Tom Ice Uncovers Robowitness Script!
see http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202726876952/Thomas-Ice-Ocwen-Lawyer-SpoonFed-Questions-and-Answers-to-RoboWitnesses#ixzz3acD4fkZE
It was no surprise that the script existed for the “corporate representatives” who testify in court. And it shouldn’t be any surprise that Tom Ice uncovered it. These are robo-witnesses. In nearly all cases, the witness never worked for the bank or servicer other than testifying to facts they knew nothing about. If you sit in any foreclosure courtroom you will hear the exact same questions and the exact same answers every time for every bank and every servicer.
As many of us have previously pointed out — these scripts are obviously prepared by lawyers and used by lawyers who treat these witnesses like trained monkeys. Some lawyers have gotten into trouble for fabricated documents. Now it looks like they will get into trouble for fabricating testimony.
So you have a witness who might never have worked for any bank or servicer testifying as to their confidence that the information and documents presented in court are correct. Why do they say that? Because it is in the script and for no other reason. They are actors that cannot withstand a thorough cross examination. And that is the whole point. If you do the numbers, the banks and servicers lose a lot of cases now but the overwhelming majority of cases filed in Florida end up with a Foreclosure Judgment based upon the testimony of an incompetent witness.
In order to be a competent witness, the person MUST have all four of the following attributes:
It was no surprise that the script existed for the “corporate representatives” who testify in court. And it shouldn’t be any surprise that Tom Ice uncovered it. These are robo-witnesses. In nearly all cases, the witness never worked for the bank or servicer other than testifying to facts they knew nothing about. If you sit in any foreclosure courtroom you will hear the exact same questions and the exact same answers every time for every bank and every servicer.
As many of us have previously pointed out — these scripts are obviously prepared by lawyers and used by lawyers who treat these witnesses like trained monkeys. Some lawyers have gotten into trouble for fabricated documents. Now it looks like they will get into trouble for fabricating testimony.
So you have a witness who might never have worked for any bank or servicer testifying as to their confidence that the information and documents presented in court are correct. Why do they say that? Because it is in the script and for no other reason. They are actors that cannot withstand a thorough cross examination. And that is the whole point. If you do the numbers, the banks and servicers lose a lot of cases now but the overwhelming majority of cases filed in Florida end up with a Foreclosure Judgment based upon the testimony of an incompetent witness.
In order to be a competent witness, the person MUST have all four of the following attributes:
- Willing to take an oath
- Personal knowledge of the matters asserted. The witness must have seen or heard something. And that “something” must be probative of the claims.
- Personal recollection
- Ability to communicate those perceptions
Next Week on the Neil Garfield Show: HUGE DECISION Expected in Arizona Federal Court
Posted on May 21, 2015 by Neil Garfield
I have learned of a court proceeding in which the Judge expressed the opinion that in order for any of the mortgages to be valid (where MERS is involved) they would have to redraft the mortgage without MERS and get the borrower to sign a new one. Exactly what I said in 2007. Only now we have over 7 million illegal foreclosures based upon fraudulent and illegal mortgages and notes. MERS’ attorney estimated that the total number of mortgages affected could be 100 million. The Judge basically said it wasn’t his problem — it was the problem of the banks and MERS who devastated title records.
The question asked in Arizona Federal Court: Is there any case or statute under which MERS could be beneficiary of a deed of trust? The answer is no. Thus they cannot be the beneficiary, even for one second. Their title as “nominee” is as good as saying Donald Duck is the lender. MERS and Donald share something: they are both fictional characters.
No comments:
Post a Comment