Register Today!!! Webinar: Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense. February 2, 2018 1pm Eastern.

evidence

Evidence via Aggressive Discovery increases opportunities to Prevail.

Suing a servicer?  Unable to obtain the evidence necessary to prevail? Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.

This online webinar will provide instruction on establishing your narrative, making objections, conducting cross examinations and how to blow up the robo-witness.

Cases often end during discovery when you get the order you want at which point the other side immediately settles — or you don’t get the order you want. Aggressive and thorough evidence and discovery are critical to successfully defending against foreclosure.

In trial preparation and discovery knowledge is used for one of two things:

1. Eroding the foundation or credibility of the prima facie case against the homeowner.

2. Proving who is who and what is what.

Every successful strategy for winning a foreclosure defense case rests on the ability to blow up the robo-witness and deny the foreclosing party the ability to get documents (hearsay) into evidence — or the ability to make the testimony or document less credible than it would appear at first blush.

Attend this seminar if you want to know why lawyers pay for consultations with me to prepare discovery or trial strategy.

Date: February 2, 2018

Time: 1:00pm Eastern/12:00pm Central/11:00am Mountain/10:00am Pacific

Delivery: Webinar via Computer (WebEx platform) for visual presentation, or by Skype or Phone.

Presenters include:

  • Attorney and Foreclosure Expert Neil F Garfield for GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Securitization Expert Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, Inc.
  • Investigator Bill Paatalo, BP Investigative Agency
  • Attorney Charles Marshall of the Marshall Law Firm/California.

REGISTRATION: $199 until January 31st, 2018 ($249 after 1/31/2019)

Seminar Length:  Estimated 3-Hours including post-seminar Q&A session (30+  minutes)

Materials for Participants:

  • PowerPoint Printouts (delivered with log-in and by email)
  • Transcript of Seminar (delivered post-seminar)
  • Recording of the Seminar
  • Transcript of Cross Examination (delivered by email)
  • CLE Credits Requested: 2 Civil Litigation

LECTURE TOPICS:

  1. Law vs. Politics
  2. The Politics of Home Foreclosures
  3. Realities for Investors
  4. Reality vs. Legal Doctrine: No action arises from deceit
  5. Strategies for Homeowners When the Salesman is Dead
  6. Information v Evidence
  7. Reality v Paper
  8. Void v. Voidable
  9. The Fictional Boarding Process
  10. Standing and Jurisdiction
  11. Objections
  12. Motions in Limine
  13. Cross examinations
  14. Robo-witnesses and signatures
  15. Negotiable Instruments
  16. Nonexistent Transactions
  17. Fabrication of Documents
  18. Who’s on first?
  19. Unfunded Trusts
  20. Inside & Outside of Discovery: Requests for Production, Interrogatories, Request for physical access (computers) and Request for Admissions
  21. Motion for Summary Judgement
  22. Admitting information into evidence
  23. Reveal Absence of Evidence
  24. Fraud on the Court
  25. Compliance with Pre-Trial Orders

 

The seminar is conducted by computer or by phone.  However, to access all webinar visuals you must log in by computer into the webinar.  Registrants will receive directions within 24 hours prior to the seminar with instructions to access the WebEx seminar.

Discovery is where the rubber meets the road. This seminar will help you navigate the discovery and evidence minefield with skill.  

What is Discovery?

Discovery describes the process of requesting information from the other party in a lawsuit.

It is an invaluable weapon in the fight to defend your home against the banks. If you are being sued by the bank and they are alleging that they are entitled to foreclose on your home, you must find out exactly what evidence, if any, they are basing these allegations on.

You’ll want to see a copy of the original promissory note to determine if your original lender endorsed this evidence of the debt through an assignment of mortgage. Filing for discovery can help you formulate your defenses and build the strength of your case prior to any trial or final summary judgment.

In order for parties to obtain discovery, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure have set forth a means by which to accomplish this end, and those legal avenues are specifically outlined in Rules 1.340, 1.350 and 1.370. Most states have comparable civil procedures.

Three Kinds of Discovery:

Discovery can be grouped into three categories: oral discovery (depositions), written discovery (interrogatories and requests for admission), and visual inspection (requests for production). These are collectively referred to as “discovery requests.” As a handy rule of thumb, you can think of discovery requests as requests to either discuss something (depositions), answer something (interrogatories), admit or deny something (requests for admission), or produce something (requests for production).

A Foreclosure Cannot Proceed when Discovery is Pending:

Discovery is critical because it enables the parties to properly develop their arguments, it can also be a strategic tool in preclude the bank from getting a Final Judgment (loss of the home) entered against the borrower. Florida case law states that Courts should NOT enter Final Judgments while the discovery process is still on-going.

Specifically, “Summary judgment should not be granted until the facts have been sufficiently developed for the court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact exists.”Singer v. Star, 510 So.2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

And furthermore:

“As a general rule, a court should not enter summary judgment when the opposing party has not completed discovery.” Singer; Colby v. Ellis, 562 So.2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)

Thus, if you’ve filed discovery and that discovery has not been properly responded to by the banks, then the Courts should NOT enter Final Judgment against the homeowner!

Only 30 Requests for Discovery Per Case:

There is a limit to the number of times you can make a request for discovery and that number is 30. Otherwise, the defendant could just continue filing discovery requests indefinitely.

With a limited number of Admissions and Interrogatories you can seek, you need to know what requests will maximize traction. If the Bank refuses to respond to your discovery requests or if their responses are less than satisfactory you must file a Motion to Compel and move the Court to require the bank to provide the information you seek.

The Banks and Servicers are going to object to most of your demands.  Now What?

While both the attorneys and the judges might contest your right to receive information about the origination or sale of the loan, you are absolutely entitled to inquire about whether anything they said is true or if it is all a lie. And the only party who has that information, and the only party resisting with all their considerable might is the originator and the participants in the chain of the alleged securitization or even in the chain of the securitization which is denied by them.

The scope of discovery is intended to be broad but to prevent mere fishing expeditions that are intrusive on the other party toward no end. They will argue that holding the note closes the issue and the judge will agree with them until you pull out the statute and point out that the proof of the actual loan is necessary in all cases except where they allege to be the holder in due course, which they never do.   Register now for the seminar to advance your understanding of handling discovery and evidence in foreclosure defense.  Click here to register.

About the Presenters:

Neil F. Garfield, M.B.A., J.D., is the winner of dozens of academic awards, a popular speaker, and author of articles and technical treatises on law, finance and economics. He has concentrated his law practice for the last 8 years on issues related to structured finance (securitization in particular). As a former investment banker and real estate investor, he knows mortgage securitization issues from the inside out, who the deciders are, and how they arrived at a catastrophic scheme to defraud, people, agencies, institutions, and governments all over the world. As an expert witness and trial lawyer for 38 years, his efforts to spot evolving trends have helped thousands of homeowners keep their home and receive damages as compensation. Having formerly filed hundreds of foreclosure actions as the attorney for small banks, homeowner associations and mechanics liens, he is well suited to provide assistance to investigators, lawyers and pro se litigants.

Investigator Bill Paatalo has been a licensed private investigator since September of 2009. He has 17 years combined experience in both law enforcement and the mortgage industry which he has utilized to become a leading expert in the areas of chain of title analyses and securitization. He was a police officer with the St. Paul, Minnesota Police Department from 1990-1996 where he was assigned “Field Training Officer” duties in only his second year on the job, and received multiple commendations.  Mr. Paatalo has worked exclusively since 2010 investigating foreclosure fraud, chain of title, the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage loans, and accounting issues relevant to alleged “defaults.” Mr. Paatalo is also a Certified Forensic Mortgage Loan Auditor through (“CFLA”), and has spent more than 10,000 hours conducting investigatory research specifically related to mortgage securitization and chain of title analysis. He has performed such analyses for residential real estate located in many states, including but not limited to, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Florida, Montana, Texas, Arizona, Ohio, New Jersey, and several other states. To date, Mr. Paatalo has conducted nearly 1,000 investigations across the U.S., and has provided written expert testimony in the form of affidavits and declarations in approximately 120 -130 cases nationwide. Mr. Paatalo has been qualified in both state and federal courts as an expert.

Dan Edstrom, of DTC Systems, performs securitization audits, and spent a year putting together a diagram that traced the path of his own house’s mortgage securization that went viral in 2012-2013.  DTC Systems provides research services to lawyers, paralegals, loan auditors, and government agencies for securitization of residential mortgages.  DTC Systems is adept at locating the trusts that loans were pooled into as well as monthly certificate-holder statements and monthly loan level files.

The Neil Garfield Show: Foreclosure Q & A. Have a Question? Neil Garfield wants to hear from you!

Q & A with Neil Garfield

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

 

Co-hosted with attorney Charles Marshall.

Do you have a perplexing question about foreclosure, securitization or chain-of-title issues?

Neil Garfield will answer questions from callers.  Please keep your question brief and limit yourself to one question so other guests may have an opportunity to speak with Neil.  Information provided is for educational purposes only and is NOT intended as legal advice.  Neil recommends you meet with an experienced attorney in your jurisdiction for guidance.

The Neil Garfield blog at www.livinglies.wordpress.com is the nation’s premiere website for information on fighfting wrongful foreclosure, identifying predatory bank practices, securitization issues and .chain-of-title issues.

www.lendinglies.com

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

The West Coast Radio Show with Attorney Charles Marshall: JPMorgan Chase & its Witnesses who know Nothing

To listen to archived show

Charles Marshall Logo_001

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall.

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult! https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

A Witness to What?  Fake documents, affidavits and depositions rule at JPMorgan Chase.

See: McCormick Deposition

See: Objection_to_Notice_of_Errata_Martin Deposition JPMC

Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California attorney Charles Marshall on the West Coast Foreclosure Show, and continues his ongoing analysis of the Washington Mutual/Chase ‘merger’ that appears to be little more than an elaborate ruse to keep homeowners and the courts from recognizing that the emperor has no clothes.

In April 2017, California Attorney Ronald Freshman of Newport Beach, California deposed Chase witness Rosemary Martin.  Ms. Martin inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.  Martin had been coached poorly and the plaintiff’s attorney, Ronald Freshman, annihilated her testimony.

Chase witnesses, or ‘persons most knowledgeable’ universally testify that they don’t know when the endorsements were/are placed on the notes, or by who, and that they are unaware of anyone up the corporate chain of command who could answer questions regarding the notes, assignments and investors.  Yet, this information is in the “DOCLINE” database and reports, as testified by Chase witness Rosemary Martin.  Martin said, “”AO1,” this was in 1-24 of ’07. That’s when Washington Mutual still had the file. So I don’t know what their codings are.”

Martin’s typical and pathetic responses included:

“I think I’ve done possibly one or two (referring to an affidavit).”

“I’m able to understand different screens and different documents that we use in regards to normal bank practices with loans.”

“When this specific document was entered into

our system, I do not.  I do know that I did see it in

our system.”

Eventually the witness surrendered that they had no knowledge of anything of importance.  The Chase litigation strategy is to play coy and hope the judge won’t catch on.  The Martin deposition reveals that the codes and names of the ‘investors’ do exist in Chase’s ‘LISA system’ database, despite JPMorgan Chase’s attempts to claim ignorance.

And that folks, that is how a poorly coached bank ‘witness’ is permitted to steal your home. The Martin deposition is 200 pages documenting a witness’s attempts to come off credible while failing spectacularly.  Meanwhile, the bank’s attorney objects constantly to prevent the admission that the witness can read a computer screen, but knows nothing of value regarding the loan.

Livinglies recently received a copy of an Errata motion filed by JPMorgan Chase.  The motion was a request to remove sections of former JPMorgan Chase in-house attorney, Michael McCormick’s deposition. Not because there was en error or ‘Scribner’s error, but because Chase attempted to use an Errata motion to censor information that was potentially harmful to them- not because it contained an error.

An Errata (“error”) motion is typically used to correct minor errors or omissions in a pleading such as the late submission of a missing exhibit or page from a declaration or motion, or a replacement page that is necessary by a glitch in photocopying.  By filing a Errata motion, Chase attempted to ‘get around’ opposing counsel’s ability to challenge the motion.  Fortunately the judge refused to grant the motion.   Chase use of an Errata motion was an underhanded strategy to remove potentially harmful information contained in its former attorney’s deposition.

It isn’t just low-level employees that are coached-up by Chase prior to a deposition, but also prior in-house attorneys too.

Former JPMorgan Chase in-house counsel Michael McCormick provided a deposition that confirmed that the “AO1” investor-designation refers only to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) ‘loans’, and yet, JPMorgan Chase has adamantly denied that this code refers exclusively to WaMu loans.

Despite working for JPMorgan Chase for five years (2011-2016), McCormick stated he knew nothing about the systems he was supposed to be trained to operate.  Despite this lack of knowledge, McCormick was the attorney submitting and approving affidavits and loan verifications, but knew nothing beyond what he read on a computer screen or was coached by Chase attorneys to parrot, “Chase is the investor, Chase is the investor…..awk…Bank owned. Bank owned.  Polly wants a real backer.”

Furthermore, JPMorgan Chase is in violation of the National Mortgage Settlement consent judgment that required Chase to stop it’s illegal practices including forging endorsements, manufacturing documents, filing fabricated documents in county recorders offices and providing false testimony.  Former FDIC team-member Eric Mains has encouraged homeowner who have been harmed by an unscrupulous loan servicer to file FOIAs with their state Attorney Generals offices in order to determine compliance with the consent judgments, and if that fails, to contact the ACLU.

McCormick’s deposition has been used in other cases investigator Bill Paatalo has been involved in, to document that ‘AO1’ is an investor code designating WaMu loans, and that Chase relies on speculation and imagination instead of facts, real documentation and hard evidence to convince the court they are valid creditors:

  1. As an example, attached as Exhibit 6 is a transcript of JPMorgan Chase’s witness taken from a deposition in “comparable case #2.” (Note: Per Bill Paatalo, this case involves two WMB loans with “Investor Codes ‘AO1’” that JPMC denied belonged to WMAAC.) The witness, Michael McCormick, a former in-house attorney for JPMC, testified that he had never seen the “original” note (P.114, L.13-16), that he had seen different images of the same note (P.115, L.20-24), that he had seen a copy of the 2005 WMB note without the endorsement in 2011 (P.117, L. 13-25 & P.118, L. 2-5), and that he had no knowledge of who placed the endorsement upon the note and when (P.119, L. 17-19, P.121, L. 8-12, & P.123, L. 18-24). However, when asked if there was a way to find out when the notes were endorsed within the servicing system(s), McCormick responded, “perhaps.” And when asked if he knew where to look to find that information, McCormick responded, “sure.” (P.123, L. 18-25 & P.124, L. 2-6).

-and-

  1. In hundreds of cases I have investigated involving WMB (WaMu) endorsed notes proffered by JPMC, or an assignee from JPMC, no witness has attested to, or has been willing to attest to anything specific regarding the endorsements and/or allonges; who endorsed the notes and when? Answers are much like that of McCormick; evasive, with no knowledge or recollection. With McCormick, he testified that he knew of no one at JPMC who could answer the questions as to the endorsements. Yet, he personally knew where to find these answers but deliberately chose to play coy.

JPMorgan Chase’s strategy is a plausible-deniability defense where there is no one (not even counsel) that can confirm nor deny the securitization process, the purchases, sales, transfers, assumptions- or anything else.  Therefore, Chase’s use of compartmentalization keeps everyone ignorant of the real truth.  In fact, by now, the only ‘evidence’ of ownership Chase can provide on acquisition of WaMu loans is the account number listed on a computer screen.

Attorney Stephen Wright in Connecticut did an exemplary job of digging deep and providing a plethora of evidence damning to Chase.

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall
Fax 866.575.7413

Bill Paatalo
Oregon Private Investigator –
BP Investigative Agency, LLC

LIVE NOW! 3pm Pacific/ 6pm Eastern: The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Attorney Charles Marshall, Investigator Bill Paatalo and former FDIC team-member Eric Mains

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase: Nardolillo v. Chase

This session of the Charles Marshall’s West Coast Foreclosure Show features former FDIC team leader Eric Mains who will discuss FOIA strategies in regards to the LPS/BlackKnight consent judgment.  Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA BlackKnight LPS concept during the August 3, 2017 broadcast here.

Mains urges listeners to immediately contact their state AG offices to obtain information about the LPS/Black Knight consent judgment in your state, and to demand answers why LPS is not in compliance with the judgement.  The information you discover may allow you to file suit on a prior foreclosure, or provide an opportunity to obtain information that will help you in current litigation.  See articles here and here.

Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase, a northern California case scheduled for trial in April 2018.  JPMorgan Chase’s Motion to Dismiss was recently denied based on its failure to demonstrate ownership of the note and Deed of Trust.  Chase relies exclusively on a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) as proof of ownership, but the court has stated that the PAA does not by itself, “establish as an incontrovertible fact that Chase is entitled to enforce the note.”  Nardolillo alleges that the Note and DOT were already securitized prior to the FDIC receivership of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), and therefore WaMu could not convey what it did not own.

Attorney Charles Marshall serves the state of California.  Please contact him to discuss your foreclosure issue:

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency can be contacted at:

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838, Absarokee, MT 59001

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Office: (406) 328-4075

info.bpia@gmail.com

 

 

The Mains Event: Demand that Attorney Generals Nationwide comply with LPS/Black Knight Consent Judgement

 

Please listen to the West Coast Foreclosure Show.  Attorney Charles Marshall interviews former FDIC team leader Eric Mains about his foreclosure battle and FOIA strategy.

By K.K. MacKinstry

Anyone who knows former FDIC Team Leader Eric Mains knows he is one tenacious ex-banker.  In eight years of litigation, every court he has approached for relief has stonewalled his efforts to discover who owns his mortgage loan.  Mains is still in his home despite Chase’s most recent Motion to Dismiss that was granted by the United States District Court based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine that shouldn’t have applied due to the fact neither the parties or subject matter of his federal complaint was covered in his State foreclosure action.

It is astonishing that Mains has not prevailed in his lawsuit against CitiBank and Chase.  In his lawsuits, he has variously provided evidence of the following:

– His Note was “endorsed” in blank and undated with stamp of one Cynthia Riley, a former WAMU employee laid off from her job at WAMU before his note was endorsed, and whose FL deposition in 2013 revealed she never worked at the SC facility his loan documents were sent to, never personally endorsed any notes herself, and her stamps were not located at the SC facility.

-Whistleblower Lynn Syzmoniak’s qui tam lawsuit revealed that one Jodi Sobotta (alleged “attorney in fact” for Chase who signed another of his Note assignments) was in fact a LPS employee in MN who alleged in the qui tam suit to have been involved in unauthorized robosigning and forgery at that facility. Christine Sauerer, notary on the assignment, filed an official notary card with MN which contains her signature, but it does not match her alleged signature on his assignment. Even more damningly, she supposedly notarized the assignment over 1 year before it was recorded in the county recorder’s office. This is an amazing feat as the assignment, ANY loan assignment, would have been sent to the local recorder’s office for recordation directly after execution as a normal course of business to ensure timely recording and priority- as any competent attorney could attest. This is direct evidence the assignment had been back dated as well as forged.

-While the above is incredible enough, it doesn’t end there. The above assignment was one of the assignments that was the subject of a $125 million 2013 multi-state consent judgment with LPS. LPS and its agents, which would have included the attorneys it contracted and retained to instigate the very foreclosures its forged assignments were used in, was required by the CJ to have reached out to consumers affected by their forgeries and remediated their forged assignments executed from 2008-2010, of which Mains was one. Mains foreclosure judgment occurred months after the signing of the CJ, and the foreclosure mill law firm in that case, Nelson & Frankenberger, never disclosed LPS as a material party in discovery, and never disclosed to the court the forgery activity it was aware of.  To this day, they have still proceeded to try multiple times to move forward with sheriffs sales on Mains property using the same forged documents, in violation of the CJ, and while the Indiana AG’s office remains mute.

Mains has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States his 2017 federal appellate court ruling that their jurisdiction to hear his complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  Meanwhile, Mains has continued to seek information in his case, notably through a Freedom of Information Act request, in which he demanded that the Indiana Attorney General’s office provide information regarding the 2013 consent judgement with LPS/Black Knight, and their stated compliance with its terms, which is required to be documented in quarterly reports to the AG’s of all 50 states who were signatories to the settlement.

He requested copies of all the information relevant to the consent judgement, and he specifically requested copies of the all compliance reports the AG’s office held and was to have received from LPS/Black Knight. Mains wanted to know what LPS/Black Knight was doing to comply with the consent judgement to stop its stipulated to unauthorized signing of loan documents, the use of those documents, and most basically what their compliance activities consisted of. This is just common sense, as any Indiana consumer, homeowner, legislator, or attorney would expect to be apprised of the what, where, when, and how of LPS/Black Knight’s compliance with the CJ…. especially after paying the IN AG’s office $1.6 million to settle it violations!

After Mains sent his FOIA to the AG’s office he received a pathetically anemic response.  The AG ignored most of his request and were only willing to disclose 19 pages of documents. The 7 page CJ itself, and 12 supposed cover letters to the compliance reports and the original complaint.  That is it!!!!  Mains has indicated his suspicion that the compliance reports either don’t exist, or they fail to address the requirements of the consent judgements.

The IN AG has generally claimed that everything in relation to the settlement and information related to it is attorney work product or is somehow privileged/confidential.  This is patently ridiculous and violates the Indiana Public Records Act.  The various state AG’s offices are required to follow up on the consent judgement until January of 2018.  Mains wants to know what the state AG’s have done to protect consumers and ensure the compliance with the terms of the 2013 CJ, especially after taking millions of dollars of LPS money for that privilege. He encourages consumers and the media to do the same in each of their respective states given the danger that state AG’s are still knowingly and negligently allowing these fraudulent documents to be used in foreclosures in their states despite the 2013 CJ specifically prohibiting this conduct.

Look for Part II on Monday regarding how you can benefit from your own FOIAs, what you can do to help others, and why it matters.

The Neil Garfield Show with Attorney Charles Marshall: What areas should you target when you litigate?

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

What areas should you target when you litigate?

In foreclosure litigation there are many pointless rabbit-holes an attorney or homeowner can attempt to go down, but they serve only to confuse and distract.  Instead, litigants should focus on areas where actual leverage can be obtained.  Neil Garfield has warned litigants not to focus on the lender’s vulnerabilities that are not provable.

Recently Neil Garfield held a consultation with an attorney who requested advice on how to deal with two defective instruments.  His advice to the attorney was to cancel two instruments:

(1) as assignment allegedly signed by an authorized person from MERS as nominee for BNC Mortgage which had ceased to exist 3 years earlier. (2) appointment of substitute trustee by the assignee of the void assignment. The lender was handicapped by the cancellation of these instruments.

Despite all of the fraud and fabrication that continues, it is the bias of the courts which has created an uneven playing field that prejudices homeowners.  Therefore homeowners must obtain meaningful discovery related to standing and questionable transfers.  This should be done by examining the chain of title, a forensic examination of the note, trust closing date, and other violations of law by the servicers.  We also recommend that you hire an experienced investigator upfront to root out any major discrepancies that will be beneficial later in litigation (we recommend Bill Paatalo at http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com).

In order to get something tangible that can be used to leverage your case consider strategic depositions of the pawns the servicer uses to verify ownership. The person signing off on the certification of note possession who files an affidavit claiming the servicer has standing to foreclose is vulnerable because they possess limited knowledge about the actual creditor, movement of the note and have no personal knowledge.

If you spoke with the Master Servicer or Trustee of a mortgage-backed trust they would tell you they don’t own anything and they are only a reporting agent.  They would direct you to the loan servicer for anything related to the loan.  The Servicer actually hired the foreclosure mill law firm to file the foreclosure – and is engaged in camouflaged equitable subrogation.

Foreclosure occurs because fraudster servicers routinely create a MERS assignment of mortgage coupled with a fraudulent note, add an undated stamp on a blank page of a note or allonge and create standing where none exists.  Add a corporate witness who knows nothing about the loan’s movement and boarding process, and the fact they are trained to parrot words like, “normal course of business” or “policy and procedure”– and the court will rule in their favor if not challenged.

Even worse, there is a new foreclosure platform that has morphed into a business model where new servicing companies who have nothing to do with the loan are being created out of thin air (think SPS or Ocwen) claiming they are the servicer for a bogus trust and the court requires NO INQUIRY INTO THE PURPORTED TRUST AT ALL!  The court accepts the validity of the trust without proof despite state requirements for a trust to conduct business in the state and be registered.

In order to gain traction you should depose:

  • The Complaint Verifier
  • Certification of Possession of Note Witness
  • Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment Signers
  • Asset Manager/Trustee/Master Servicer of a Plaintiff Named Trust

Depose the corporate witnesses for trial and subpoena dues tecum the “policy and procedure” manuals, loan transfer histories and any deposition they intend to rely on.  Anticipate heavy resistance but remember if they don’t turn over the necessary documents those claims must be excluded from testimony.

Southern California attorney Charles Marshall advises homeowners to remember that in judicial foreclosure states where typically the borrower is the defendant, counterclaims or cross-complaints can sometimes be used to bring the legal pleading approach described.

In order to prevail in discovery, motions to compel discovery, summary judgment and at trial, you will need an attorney who can litigate like a mad dog and who is not afraid to become a Country Club pariah.  At the end of the day this is about verbal and evidential combat.

This article and the radio show are for educational purposes only and are not legal advice.

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

Listen now to the recorded The Neil Garfield Show: Setting your case up for Litigation, Modification or Settlement.

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Log-in to listen to archived show.

This episode will discuss setting up your case for litigation, modification or settlement.  California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss settlement framework (writ large and small), and the numerous misunderstandings regarding how settlement should or even can work.

The overwhelming majority of civil cases will settle well before reaching the trial stage of a lawsuit, nationwide. Whether we’re talking about a divorce, a car accident lawsuit, or foreclosure case parties often choose to settle their case rather than leave their respective fates in the hands of an unpredictable jury. But is settlement always more beneficial?

Settlement Basics

“Settlement” is a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge’s ruling). Usually it means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff’s signing a release of the defendant’s liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.

Benefits of Settling a Case:

  • Expense.
  • Stress.
  • Privacy.
  • Predictability.
  • Finality.

With foreclosure lawsuits a homeowner often has a personal or profound sense of right and wrong, and decides to make an important point that impacts more than the parties in the case. For cases challenging the constitutionality of a law or some other perceived fundamental unfairness, settling also doesn’t create precedent and won’t affect public policy.

If one or both parties aren’t motivated to settle, or aren’t coming to the negotiating table with a remotely realistic offer, then resolution of the lawsuit before trial may not be possible.  This is often the case in foreclosure disputes- by the time the lender is prepared to settle, the homeowner wants vengence for the harm they have sustained (justifiably).

Please contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:

California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

This program is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

%d bloggers like this: