Report and Recommendations About Fabricated Foreclosure Documents Resurfaces After Submission in 2010
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT RESURFACES AFTER SUBMISSION IN 2010: WHY ARE STATE SUPREME COURT IGNORING THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS?
By Neil Garfield
Livinglies.me
In 2005, reports started surfacing about fabricated documents, forged documents, and back-dated documents being used to promote "foreclosure" remedies. This one w as issued and submitted to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 2010.
Like Florida and dozens of other states, the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts continued to ignore the most obvious conclusion: presumptions arising from such documents must be scrutinized and rejected if tested by the homeowner.
Despite the universal consensus about the use of fake documents that resulted in the 50-state settlement and dozens of other settlements, the best homeowners ever received was a promise not to do it again. That was a promise that was never kept nor even intended to be kept.
The one question that nobody asked was why fake documents became custom and practice. That only happens when there are fake claims. And indeed, all of the work I have performed since 2006, using my knowledge of investment banking as well as legal requirements under the UCC have essentially proven (in and out of courtrooms) that no claim exists at all.
Therefore there can be no claimant, plaintiff or beneficiary. The reliance on the apparent "holder" status relative to the note is irrelevant in the absence of a creditor who could authorize enforcement because it owns the implied unpaid account receivable. And just because homeowners think they owe money does not mean that there is in fact any obligation.
