is again not (usually) in the chain of title. I have had 3 loans transfer and they’ve always went from the defunct mortgage broker to the loan servicer.

    The reason I ask is because 1 won a QT from my original broker and MERS still transfered title out of their name to the loan servicer at the direction of Deutsche. Furthermore no proof was needed from the bank because case law in AZ dictates that no proof is necessary prior to selling the home not even by the Trustee.

    The banks attorney said we couldn’t bring up the PSA because we weren’t parties to the contract and my attorney stated the bank/loan servicers weren’t parties to the DOT/Note and any assignment was bogus because of the previous signed QT against the broker.

    The law doesn’t matter when it isn’t followed. I will as many others will tell you. I think the tide is slowly turning but it will or is already to late for many of us here. I wish those of you fighting the best of luck and don’t want to discourage anyone just telling you from my personal expierence that you can have the law the bulk of the law on your side but it all comes down to what the judge says.

  47. Neil…this is terrific stuff. But I think you need to address the consideration argument. As far as I know, the only parties entitled to object to a contract on consideration grounds are the parties to the contract, not nonparties. And the homeowners are nonparties to the contract between assignee and assignor.

  48. Take me off your list

    Larry E. Butler Chief Executive Officer 770 744 2335 – Office 770 331 1586 – Cell

    Sent from my iPhone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,559 other followers

%d bloggers like this: