Robo-Testifiers: Proof of Bank Attorney Involvement

Flyin Fraud

Robo-Testifiers: Proof of Bank Attorney Involvement

Trial orders generally require the parties to disclose their witnesses before trial. It is typical that, even though servicers rarely use more than one witness at trial, they list several, even dozens, (62 in the example below) all to testify about the same thing because they do not know which of the army of robo-testifiers will be assigned to the case. The very fungibility of these witnesses indicates that they have no personal knowledge of the facts of any particular borrower’s loan.

Note that the Florida evidence code permits parties to introduce documents into evidence at trial through “a certification or declaration” of the records custodian or other qualified witness that says that the records meet the “business records” hearsay exception. § 90.902, Fla. Stat. So there is no need to undergo the expense of training and transporting live witnesses, when they could just submit what is essentially an affidavit as to each set of records. This can only mean that the real records custodians/qualified witnesses will not testify as needed, not just because the banks attorneys are choosing the more expensive route, but because submitted such affidavits would expose the signers to deposition—just as the original robo-signers were.

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Example of Bank Witness List with 62 Names

Comments
6 Responses to “Robo-Testifiers: Proof of Bank Attorney Involvement”
  1. lvent says:

    That’s what I discovered by being forced to defend 2 FC’s myself PRO SE for the past 5 years in the most corrupt place there is.

  2. lvent says:

    The PLAINTIFF would be responsible for the DEPO of their own prosecuting witness because they entered the FORGERIES in the first place.

  3. Randall Stephens says:

    In my area depos of local witnesses typically run $2000. Deposing an out of state witness costs more. So at a minimum it would cost $124,000 in order to completely prepare for any witness that might be called by plaintiff.

    I’m guessing plaintiff’s counsel knows all of this.

  4. lvent says:

    They’re IDENTITY THIEVES & they’re not fooling everyone.

  5. lvent says:

    There should be DEPOS by the TITLE COMPANY AGENT whose name is on the HUD 1 & was supposed to INDEMNIFY our TITLES to protect them from FRAUD.

    My stolen social # 341-66-6698 was stolen by IDENTITY THEFT & they’re covering that up to hide their ELECTRONIC TRANSFERS which is CRIMINAL RACKETEERING by them.

  6. lvent says:

    They’re investors in their own FRAUD.

    Moreover, the FRAUD INVESTORS use the legal system to settle personal VENDETTAS with whoever they decide to victimize for nothing whatsoever.

    That’s how they unlawfully use INSURANCE FRAUD to CRIMINALLY UNDERMINE others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *