How Do I Use an Expert Declaration?

With judges under pressure to clear their calendar, the strategy of the banks in delaying prosecution of foreclosure cases is coming to an end. And the opportunity for the borrower, as well as a good reason for action, has just begun. An aggressive approach is more likely to yield good results than any strategy predicated upon delay. And judges are prone to blame the delay on the homeowner who wants to stay in his home rent-free for as long as possible.

So having an aggressive plan to prosecute the case with solid answers and affirmative defenses is key to getting the judges curiosity — why is the homeowner trying so hard to move the case along and the bank stonewalling and delaying the action alleging they need relief? Some lawyers, like Jeff Barnes, don’t know how to litigate with kid gloves on. When they take a case it is to draw blood and Barnes has established himself as not only an aggressive attorney but one who often wins a satisfactory result for his clients.

My expert declaration covers the gamut from property issues through UCC and contract issues. Securitization is something I understand very well — how it is intended to be used, how the law got passed exempting it from being characterized as securities or insurance products and how it was sold to Congress and Clinton as an innovative way to spread and reduce risk of loss, thus raising an investment with a medium degree of risk of loss to very low and therefore suitable for stable managed funds who are required to put their money into extremely low risk triple A rated investments.

All that said, for all I know and can say, neither my declaration nor testimony is ever dispositive in the final ruling of the case, with a few exceptions. On the other hand out of hundreds of times my declarations or testimony has been used in court, the number of times the banks have proffered an alternate “expert” to say I was wrong, mistaken or had used defective analysis to reach my conclusions is ZERO. And the banks took my deposition in a class action suit in which I was admitted as an expert witness in Federal Court — the deposition lasted six full working days 9:00am to 5:00pm. About the only negative thing they had to say after hours and hours of testimony was that my opinion was “grandiose” to which I answered that it was not nearly as grandiose as the fraud their clients were perpetrating upon our society.

So the most common question is how can I use your expert declaration? And the first answer I  always give is (a) my declaration, whether notarized or not, is never and should never be a substitute for actual facts applicable to the actual case which requires actual witnesses who have actual knowledge (usually from the opposition in discovery) and (b) you should have a plan for your case that does not call for a knock-out punch in the first hearing. If you think that is going to happen you are deluding yourself.

The most common attack on my affidavit is a motion to strike or a memorandum that alleges that I am not a credible expert. But the rules on admission of expert testimony are so lax that almost anyone can be admitted as an expert but he Judge is not required to presume the expert knows what he is talking about or has anything of value to offer. Thus a proper foundation of facts, timelines, paper trails and money trails needs to be laid out in front of the judge in a manner and form that makes it easy to understand. The declaration is only one step of a multistage process. When the opposition attacks the declaration, they are trying to distract the court from the real issues.

The best and most fruitful uses of an expert declaration are to use them when battling for information through the discovery. That is where cases are often won and lost, where cases end up being settled to the satisfaction of the borrower or lost, pending appeal. The expert declaration tells the court what the expert looked at and raises issues and opinions including the information that is absent which will resolve the issue of whether the forecloser actually has a cause of action upon which relief could be granted (an inquiry applicable to both judicial and non-judicial states).
Expert declarations have been used with success in hearings on discovery because it explains why you need to take the deposition of a specific witness or compel production of certain documents or compel answers to interrogatories. Once that order is entered agreeing that you are entitled to  the information it is often the case that the mater is settled within hours or days.
To a lesser degree expert declarations have been successful in non-judicial states where the homeowner seeks a temporary restraining order. And a fair amount of traction has been seen where it is used to show the court hat there are material issues of fact in dispute to defeat a motion for summary judgment, sometimes effective if there is a cross-motion for summary judgment for the homeowner where there is an effective attack on the affidavit filed in support of the forecloser’s motion for summary judgment.
The least traction for the expert declaration is where homeowners attempt to use it as a substitute for evidence — which means no live witnesses testifying to facts that lay the foundation for introduction of documents into evidence. And there are mixed results on motions to lift stay — but even where effective temporarily the debtor is usually required to file an adversary action.
After you file the declaration along with some pleading that states the purpose of the filing, you will most likely be met with a barrage of attacks on the use of the affidavit. They are trying to bait you into an argument about me and whether anything I said was true. Of course they do not submit an affidavit from an expert who comes to contrary conclusions; but even if the declaration is perfect, it is no substitute for real evidence. It is the reason why you need to get a court order requiring the forecloser to answer discovery and how they should answer it. It is support for why you believe your discovery will lead to admissible evidence or cut short the litigation. The declaration explains why you want to pursue the money trail to see of negotiation of the note and mortgage ever took place. The assignment says yes but if the payment isn’t there, no transaction exists. The UCC and contract law are in complete agreement — offer, acceptance and payment are required to enforce a contract. And on the offer side, you can either start with the investor or the borrower.
In live testimony it is my job to show the court what really happened not by piling presumption on opinions but by pointing to the facts you revealed in discovery and then explaining what transactions actually occurred. The only actual transaction — the only time money exchanged hands was when investors advanced money to be used for the acquisition or origination of loans.
But the intermediaries usurped the money and kept part of it instead of funding mortgages. And the intermediaries diverted title to the loan documents from the investors and claimed ownership so they could create the illusion of an insurable interest and the illusion of a risk of loss justifying the credit default swap contracts.
It was also used by the banks to sell worthless mortgage bonds to the Federal Reserve. We know now that the “trustee” of the REMIC trust never received any of the investment dollars advanced by the investors. The reason we know that the mortgage bonds are worthless is that there is no record of the existence of a trust account for the REMIC pool. Hence, the trust had no money to buy or originate the loan.

But it is nonetheless true that the investors advanced money and the borrowers got some of it. The amount received by or on behalf of the borrower is a legitimate debt owed by the borrowers to the investors as lenders. If you say otherwise, your entire argument will be viewed with justifiable skepticism. But the investors cannot be grouped by REMIC common law trusts under New York law because they too, like the assignments and allonges and endorsements, lack any money or other transfer of consideration in exchange  for the loan.

So we have consideration without a REMIC trust, without an enforceable contract which means that the debt existed but there were no agreed terms — the note and bond terms are very different, contrary to the requirements of TILA and Reg Z. Thus the investors may have received bonds issued by the REMIC trust, but their money never went into the trust contrary to the terms of the prospectus. So the investors are owed the money as a group by the borrowers as a group. That means the only way to refer to the investors as a group (contrary to their belief because they think their money went into the REMIC trust) is a partnership arising by operation of law. That is a common law general partnership. But because equitable liens a NOT allowed by law, they have n way to use the mortgage lien or the note. But they do have a claim, even if it is unsecured.

And the amount owed to the investors is different than the amount of principal on the defective notes and mortgages. That is because the investment bank took more money than it used for funding mortgages and pocketed the difference. So the transaction with the borrower gives rise to a liability to the investor lenders but the borrowers are only one of several co-obligors by contract and through tort theory. And the money received by the intermediary bank that claimed the bond and loans as their own using investor money should be credited to the receivable account of the investor. The argument here is that the investment banks cannot pretend to be agents of the investors for purpose for taking money from the investors and then claim not to be the agent for the purpose of receiving money from co-obligors including the homeowner.

