The internal narrative is that the way securitization was practiced in real life was likely criminal, illegal and erroneous. The internal story is that the Trust was never financed and hence could never have purchased any loans. These facts are understood in the mind of the trial lawyer but he/she will make no attempt to establish them because the Court in all likelihood would not allow it. But KNOWING the internal narrative results in decisions about weaknesses in the case of the opposing attorney. If the Trust never got the loan, the Trust had no right to be appointing servicers, agents, etc. and the Trustee had no power or relationship to the loan in litigation. The internal narrative is, in addition, that the loan contract never existed.
The external narrative (the one used in court) is that there is insufficient evidence that the Trust possessed the subject loan, and inadequate evidence that the so called servicer had any right to service the loan.
Using the external story the trial lawyer assaults the inconsistencies between the testimony, the trust documents (paying particular attention to the exhibits to the PSA which are often blank), and the attempt to hop over those defects by suddenly coming up with a Power of Attorney that STILL comes from the Trust (or a third party who was never in the alleged chain of documents proffered by the attorney for the foreclosing party).