LivingLies.me

In the ongoing struggle to save homes from foreclosure, homeowners often find themselves backed into a corner, feeling as if they’re facing an unstoppable force. The clock is ticking, the auction date is looming, and desperation sets in. But, what many don’t realize is that there are powerful tools available to fight back, even in the eleventh hour. One such tool that can shift the balance of power is the adversarial action in bankruptcy court.

What is an Adversarial Action?

An adversarial action is not just another step in the bankruptcy process; it’s a full-blown lawsuit within your bankruptcy case. When you file for bankruptcy, you’re not simply waving the white flag. Bankruptcy initiates an automatic stay, effectively halting the foreclosure process in its tracks. This buys you time – time you can use to challenge the claims being made by your lender. And with an adversarial action, you’re taking that challenge directly into the courtroom, forcing the party attempting to foreclose to prove they even have the right to do so.

Why is This Critical?

Understanding the shaky foundation many foreclosure claims rest upon is key. The party trying to foreclose often lacks the proper legal standing. Whether through sloppy paperwork, questionable mortgage assignments, or sheer negligence, lenders frequently fail to maintain the proper documentation or authority to foreclose. The mortgage may have changed hands multiple times, sold to different entities, or bundled into securities. In many cases, the party claiming to own your loan isn’t even the rightful holder of the note. By filing an adversarial action, you compel the lender to prove their case in front of a judge, a move that can stop a foreclosure dead in its tracks.

Testimony of a banker about a foreclosure.

The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker's education and background.

The attorney asked the banker, "What is court exhibit A?"

The banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."

The attorney then asked, "Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?"

The banker responded by saying, "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."

The attorney asked, "What do you believe the agreement is?"

The banker quickly responded, saying, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check."

The attorney asked, "Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?"

The banker responded by saying, "Sure it does."

The attorney asked, "According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?"

The banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $200,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money."

The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

LivingLies.me

The problem with free speech is that it enables people to lie without fear. It is the dominant method of securing patrons for your business, votes for your candidate, and investors for your stock. Although frequently illegal, it doesn’t stop anyone from doing it. Only the lowly go to jail. The real big liars go on to make more pornographic profits.

The recent $1 Billion Settlement between Wells Fargo and its investors highlights this continuing problem. Repeatedly hit with “settlements” that implied a promise to consumers, the US government, and now investors, Wells Fargo has paid the tab and continued to fake the existence and status of financial accounts. The difference between Wells Fargo and its cousins on Wall Street is that Wells Fargo was caught multiple times.

The $25 Billion multi-state settlement was a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions (not a misprint or typo) stolen by Wall Street banks. What was missing from that settlement was any meaningful relief to homeowners who had lost the title to their homes because fake claims were presented with fake documents.

Editor's Note:  Many may not know about my personal war with the banks back in 2008 when that whole bank crisis occurred, a major battle over my mortgage that erupted when "the bank supposedly holding my mortgage went bankrupt!"  I didn't go bankrupt.  I was totally responsible, great credit record, etc., etc.  It was MY BANK THAT WAS IRRESPONSIBLE AND WENT BANKRUPT!  Anyway, that's why I periodically post articles like this to inform my readers about the massive, massive fraud that is going on regarding mortgages and virtually all "so-called securitized financial products." 

By Neil Garfeild

The second requirement is usually completely ignored by the homeowner, the lawyers, and the judge. But it is still there. The possessor of the note, once that is established and confirmed by competent evidence, must allege and prove that it is authorized to enforce the note. By legal definition accepted in all jurisdictions, a holder is not a holder in due course even if they satisfy the two aforesaid requirements.

So here is an exchange with a contributor and reader. She says that "they say that Caliber is the holder, not PennyMac."

The trick here is using complexity to conceal the truth of the matter asserted, to wit: the matter asserted is that the homeowner owes money to the claimant because the claimant owns an unpaid account receivable due from the homeowner. Further, the matter asserted usually by implication is that the claimant suffered economic damage because the homeowner stopped paying the claimant.

None of that is true, but good lawyers can make it true if the homeowner or the lawyer for the homeowner is not well versed on evidence and the rules of civil procedure.

Again here is why pro se litigants lose even though they are morally and legally right --- i.e., that there is no valid claim against them.

Editor's Note:  When asked "Where can I get a good mortgage?", the answer is unequivocally, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD MORTGAGE!  The banks have never offered anything even remotely close to a fair, reasonable mortgage.  Every mortgage is FRONT LOADED WITH MOST OF YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY GOING TO THE BANKERS IN THE FORM OF INTEREST PAYMENTS!  There is nothing fair or honest about how bankers have been stealing our money for centuries.  They have set it up so you buy one house and they get paid for THREE HOUSES by the time the loan is paid off. 

Combine this with the fact that the so-called money banks lend they create out of thin air in the form of credits.  You are NOT borrowing the bank's money, or anyone else's money for that matter.  The bankers have institutionalized legal counterfeiting for themselves!

If you look at it closely, what is the service the banks actually provide with regard to a mortgage?   The only service they actually provide is to post a credit to your account for the amount of the so-called "loan", which is simply created out of thin air, and then they simply do some basic accounting on the so-called "loan account".  Think about it.  You only pay a few bucks a month to banks to keep track of your savings/checking accounts.  That's all the service banks provide is really worth!  The bankers leverage their control over our monetary system to STEAL unimaginable amounts of money and resources from us all!

 

Federal Housing Finance Agency's mortgage pricing adjustments will increase fees for borrowers with high credit scores while reducing costs for those with subpar credit scores

ZeroHedge.com

Starting today, the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s mortgage pricing adjustments will increase fees for borrowers with high credit scores while reducing costs for those with subpar credit scores.

This upside-down policy is blatantly socialism, and one can’t help but wonder if anyone in the Biden administration learned anything from the subprime mortgage meltdown that occurred more than a decade ago.

Livinglies.me

Digging Into a $344 Billion Investing Mystery
Preposterous claims in private investment offerings illustrate an important point about red-hot ‘Reg D’ securities: No one is checking to see if the details in these filings are even remotely true

Read in The Wall Street Journal: https://apple.news/AgZkHAedTT3uDltWufgHMSg

Periodically, I warn lawyers, homeowners, and forensic auditors not to fall into the trap set by the mega banks but made available as such by the US Government. Suddenly 12 years after it was first proposed, a new rule is headed for enactment in which the SEC closes that loophole.

This poses two problems for the mega banks.

By Neil Garfield
 

No trust is regulated by the SEC. No reporting is required of any trust.

But by filing a prospectus, the investment bank gains access to the SEC.gov site. So they upload documents and then download the same documents so they can display the sec.gov in the header. They then falsely argue for judicial notice of a government document.

No document is a government document unless it is created by the government. Since the SEC did not issue the document and never reviewed or exercised any regulatory action, this is not a government document. It is a private document that the lawyers have dressed up to look like a government document. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 880 F. Supp. 1, 11 (D.D.C. 1995) (“documents are typically not agency records under the Act unless and until they are included within material controlled, created, approved and utilized by the agency itself. ”)

Ultimately all filings by the investment bank in relation to the fictitious trusts are followed by a filing that says, "we don't need to report anything." In 1998 the regulations were rolled back on the certificates sold to investors in which, by law, the certificates were categorized as private contracts and expressly asserted to be excluded from the category of securities and issuers that were regulated.

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.

Download the LSNJReport Here.

LivingLies.me

Why would anyone allow the forced sale of a home to satisfy a claim for that remedy if the claimant had no right to receive any compensation or restitution from the homeowner?

The only real claim by any claimant in foreclosures today is that they possess the information and have built an infrastructure around it. But none of them own any debt, note or mortgage. Restitution for an unpaid debt has been set aside as an invalid point or irrelevant.

The answer from the courts is that because consumers signed a note, they owe money and their house to the claimant regardless of any entitlement to receive any money. The absence of a lender, successor lender or owner of the debt or note is now irrelevant in most courts.

In a mortgage transaction, the debt is the amount of money that the borrower agrees to pay back to the lender. The note is the legally binding document that outlines the terms and conditions of the loan, including the amount of the debt, the interest rate, the repayment schedule, and any fees or charges associated with the loan.