It is only by untangling this mess that the request for modification from the investors can be directed to the right parties but that requires the investors’ identities to be revealed. There can be no meaningful modification, mediation or litigation without getting this straight.
Let’s start with the borrower. The borrower executes a note and mortgage. If the borrower denies ever getting a loan from the payee or mortgagee or beneficiary, then the issue is in dispute as to whether the borrower’s initial transaction was anything more than offer for someone to accept.
TILA says the lender must be disclosed, as well as common sense. If the payee was merely a nominee performing fee for service, then there is no payee and no mortgagee or beneficiary — and under property law there is nobody known to borrower who can execute a satisfaction of mortgage on the day of closing.
So we have the issuance of a note that might qualify as a security that is NOT exempted from registration and security regulations and/or the note and mortgage constitute an offer. The fact that there was no lender disclosed and no disclosed source of funds (a table funded loan labeled predatory per se by Reg Z and TILA) means that the terms of the note and the terms of the security instrument have not been accepted — and at this pointing our example there is only one party who can accept it — the party who loaned actual money to the borrower — I.e., the sourceof the  funds.
Now as it turns out that the source if funds was a group of investors who were not offered the note nor offered the terms expressed on the note and instead they agreed to the terms of the prospectus/indenture. But those terms were immediately breached just as the law was immediately broken when the borrower was tricked into executing a security issuance or an offer.
The investors thought their money was going into a REMIC trust just like the borrower trout that the originator was indeed his lender. Neither the investors nor the borrowers were told that there were dozens of intermediaries who were making money off of the issuance of the bond and the issuance of the note, neither of which bound the investor lender nor the borrower to anything. But nobody except the investment banks acting supposedly as intermediaries knew that the banks were claiming town both the bonds and the loans — at least long enough to trade on them.
Since the borrower did not agree to the terms of the bond and the investor didn’t agree to the terms of the note, they have no offer, they have no acceptance but they do have consideration. I have appeared in several class actions in Phoenix and Reno and dozens of cases in bankruptcy court, civil state and Federal cases.
Where the lawyer used my declaration as a means to an end — discovery, they got good results. Where they tried to suit in lieu of admissible evidence it is not so valuable. A few hundred motions for summary judgment have been turned down based upon my affidavit, but in other cases, the Judge accepted me as an expert but said that my opinion evidence was not supported by supporting affidavits from people with personal knowledge — I.e., competent witnesses to lay a competent foundation. Thus expert declarations are a valuable tool if they are backed up by real facts and issues — a task for the lawyer or pro se litigant, not the expert unless you are going to pay tens of thousands of dollars using the expert’s valuable time to perform clerical work.

42 Responses

  1. Bob—“cognizable torts”—HA!! You can’t show me ONE CASE where that worked in CA. You are not the know-it-all you think you are…just typical.

  2. @ Marilyn Lane

    Good News !

    I pointed out to Judge Schlesinger your criticism of her over on the Robes website.

    Her law clerk said that the Judge is looking forward to seeing you in her courtroom again soon.

  3. UKG, Well, finally, we have Godzilla vs. King Kong. I have been waiting for a long time. I really hope that we can see the transcript of that deposition.

  4. Poppy,
    It appears to me that at some point that crew is going to want to get rid of Neil too and pull them to their yet undeveloped site, but I have a feelig it is coming.

  5. Looks like AIG and Hank Greenberg are getting some traction…..

    Bernanke will be deposed in AIG suit

    A U.S. judge has ordered that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke can be questioned in a lawsuit against the government filed by the former head of American International Group.

    It is rare for a Fed chairman to be deposed in a lawsuit. But Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims said Monday that he made an exception because Bernanke has firsthand knowledge of the government’s decision to bail out AIG at the height of the financial crisis.

    Hank Greenberg, the former chief executive of AIG, has sued the government over the $182 billion bailout, which AIG has since repaid. Greenberg claims that the terms of the bailout were too onerous and is seeking at least $25 billion.

    “The court cannot fathom having to decide this multibillion-dollar claim without the testimony of such a key government decision maker,” Wheeler said in his ruling.

    Greenberg’s lawyers want Bernanke deposed Aug. 16. Wheeler said that date was acceptable to him, though lawyers for the government may wish to choose another date. Spokesman David Skidmore said the Fed had no immediate comment.

    from the Washington Post.

  6. louise…try NeilFGarfield@hotmail.com

    you can also reach her directly via phone at 954-495-9867.

  7. Javagold, Loan number change usually means they “sold” the loan again for pennies on the dollar so that they can collect lots of money from you.

  8. Java,

    My best insight: BOA< N.A. couldn't have funded anything, per laws of National Associations. Depending on where it came from is the key. Countrywide for example, they bought "servcing rights" ONLY @ approximately $450.00 per loan. At no time did they get "collateral assignments" of the notes.

  9. Does anybody have the E-mail address for Danielle Garfield? Marilyn Lane needs to go, too.

  10. Poppy;
    I agree with you and I don’t know what the plants reasons with this site are but they are here and hopefully the bad ones don’t
    lead one off the cliff.

    To all
    Just figure it out yourselves.
    Do you think any attorney who works with a bank , investor or regulator or wants to get in good with any of the above really wants to tell you how to win against your enemy?

  11. Anyone care to guess or answer, why my mortgage loan # was changed form original # right after requesting a modification 4 years ago ????
    Lender/bank/servicer/thieves ,whatever you want to call them, has always been BOA, although they switched names between NA, HOME LOANS, SERVICING, many times on the paperwork sent to me …..
    Original loan # is nowhere to be found. …….. like it never existed.

  12. @ ML

    It is my opinion only; stripes is a wild child. Many of the things she said are in fact true and I am certain; however, her presentation and inability to overlook some of the comments made to her, created her excommunication here…As I have said repeatedly, there are people here who are very curious in their “quest” to help other’s. Altruism is pure, not for personal profit and ego…self-gratification, yes, at some level. Me, I have no ax to grind, usually.

    Much of the information presented here in an honest, sincere helpful way has in fact helped me, even at times the smallest tid-bit. Paying attention, verifying information presented and actually taking the time to research your suspicions is tantamount to gathering facts. Facts will gain traction, accusations, abuse, demonstrative attacks solve nothing. I will say there are a couple of folks here, who from time to time need to be called out. This is neither the time, nor the place for “personal” indulgence of things that need to be presented factually, not assumptions of the various cases. And it does not all need to be related to the law. Strategy, which the banks are playing(using the legal procedures), to beat you down are essential. The money buys them time, fake paperwork and procedural prowess, which most of us do not have. In closing I can say, there are very few wins against these giants. It is my opinion, the meat and potatoes are the “conversions” of the promissory note and the payments being made to whom and how?

  13. I am not a shill for anyone. I say exactly what I think whether you
    Bob G or anyone likes it or not .But it is always the truth and I hope warns people about plants that come on this site for their own purpose and not for the foreclosure victims benefit.

  14. Bog G, I am with you. If we get shed of Marilyn Lane, this blog will really be going well. I see her throwing out bombs to see if she gets a rise out of somebody. I think she is a shill also.

  15. UKG, I see that I should have stated “no discovery” in a manner easier to understand. In my world, I received ALL THE DOCUMENTS I sent in to get a loan mod which was about 12 inches high back again as “discovery.” I also received a purchase and sale agreement and a master servicing agreement. Both of those agreements said the loan documents had to be filed according to the state law and all loan documents had to be filed at the county level, which they were not. In addition, the font used was extremely small and light. I have to read it with a magnifying glass. I also received bankruptcy documents for American Home Mortgage. My loan was part of two different bankruptcies. Isn’t that interesting? If the law had been followed, I would have won. Now, I have a new lawsuit for breach of contract, Detroit went bankrupt and Florida has new foreclosure-related laws. Perhaps the tide has turned, but now it has to be in my state.

  16. Bob G

    My feeling is you want to gain their trust qand then sell them under the table.

  17. marilyn lane…for some unfathomable reason, you don’t seem to understand that the Garfields don’t want you and your ilk playing in their sandbox. they got rid of stripes. they didn’t get rid of those of us who post useful things here. if you don’t like to be “ganged up on” then get the hell out of here, and take carie with you.

    this is a blog for serious folks who are engaged in serious foreclosure defense matters. this is not a blog for the mentally and emotionally disturbed.

    like i’ve said before, if you can’t post something useful that can be used in court for foreclosure defense, then please shut up.

    As the old saying goes, “better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.”

  18. I watch how you all work ganging up on anyone who challenges why you are all on this site.

  19. usedkarguy…

    hey RR…do you have that guy’s permission to use his pic as your avatar?

  20. marilyn lane…please keep up your conspiracy rants. you are next in line to go.

  21. Poppy
    I think it was a mistake by Neil to have gotten rid of Stripes.

    Have you noticed as soon as she was gone the players for the banks and investors have come back and taken oven the site. And Christine is right in there getting ready to put in her spin and soon Jan will be back with TN Harry, BobG & BobHurt ,etc bad mouthing the Attorneys who are all working on helping the true homeowners.

  22. louise, I was able to get some servicing records, lawyer billing notes, and a lot of garbage that was supposed to be payment history (totally illegible). Two copies of everything, even an unsigned PSA. They did, however, fail to redact the part where the attorney is billing the client “to research the effect of non-recording of the mortgage.” OOPS.

  23. Well, let’s look at how many people using your expert declaration have permanently terminated the foreclosure or obtained the house free and clear, or obtained a cram-down of the loan balance to the value of the house minus paid-in equity refinanced at the going rate fixed for 30 years, or won compensatory damages, or won punitive damages.

    Want my guess?

    ZERO, that’s how many. Gullible desperate clients pay thousands of dollars for your useless declaration and get exactly bupkiss in return.

    Why? Because the court does not care about your declaration. It cares that the borrower stopped paying timely mortgage payments after signing a PROMISE to pay timely and a MORTGAGE giving up the house for defaulting on those payments.

    So, UNLESS the mortgagor shows the court how the LENDER OR AGENTS INJURED THE BORROWER at the inception of the mortgage, the court will award the foreclosure.

    Period. END OF SUBJECT.

    After 10 years of watching people lose their houses to foreclosure with every imaginable argument, many if not most of which you have approved at one time or another, EXCEPT INJURIES TO THE BORROWER BY THE LENDER OR ITS AGENTS, I have concluded that it makes NO SENSE AT ALL TO FIGHT FORECLOSURE BATTLES. It ONLY makes sense to attack the lender for causes of action underlying the mortgage. And your declaration does ZERO GOOD for that. So why do you continue to hawk them. They might seem interesting. But they are otherwise useless. You might consider printing them on long rolls of soft, perforated paper.

  24. Bob,

    You do know whom you’re responding to, right? Tnharry (whom i like a lot because he won’t put up with BS for too long and his taking credit for the clean up was just tongue-and-cheek) simply gave up on that case and moved on. Do yourself a favor… Move on.

    Remember the mission: help those who want help.

  25. carie…i can’t believe that you’re still hanging around here babbling your nonsense. of course it works in CA…you just have to sue for cognizable torts as a plaintiff against the banks.

  26. Bob G.,

    It doesn’t work in non-judicial CA. Period.

  27. Hmmm, bond holders are not entitled to your house, IMO.

    “the issuance of the bond and the issuance of the note, neither of which bound the investor lender nor the borrower to anything”

    Unsecured debt, A “con”tract: offer, acceptance, consideration…the only contractual obligation met was the “consideration”, (in this case, maybe in some others) for me this is a breach of contract issue, again IMO.

    Neil, you know their is no lien on the houses…c’mon. Everyone knows it and that is why we are buying what is tantamount to “junk bonds” @ 43 Billion a month…and Fannie and Freddie are duping new buyers into buying homes that have a flawed chain of title, with 13 pages of waivers…Jeez!

    If the general public finds this out, this thing will explode…

    FYI: they won’t let me post much of what I have anywhere, they censor the sites….my comments have been blocked or deleted numerous times when I try to write about this. That’s the truth!

    Just my opinions here…nothing more

  28. Bob,

    “95%+ end up being default judgments”. The story of silent, fearful America. Look at why all those JDBs are still in business: 95% (and probably even more) are default judgment. People decided right off the bat they were going to lose so… they did exactly what they needed to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. They did… nothing!

    What separates the losers from the winners is… action. It doesn’t mean that all the doers win. It means that they have a fighting chance at it. It people roll over at the first difficulty, that’s it.

    “If you’re not getting discovery, then you’re doing something wrong”. Right on too! There are legal ways to obtain the info you need. File discovery requests and file motions to compel. If banks or JDBs still refuse, file again and ask for sanctions. What’s wrong with this country? From one side of the mouth, people say “The squeaky wheel gets the oil” while professing from the other side; “The devil you know is better than the one you don’t.” As if everything was THE DEVIL!!!

    If it’s not insanity, then i don’t know what it is…

  29. I have gotten discovery from Federal Court…enough to pause about moving forward by the trustee so far. And got some from attorney after filing for SJ, injunction and removal, he just kept moving/sending papers, very telling. The judge dismissed the action on his filing, so far! Since then, I have gotten 4 solicitations for a modification, which I will not take.

    Some of us have gotten it, but it is a fight, I won’t lie! There is hope

  30. hman…just google your loan number. should pop up in the search results window.

  31. “Bob G, I am in the charming red state of South Carolina where people actually vote for Newt Gingrich for president. Me and UKG correspond every so often.

  32. louise…what state are you in ?

  33. Bob G.

    Can you post a link where to get the “Deutsche Bank Distribution Report”. My home is up for sale again in a month and my Trustee is Deutsche. I’d love to see what the value of my trust is.

    Thank you,

  34. Thanks, Bob. I appreciate it. However, there was very little produced as discovery in my case. Judge would not read my MOtion to Compel. I was told by another judge on the record that there were only two judges at the courthouse in my town (state court) that were not tied to opp. counsel’s firm. Lottsa fun. I did get a settlement however, and then they sold the loan and breached the contract. Waiting….

  35. El, What discovery? I have not seen it. In my case, they would not even read my Motion to Compel.

  36. Here’s one more thing. I think some folks are getting free houses out there. I just received a DB trust distribution report for the month of June. There are a number of loans that went from six figures to zero. How do you think that happens? And there were a number of loans that had relatively small or no balances that showed sizable gains on liquidation. Think about that, too.

  37. Let me weigh in here.

    I get banksters to respond to discovery requests. Let me relate a couple.

    DB as ttee. Foreclosure attys are a mill on Long Island. They only have kids fresh out of law school working for them. They don’t have highly skilled and experienced attys working for them, because they couldn’t afford to pay them. Besides, they only need kids fresh out of law school because 95%+ end up being default judgments. So legal boy responds to my Notice to Admit, and he ends up with ridiculous replies that any judge would throw out. But we won’t get to that point, because cubby failed to have the client make the responses, but rather cubbie made them himself. Even then they were unsworn. So I will use them as admissions on a motion for summary judgment.

    Next up, JPM. JPM submitted responses to interrogatories, that included the general ledger for the loan. The loan was taken out in Jan. 1998. Allegedly negotiated then and then again in June 1998. However, the loan ledger shows a line item that says “LOAN SALE, $XX,XXX, March 31, 1998.” Then there is the issue of robo-signing. Loan negotiated in Denver, but notarized in LA, CA.

    Another bank couldn’t even produce a copy of the note in its complaint. In discovery it sent along a spreadsheet that has nothing but numbers on it: no name of borrower, no name of bank.

    If you’re not getting discovery, then you’re doing something wrong. If you haven’t got a copy of your state’s civil practice guide, and companion guides for discovery, depositions, real property, etc., as well as a famous law professor who wrote the civil practice treatise for your state’s law schools…GET THEM !

    Also, I’m not a schill for the Jurisdictionary guy, but consider perhaps pooling your resoures and spending a couple hundred books for his stuff. Worth its weight in gold, in my opinion. Also, you can use your court libraries for Lexis or Westlaw for free. Maybe even you colleges will give you access for free (they do in NY).

    Finally, if you’re going to hire a lawyer, hire an experienced bankruptcy atty or Chapter 7 trustee to handle your foreclosure defense. They really know how to get rid of secured claims. And by the way, you can get a subscription to PACER for practically nothing (pay as you go, doc by doc).

  38. Iwantmynpv,

    Garfield was nicely invited to a debate over those theories with Martin Andelman, who appears to get serious results for homeowners and… has interviewed some of the most visible people in the foreclosure defense arena. He declined.

    Garfield has consistently spoken against modifications when many, many people were only looking for that, arguing instead that the loans were paid off by insurance up to 200 times and that there was a free house waiting for them at the end of the road.

    Legal minds on this site have difficulty with that kind of theory and representations without the proof that they actually work. Increasingly, the consensus from the “doers” (those who argue cases in court, mind you, and obtain results for their clients without peddling anything) is that NG is full of hot air.

    Keep in mind that Anonymous has been experimenting with those theories and is putting her own house on the line. 9 years into it, she still hasn’t seen the “free house”. And she has an MBA in finance, which she taught in college. Allow me to be suspicious of NG’s results… It’s called using one’s critical mind.

  39. @louise – what part of “… once I got the discovery from FNMA …” don’t you understand?

  40. Wow Chris – blood in the water – Don’t be a Mo. LOL

  41. Do we have any cases anywhere that discovery was actually produced by the banksters? I have not seen evidence of it. Does anybody know of any discovery produced? As far as I have seen, the bankster’s attorneys settle before discovery is produced to protect their Ponzi scheme. Anybody seen any discovery anywhere? If so, let us see it.

  42. For a warrior in the trenches on a budget, as most pro se find themselves, paying $1500 for an expert opinion is a rarified option. I considered it with respect to hiring a forensic document examiner to authenticate the alleged promissory note but chose to pass once I got the discovery from FNMA showing they only received electronic collateral file and never got a note (until after the NOD, somehow).

    And my experience is the only ‘expert’ is the shill of the ‘vesting’ lender declaring ‘on good faith and belief’ that all their facts are true. If I had the $400 + travel costs to do a deposition it would have been ‘sideshow at the carnival’ time. And for persons like NG who make real life documents like depositions of those shills available, I give a hearty THANK YOU.

    The point of an expert witness is to lay the foundation of admissibility of a fact – e.g. business records don’t stand by themselves as evidence, a living person has to ‘vouch’ for their authenticity. This mostly applies to the banksters who hold the bulk of the evidence in their hands. To that end NG has proffered the strategy of keeping it simple, mostly ignore the paper trail except in response to banksters points, and follow the money. Stay focused on presenting reason to request accounting records of your loan as an account receivable. What is happening in my case is the judge ‘spiked’ my discovery, then refused to answer my request for a statement of decision of the facts used to determine an amount greater than zero was paid or received by any defendant (facts requested in the spiked discovery). This defines the amount of damages defendants can claim, and if none, court does not have jurisdiction to consider them as a party to equitable relief.

    Once you get to the point of discovery, THEN a lot of the possibilities raised by NG come into play. Most homeowners don’t get to discovery. By denying you owe defendants anything (you really don’t know if third party paid or note written off), or that defendants are holders “in due course” (they may be unless you can show why they have to prove it first), you have greater chance of getting to discovery. My gut tells me there is more fertile legal issues on the front end of your loan than on the back. If you can win your case because your lenders won’t show their business records for simple things any judge can understand, why waste your very precious assets on the back end issues that will take many times over your monthly income to prove?

    The banksters all work from the same game plan book, and are slower to adapt to changing tactics than pro se. However, the changing tactics are usually buried in reams and reams of drivel and misleading advice (such as recusing your judge, only to get another judge who starts out p[ssed at you, and has the same amount of their retirement at stake). Be wary of any poster who varies from the proven course of cracking and tracking financial records, because they have already lost a house, that is, unless they are shills for the banksters.

    IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer)

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

%d bloggers like this: