Tuesday, July 9, 2013

CHASE, in the instant action, committed a fraud upon the Court by claiming to be the plaintiff. FANNIE MAE should have been the plaintiff as the owner of the note and mortgage

Do not miss reading this link concerning the court's proper identification of fraud on the court in a foreclosure case.


 I, regretfully, point out that the number of cases we have had where this should have been the position of the court are too numerous to count.  Facts clearly supporting this type of fraud, to this day despite all the news, are blatantly ignored by a lot of judges.

For the rest of us who are required to abide by the law, the underlying issue in the case is of no concern when it comes to the separate issue of fraud on the court.  For example, sure you may have the facts to win a case, but lying to the court is still actionable. 

With the banks, the "holder of the note" issue is the basis for dismissing most foreclosures yet the fraud on the court is allowed to persist

One has to wonder why the fraud is committed when courts eagerly dismiss cases the moment the original note appears.  Once counsel for the bank shows the original note the case will likely be dismissed, so why lie?  It is because the foreclosing entity is not truly the holder of the note, and explaining where the orig note was, and how it was obtained, is a road the banks do not want to go down.  Cross-examination of a sponsoring witness (something that rarely occurs, unfortunately - another difference between regular parties in court and banks when it comes to the admission of evidence) more often than not reveals that the foreclosing entity is/was, in fact, not the holder of the note - nonetheless the homeowner's challenge is still dismissed.

No comments:

Post a Comment