Livinglies's Weblog

It is no surprise that Black Knight, previously known by other names including but far from limited to DOCX and Lender Processing Systems, is one fo the central control entities for the Wall Street investment banks in what is generally referred to as “securitization” schemes in which false claims are made regarding the securitization (sale) of unpaid loan accounts.

Summer chic has done an incredible amount of in-depth research that adds meat to the bones of homeowners defenses and claims.

In this case she provides a step by step guide to understanding the whole process of how negative credit reports containing false information are sent to what appears to be third-party companies posing as credit reporting agencies.

Both the reports and the verifications (required by law upon request of the party claimed to be a debtor) are false because there is no unpaid loan account receivable owned by the company on whose behalf the report is made. Frequently there are other false statements such as criminal records that are nonexistent ($3 million verdict for homeowner).

Hence the credit report is the utterance of a false instrument, based upon information the CRA knows to be false, the use of it by any creditor or prospective creditor is unlawful because most users know the information is false, and all of that is happening “in-house.”

Namely Black Knight performs or manages each and every function of receiving, collecting, processing, reporting, payment histories, reporting negative credit events essentially to itself.

The net effect of this is that it raises interest rates for the so-called “debtor” and even eliminates the homeowner’s prospect of getting alternative financing — something that Wall Street is dead set on blocking.

Imagine what would happen if homeowners were able to obtain alternative financing to submit an offer to pay off the entire balance as demanded or a fair settlement amount.

Every such closing is subject to due diligence on the title chain and the credentials of the designated creditor. Nobody wants a satisfaction of mortgage from a party who does not own the underlying obligation that is alleged to exist. Such an instrument would be void.

Such investigations would result in the revelation that the party demanding payment was not entitled to receive it. And the securitization infrastructures that support infinite revenue and profits would collapse.

The further implication is that virtually all hoemowners whoa re making or who have made payments according to a schedule presenting to them at closing, would have a valid claim to recover the payments made on the same principle.

Neither the “servicer” nor the designated “creditor” had any right to receive such payments nor any authority to execute any proceedings or documents concerning the payments received from homeowners (or the sale of their property) or any right, title or interest to any debt, note or mortgage.

And if further investigation were permitted by the court, it would be discovered that there is no lending party anywhere in the securitization infrastructure or in what is presented as the lending infrastructure.

There is no party that is owed any money at the  close of the transaction cycle with the homeowner. They have all been paid from the sale of securities — payments that were not credited to the nonexistent loan accounts mostly because Wall Street was allowed to do that under current accounting rules. So they received the payment but did not credit or even notify the homeowner.

Hence we are left with a transction in which the illusion of a debt is created, administered and enforced by central control entities like Black Knight, who performs most of these tasks for most of the securitization schemes.

The  fabrication of documents, fake “Business records”, and false implied claims of economic loss serve as one of the sources of titanic bonuses distributed on Wall Street because collections from homeowners have no place to go.

=====================

From Summer chic: We all owe her a deep debt of gratitude because she is relentless and accurate.

I continue my research on “credit reporting agencies” which are nothing but a scam to cover up the involvement of our old friends – Wall Street Banshists, Foley, Gravelle, Cogburn, etc

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »

Multiple reports around the country have demonstrated that there is overwhelming evidence of corruption in the office that records instruments in the title chain of real property.

*

In a few rare interviews, the people who run such offices have complained that they are being forced to record documents that are actually outside of the chain of title. This is all caused by fabricated documents used to weaponize the procedures allowed for the pursuit of foreclosure remedies.

*

20 years after it all began, it is apparent that the only real correction is going to come from political action rather than legal action. You must make noise to get people to listein. As Victor Frankel said decades agao, evil only flourishes when good people do nothing.

Filed under: foreclosure | 3 Comments »

Hat tip to summer chic

Echoing the questions issued by multiple judges when the mortgage meltdown became clear, the question I pose is the same as those posed by J udge Shack, Boyco and others back in 2007-2009:

Why is it that the largest  financial conglmerates in existence continually invesst together in companies that aid theirrespective enterprises. They suppsoedly compete with each other. WHy are they aiding their competitiors?

We see here the common investments by America’s largest “banks” in Equifax. But the exact same thing is true with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), and the all encompassing ICE (Intercontinental Exchange Inc).  and we see it  and companies that provide services that are designed to reinforce the illusion that the homeowner is involved in a loan transaction including but not limited to dozens of appraisal companies.

For those of us whose birthday is before 1990, we remember that antitrust laws were first created more than a century ago to prevent exactly this type of behavior. Those laws still exist.

The pervasive influence of corrupt “donations” from sources has tilted the economy away from the average citizen such that the Perpetrators accumulate power and money on a level that has never been experienced in human history. such behavior will not stop until antitrust laws are once again enforced with vigor.

============================

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »

Most lawyers and even homeowners have heard that for a settlement or modification to be approved, it needs to go up through several layers. After comparing notes with Bill Paatalo, I believe the following is a true description of the enforcement infrastructure for virtually all transactions with homeowners arising from business schemes that serve to sell securities.

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »

For 25 years, Ocwen and the companies it has “acquired” through mergers or acquisitions have been falsely allowing third parties to use its name to pose as lenders and servicers.

They have always been parties to Purchase and Assumption Agreements (both titled as such and using other titles) in which the complete ownership and control of any closing and servicing of any transaction with homeowners is vested in those third parties.

In short, the business of Ocwen has limited to collecting royalties for use of its name — the same MO as national banks who pose as trustees of nonexistent trusts implying nonexistent trust accounts with nonexisting unpaid loan accounts.

Ocwen has also allowed the hiring of robowitnesses to testify in court in sworn testimony — asserting that Ocwen (now PHH) is a servicer who receives, deposits, and distributes payments from homeowners to creditors. This has always been false.

Such witnesses, with full knowledge of Ocwen management, testify that reports offered in court are a compilation of data produced from Ocwen’s business of collecting and distributing money. This is also false. The financial technology (FINTECH) companies that perform all such work are not subject to any control or direction from Ocwen, nor are they working indirectly on Ocwen’s behalf.

In short, virtually all activities attributed to Ocwen are false. Legally they could not be the foundation for any admissible evidence in a court of law nor the foundation for any statement or notice (e.g., a notice of default) that FINTECH companies mail under the letterhead of Ocwen.

Ocwen and related companies appear in the chain of paper in hundreds of thousands of transactions that are falsely labeled as “mortgage loans.”

In my opinion, the facts recited above are all true and have never been contested by anyone. They have also served as the foundation for thousands of successful homeowners who won cases against the actors seeking foreclosure. In short, they are indisputably true.

Without Ocwen’s role in foreclosures claiming trillions of dollars due, there would have been no such foreclosures. While counterintuitive, the reason is simple. If the foreclosure actors used the name of any other party, who was actually involved in the money trail, they would have lost each foreclosure attempt, because there is no unpaid loan account on the books and records of any FINTECH company or any creditor named in the false statements, notes and claims filed by lawyers representing foreclosure mills.

Thus,  the potential liability for Ocwen, related companies, and even management is in the trillions. I posed this question to several well-placed people, who confirmed what I was saying was true. But they also said that Ocwen could employ the same strategies that saved these fake foreclosures in the 50-state settlement and other settlements and receive only minor fines.

However, if homeowners start contesting foreclosures regularly and they send the time, money, and energy to win them, this calculation could change. It would be out in the open that there is no “there” there.

Foreclosures cannot be successfully prosecuted without the existence of an unpaid loan account — which is the sole source of claiming injury. Financial injury is a condition precedent to filing any lawsuit or other action seeking foreclosure.

The potential liability for Ocwen is enormous. And while it is true that Ocwen is protected by indemnification agreements with the largest financial institutions in the world, it is equally likely that said institutions will throw Ocwen under the bus claiming that Ocwen was the source of the fraud and that, therefore, the indemnification can not be enforced.

This would leave Ocwen, a thinly capitalized company floating on assistance and “fees” from the thousands of securitization schemes supported by the use of Ocwen as a front for those schemes, in an untenable position. It would be bankrupt without a sufficient asset base and no further income from the role-playing.

Of course, that is my opinion and not direction on how to invest.

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

 In 2013, while I was litigating these cases in Tallahassee Florida, there were several circuit judges on the bench who were both thoughtful and analytical. They were the first ones (out of many judges) who questioned two specific aspects of the foreclosure crisis: (1) why were servicers changed so often? and (2) why were modifications seemingly random rather than following some logical basis?

Many other judges like Judge Shack in New York were liberal in their criticism of claims brought by competing entities consisting of the largest financial institutions in the world, operating out of the same Suite at the same address in West Palm Beach, Florida (an Ocwen address). And Judge Boyco in Ohio started ruling against the foreclosure claims before he was silenced. Several bankruptcy judges in California and other states were ruling against the foreclosrue mills as well until they too went dark.

And other Judges privately voiced their wondering about why any “lender” would offer the NINJA and other supposed “loans” offered in the lending marketplace. The alternate or option contracts were the most troublesome since they virtually guaranteed that the payments would not and could not be made after short periods of time — a clear TILA violation in which the “lender” is responsible for assessing viability of the deal. .

But in the absence of such issues being brought before the court in a coherent manner they felt constrained to rule for the lawyer representing the foreclosure mill.

Adam Levitin, who first coined the phrase “Securitization fail,” pointed out that modifications were not in the interest of servicers. He was right, but that was only part of the story. There was no securitization of debt. There was only securitization of data. And neither the debt nor the data was owned by anyone. In plain language, securitization eliminated the role of a creditor.

Adam was only partially right. It’s not really the fees that block servicers from modifying instead of foreclosing. They really don’t have a choice. Their entire purpose is to serve as the sham conduit for financial technology companies working for Wall Street securities brokerage firms. They have no power and do not handle, receive, process or distribute any money from homeowners.

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

Business has been transformed from the sale of goods and services to procuring the private information and signatures of consumers to generate revenue far above “price” of the target product or service that the consumer believed they were purchasing.

In the case of foreclosures or mortgage transactions, there is a complete absence of disclosure. In most other transactions, especially those online, the disclosure is hidden within the box labeled “I agree.”

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »

See https://www.marketwatch.com/picks/dramatic-increase-foreclosure-filings-are-up-more-than-150-heres-what-that-tells-us-about-the-housing-market-01659181360

Here is the unvarnished truth from the dark side:

The number of foreclosure starts — which is when the first public foreclosure notice happens — is up 219% since the start of the year, according to real estate data analytics firm ATTOM Data Solutions’ midyear 2022 U.S. foreclosure market report. What’s more, the number of properties that had foreclosure filings (this number includes foreclosure starts) is up 153% from the same time period last year.

There are several explanations for the spike in foreclosures that are recited in the above article. Some of them make no sense. But all the explanations have one thing in common: they assume the existence of an unpaid loan account receivable on the books and records of someone, even if it is not the named claimant. Therefore even if there are defects, deficiencies, and fabrication of documents, illegal foreclosures continue to be permitted.

The courts are routinely winking and nodding their way through a myriad of such defects, deficiencies, and fabrications on the strength of the doctrine encapsulated in “damnum absque injuria.” That is a violation without injury since the homeowner was obviously in default and therefore should lose the property pledged as collateral for the “loan.” So if there really was an unpaid loan in default, what is the harm? Under that doctrine, the violations are acknowledged, but the result is not changed because there is no injury to anyone. This follows the fundamental doctrine that there is no claim without injury.

Here is the rest of the story.

Nearly all foreclosures are based upon a false claim that someone is losing money because the homeowner did not make a scheduled payment. Both law and the popular consensus agree that in the absence of injury there is no claim. But for 25 years, continuing through the date of publication of this blog article, foreclosures have been successfully invoked despite the absence of such injury.

The injury is absent but the claims persist. This was considered impossible and obviously illegal until the ascent of false claims of securitization. Those claims were based on the false narrative that investors were buying shares of loans. There were no loans and the transactions conducted with homeowners and investors resulted in no sales to any third party of any kind.

Contractually there was an offer and acceptance of loans just like Mr. Ponzi and Mr. Madoff offered shares in a scheme that did not exist. And just like all scams, the start was mostly legitimate and then veered off into the highly profitable world of illusion. 

This was made possible by the use of accounting tricks and “liberalizing” accounting rules such that a potential creditor could receive payment in full and still maintain the illusion of a valid claim. This was all predicted in the 1960s by Abraham Brilloff (RIP) in his book “Unaccountable Accounting.” If anyone wants to join me in republishing this book, his heirs have already given permission. It will take about $10,000 to do it.

The end result or conclusion of all of this, as most people suspect, is that homeowners are still paying the price for the mortgage meldown and the perpetrators of that Ponzi scheme are still doing it and still generating obscene amounts of money. This money is then subject to the absolute discretion the of management of Wall Street firms who can choose to report the revenue or not and choose to pay taxes or not.

If a bailout is the payment of money to rescue someone, the banks never received a bailout. What they have consistently received are extra extravagant revenues and profits. That provides a pool of money (trillions of dollars) that the Wall Street securities brokers (“investment banks”) control and divvy out to politicians, state and federal agencies (the revolving door of employment after work at an agency), and thousands of individuals and companies that are paid to shut up and play along.

There are other analogs in history like tobacco, oil, and slavery, but this one easily surpasses the size and scope of those dark periods in American history — at least if one is to measure only economic effects. If you add social effects, the others are obviously more comparable.

EVERYONE IS ADDICTED TO YOUR MONEY.

And once again, like any Big Lie, this persists because most people believe that if I were right, everyone would know it. The success of Big Lies depends upon being so outrageous that everyone hearing it, especially if it is repeated broadly and loudly, will gradually or impulsively believe it to be true.

So once again, I challenge and defy anyone who is trained, experienced, and licensed in the financial sector with personal knowledge of the inner workings of what is generally referred to as securitization and derivatives to say I am wrong  — and then explain how I am wrong. In 16 years, nobody in CLE seminars or any other venue has ever accepted that challenge — on stage or off stage. Instead, in live seminar sessions, the participants clear a 20-foot radius around where I am seated so they won’t get fired by being “friendly with the enemy.”

HOMEOWNERS CAN AND SHOULD WIN FORECLOSURE CASES

Any homeowner who reads this and believes it is merely accepting the possibility that it might be true despite all appearances and statements to the contrary. That is the start of a successful defense strategy that can, and usually does, result in victory for the homeowner.

When that happens, you will be asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) in exchange for the payment of money. You will also be asked to agree that the court record can be scrubbed. And, of course, neither side appeals. So there is effectively no record of the homeowner’s victory, and most people end their inquiry with a Google search or search for appellate opinions that don’t exist.

Lawyers who believed me in 2006-2009 made millions of dollars defending foreclosure victims. But one by one, they were chased out of the marketplace by bar associations and agencies responding to the undue influence of Wall Street.

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »

CFPB Issues Revised Administrative Litigation Procedures, Signaling Possible Increase in In-House Adjudications

Officials at the CFPB have cautiously opened the door to administrative hearings conducted by the Bureau, subject to the administrative procedures act. This may sound like boring stuff, but the end result could be the ability to bring claims in an administrative hearing rather than in court.

Even the current revised administrative litigation procedures represent a paradigm shift by the Biden administration that harkens back to the initial reaction of the George W. Bush administration. It was the opinion of President Bush that no help should have been offered by the government to the banks. He considered the banks to have been the direct cause of the problems that became apparent in 2008. Bush was right, and now so is Biden.

If such administrative proceedings are allowed (which they ought to be), a hearing officer rather than a judge or magistrate would hear the evidence and make rulings on discovery and objections. Given the context of the agency such rulings would most likely diverge from many of the common rulings emanating from judges in court proceedings.

In plain language, a complaint could be filed with the Bureau challenging the existence, status, and authority over an implied or alleged unpaid loan account.  It is highly unlikely that lawyers representing a foreclosure mill would be successful at convincing the hearing officer to simply rely on presumptions arising from what appear to be facially valid documents.

I believe that any agency charged with regulating any activities in the marketplace or society should be required to conduct in-house hearings for the agency to arrive at findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Those findings of fact and conclusions of law might be subject to challenge in a subsequent court proceeding.  But the administrative findings would carry the presumption of validity.

So if the CFPB hearing officer decided that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of unpaid loan account receivable and insufficient evidence to establish the ownership of such an account, even if it did exist, the burden of persuasion and the burden of proof would shift to the attorney representing the foreclosure mill.

This would essentially leave the attorney in the foreclosure mill hanging naked in the wind. Unless they could convince a judge to overturn the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by an administrative law judge, all of their efforts to claim rights to administer, collect or enforce the alleged or implied unpaid loan account (the underlying obligation) would vanish. I don’t think that is likely to happen.

This move by the CFPB should be encouraged by all consumers of financial products, particularly any financial product that involves installment payments. It would vastly reduce the cost of litigation, and it would end the dispute at a much earlier time than is currently available to any consumer with a meritorious defense.

Currently, such consumers generally are required to litigate to the bitter end, often spending tens of thousands of dollars, to reach a conclusion that there is insufficient evidence that the parties named by the opposition have any right, justification, or excuse for claiming any authority to administer, collect or enforce an implied or claimed obligation  (for which there is also insufficient evidence of the existence, status or balance).

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »

I don’t think that is is unfair to say that much of the financial system as operated today is taking money, wealth and opportunity from the poor and middle class and giving it to the rich (management and stockholders) of companies that label themselves as conducting “financial services.” But it is both unfair and unwise to advocate throwing out a system that has in fact served better than any other financial system devised in history.

But theft and deception are not the economic equivalent to capitalism or free market forces.

I also don’t think that it is unfair to say that we are not currently operating under free market forces. Most of our marketplace is dominated by titanic entities who have reached such levels of dominance mainly because they wanted to and the government refused to exercise the control that was established in the antitrust and Securities Exchange acts. Free market forces are not oeprating when the market is not free. If consumers are deprived of choices and information about the offerings in the marketplace, there are no free market forces.

Adminsitrative agenc ies, currently struggling with rule making are failing to simply inquire about the true nature of financial products. It simply does n’t ake long to inquire about whether a particular named creditor is reporting ownership of an unpaid loan account receivable or not. Public frustration with such   agencies stems precisely from the general awareness that something is wrong and that the government is neither clarifying the issues nor doing anything about the obvious injusticies.

Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman, admits that he placed too much confidence in free market forces correcting for any excesses promulgated by Wall Street. But he and his successors have failed to appreciate why free market forces failed to make that correction. It was because the government had been corrupted by Wall Street money — in the form of donations or future employment.

Many consumers are reluctant to pay an attorney or forensic expert to help defend against claims for administration, collection, and enforcement for money that is implied to be due from them. Thir reluctance is understandable since they honestly believe that their installment payment “Contract” is a credit contract and that any defense would only serve to delay the “inevitable” rather than avoid it.

Most such consumers could win the case simply because there is no legal debt. It is the failure of consumers, attorneys, and the courts to recognize this as a possibility that has led to the wholesale displacement and theft of wealth from most Americans who have been lured into executing legal instruments reflecting a credit transaction under false pretenses.

There is no credit transaction — not at the beginning in most cases, and certainly not at the time of enforcement. The legal instruments executed and issued by the consumer are an accurate reflection of the consumer’s intent but are not an accurate reflection of the intent of the parties who are serving up financial products by withholding vital, legally required information about the deal.

The courts routinely ignore consumer rights under Federal and State statutes because the true legal issues are never presented. B ut once the pro se homeowner/consumer or lawyer strips away or picks at the legal presumptions arising from the new instruments (assignments and endorsements), they will find that the lawyer for the debt collect or foreclosure mill has no capability or willingness to provide evidence of the existence, status or authority over the implied debt.

The main problem, as always, much of the use of the word “debt.” Much of the skulduggery that has been successfully pursued by conduits and intermediaries for Wall Street investment banks, has been achieved by use of that word  (debt) in oral argument without any direct allegation that it exists.

So my comment to this is that people who are involved in debt collection should be defined as those who are pursuing any debt or alleged debt. Further, the alleged and actual debt should only be accepted at face value if there is an allegation and an exhibit demonstrating the claim that an unpaid account receivable exists and is owned by the named claimant. If these corrections were inserted into financial protection statutes designed to prevent illegal or unconscionable behavior aimed at consumers, many “debt collectors” and attorneys representing such companies would be out of business.

Filed under: foreclosure | Leave a comment »

Hat tip to Summer chic

I have been receiving a lot of really good contributions from Summer chic, and she deserves a big atta girl. Her latest is the issue raised by the Bruce’s Beach case in which property owned by a family, fair and square, was subject to several instruments of conveyance that made their property the property of someone else. After 100 years, the family finally got the property back, but it is important to note that this was a political decision, not a legal one.

So here is the edited version my answer to summer chic:

The problem of course is that the Bruce’s case ended with a return of the land as a political decision rather than a legal one. On the legal side there are actually good solid legal arguments going both ways.

On the dark side, even if a transfer of legal title is recorded in error or fraudulently or even unconstitutionally, there has to be some point in time where the transfer becomes valid for all time. This is why we have statutes of repose in addition to statutes of limitation.

On the lighter side, the argument of the dark side should not be allowed because it incentivizes exactly what has happened in the lending marketplace over the last 25 years. People will try to fraudulently induce homeowners to enter into transactions that are not subject to any good faith or truthful disclosure. Then they will try to keep the homeowners in the dark until the statute of limitations or statute of repose has expired.

I would also add that foreclosures are mostly considered to be actions in equity and not at law. In equity, judges have the discretion to make things right.

The dark side is attempting to cover their bases the same way as the lead up to fraudulent foreclosure claims. After a successful foreclosure, there are multiple transfers of title. Many of those are fake. Thus the argument against making things right is that the court would need to unwind multiple presumed transactions both before and after the foreclosure was complete. That argument is generally received by friendly ears on the bench. It assumes that even if the “former” homeowner is completely and legally correct, the disruption to the title chain and all of the apparent (facial) transactions is too great.

And that is exactly the argument that was used in the state of Florida and other states that expressly limit the amount of time in which a homeowner can attempt to put things right. Those statutes then purport to grant a right of action for damages, which are subject to statutes of limitation and statutes of repose.

But as we all know, the facts and legal grounds for a cause of action for damages on behalf of a homeowner who has been defrauded through the weaponization of the foreclosure procedures are not generally known or understood by homeowners, who have no access to such information and who have been deprived of such information by the securitization actors who intentionally withhold such information and even disseminate disinformation.

So the question becomes whether we will ever come to terms with state and federal law making and rulemaking that attempts to legalize that which was completely illegal and inequitable.

Right up to the date that I am writing this most homeowners and nearly all lawyers and judges believe the disinformation that has been disseminated by Wall Street, thus hiding their misdeeds and thwarting the possibilities or opportunities for making things right. I personally agree completely that both legal precedent and equitable principles entitle “former” homeowners to recover possession of property that has been subject to foreclosure based upon completely false pretenses arising from fabricated documents containing false statements and references.

And once again I issue a challenge to anyone with personal knowledge and experience in investment banking such that they have personal knowledge of the facts surrounding claims of securitization: tell me or anyone I am wrong. In 16 years you have not done so. Instead, you pay or send ignorant people out to make wild claims about me or the “theories” of Neil Garfield. They are not theories and they are not mine. This is all fact and while people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not, as Senator Patrick Moynihan said, entitled to their own facts. There is a difference.

Filed under: foreclosure | 3 Comments »

I was researching something when I ran across a recent filing from a Citigroup document that is called a Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Anyone who reads these pages knows that they’re not pooling loans. They are pooling the receipt of payments — regardless of whether the collection was legal or illegal — and the parties executing the agreement are only figureheads.

I have had several cases in which the homeowner won because the lawyer for the foreclosure mill relied upon a document entitled “Pooling and Servicing Agreement.” Besides the fact that everything in there is an agreement relating to future events and does not represent a conveyance or memorialization of any past transaction, it is usually true that the copy presented to the court lacks many details.

Specifically, the PSA usually lacks a mortgage loan schedule that is certified or authenticated by the records custodian of any company that was a party to the supposed PSA agreement. And we have determined that this is because the MLS does not yet exist. (See above — all provisions relate to future events).

So the PSA cannot be used as evidence or proof that the alleged REMIC trust owns anything or that anyone else in the agreement does either. In fact, there is no warranty of title or any “Whereas” clause that U.S. Bank, N.A., for example, has been entrusted with the loans shown on the MLS by the present owner or Seller who owns the underlying obligation and not just some future claim deriving its value solely from apparent (facial) ownership of a note or mortgage. No such representation appears because no such creditor or owner exists.

So if you ask for the MLS that was valid when PSA was executed, you won’t get any answer from a person with personal knowledge or authority to say that. This undermines the entire foundation of the foreclosure claim.

But it also occurred to me that the typical PSA always references forms for affidavits etc. So my interim suggestion, besides the other suggestions I have written about on this blog, is that you might ask to see those forms — but only after the attorney for the foreclosure mill references it as the basis of authority for the alleged “servicer,” “REMIC trust,” or REMIC Trustee. Here is a list taken straight out of the Citigroup form I uncovered:

Exhibit A-1 Form of Class A-1 Certificate
Exhibit A-2 Form of Class A-2 Certificate
Exhibit A-3 Form of Class A-3 Certificate
Exhibit A-4 Form of Class A-4 Certificate
Exhibit A-5 Form of Class A-AB Certificate
Exhibit A-6 Form of Class X-A Certificate
Exhibit A-7 Form of Class X-B Certificate
Exhibit A-8 Form of Class A-S Certificate
Exhibit A-9 Form of Class B Certificate
Exhibit A-10 Form of Class EC Certificate
Exhibit A-11 Form of Class C Certificate
Exhibit A-12 Form of Class D Certificate
Exhibit A-13 Form of Class X-D Certificate
Exhibit A-14 Form of Class E Certificate
Exhibit A-15 Form of Class F Certificate
Exhibit A-16 Form of Class G Certificate
Exhibit A-17 Form of Class R Certificate
Exhibit B Mortgage Loan Schedule
Exhibit C Form of Request for Release
Exhibit D Form of Distribution Date Statement
Exhibit E Form of Transfer Certificate for Rule 144A Global Certificate to Temporary Regulation S Global Certificate
Exhibit F Form of Transfer Certificate for Rule 144A Global Certificate to Regulation S Global Certificate
Exhibit G Form of Transfer Certificate for Temporary Regulation S Global Certificate to Rule 144A Global Certificate during Restricted Period
Exhibit H Form of Certification to be given by Certificate Owner of Temporary Regulation S Global Certificate
Exhibit I Form of Transfer Certificate for Non-Book Entry Certificate to Temporary Regulation S Global Certificate
Exhibit J Form of Transfer Certificate for Non-Book Entry Certificate to Regulation S Global Certificate
Exhibit K Form of Transfer Certificate for Non-Book Entry Certificate to Rule 144A Global Certificate
Exhibit L-1 Form of Affidavit Pursuant to Sections 860D(a)(6)(A) and 860E(e)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as Amended
Exhibit L-2 Form of Transferor Letter
Exhibit L-3 Form of Transferee Letter
Exhibit L-4 Form of Investment Representation Letter
Exhibit M-1A Form of Investor Certification for Obtaining Information and Notices (for persons other than the Controlling Class Representative and/or a Controlling Class Certificateholder)
Exhibit M-1B Form of Investor Certification for Non-Borrower Party (for the Controlling Class Representative and/or a Controlling Class Certificateholder)

A careful reading of these forms will reveal what I have been saying all along. There has never been a certificate that conveyed ownership of an underlying obligation as required by state statutes as a condition precedent to the conveyance being a legal event. Without the underlying obligation, the paper conveyance is a legal nullity — something that most pro se homeowners and seven some lawyers have difficulty grasping.

The bottom line is that if you want to win these cases, you can. And the way to do that is simply to ask for things that must have been present when the foreclosure started. Any first-year law student can tell you what must be true for anyone to claim a right to foreclosure. When the lawyer for the foreclosure mill fails or refuses to properly respond to those requests, the case shifts from being creditor vs debtor to Judge vs Foreclosure Mill. Guess who wins that fight?

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

Filed under: foreclosure | 1 Comment »

In order for an assignment of mortgage to be effective, the property owner must be given notice by the existing owner of the mortgage lien acknowledging that there had been a transfer of ownership of the mortgage lien to a new, identified owner of the mortgage lien.  In order to enforce the mortgage lien, the mortgage instrument must be recorded and it must be facially valid (that is, apparently valid because of compliance with existing statute). There is no time limit on recording the mortgage instrument after it has been executed by an authorized officer of the previous owner of the mortgage lien.

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »

Lavis v. Reverse Mortg. Sols., No. 18-2180, at *6 (4th Cir. July 14, 2022)  the trial court “stated that “[a] finding that RMS is entitled to tender, despite its disregard of its obligations over a period of years and its failure to take any measures to preserve its rights under the statute, would incentivize lending institutions to follow RMS’ poor example.” J.A. 2835. ”)

This decision is a perfect example of chutzpah, delusion, and legislation from the bench. The trial court was 100% correct, and the Appellate panel was 100% wrong.

Lavis v. Reverse Mortg. Sols., No. 18-2180, at *2 (4th Cir. July 14, 2022) (“We begin with an overview of TILA. Congress passed TILA “to help consumers ‘avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing.'” Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. 259, 261 (2015) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a)). In furtherance of this goal, TILA requires lenders to make certain disclosures to consumer borrowers. 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a); see also Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC, 678 F.3d 271, 276 (4th Cir. 2012). One of the required disclosures is the borrower’s right to rescind a consumer credit transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a).”)

I agree that is the purpose, the intent, and the policy established by Congress, and signed into law by the President of the United States in the 1960s.  The question of whether or not a homeowner was required to do anything other than give notice of their intent to rescind has been litigated up to and including SCOTUS. To be even more specific, the question of whether or not the homeowner was required to tender any money to any claimant before TILA rescission was effective has also been litigated up to and including SCOTUS.  In all such cases, the decision was that both the intent of the statute and its content established the nullification of the note and mortgage “by operation of law.”

Judge Scalia penned the Jesinoski decision, and he was clearly bristling against the point that any other “interpretation” was even allowed, much less warranted.

Like many pro-business decisions, this decision is based on a policy argument that has already been resolved by the legislative branch.  No court has the right to interpret a statute out of existence. But that is exactly what the Fourth Circuit has done in this case.

Congress made a choice between establishing a gigantic new federal agency to monitor the details of every mortgage loan transaction or putting teeth in the statute requiring disclosures such that the penalty for violation would be so great that no actor in the lending marketplace would cross the line.  Congress decided on the second choice. This decision from the fourth circuit expressly overrules the statute and various decisions made by various courts, including the United States Supreme Court.

Yet the decision from the Fourth Circuit should come as no surprise. State and federal courts have been ignoring the obvious intent and the obvious, unambiguous provisions of the statute.  The courts routinely ignored and avoided the arguments of any homeowner who made the allegation that they had rescinded within the three-year time period set forth in the statute. The statute said there was no lien and no note. The statute said that the mortgage and note were replaced by the statutory scheme for repayment.

Hundreds of thousands of foreclosures have been conducted using nonexistent mortgages and notes as the foundation of the claim. The statute says that both the mortgages and the notes were eliminated by operation of law or merely upon the sending of the homeowner’s notice of the intent to rescind the transaction. Without that, there is no mechanism for enforcement of the disclosure requirements contained in the truth in lending act.

Boiling this down to the essentials: The Federal Statute says that the mortgage lien does not exist. The state statute says that foreclosure is the enforcement of existing mortgage liens. The foreclosure of a mortgage lien that has been rendered void by operation of law is logically and legally void.  This is not a question of clouded title. There is no question because there is no title. All such foreclosures are void according to both state and federal law.

Legally, the people who owned those properties possess the right to eject (evict) anyone from using those properties without their permission.  This strategy has been successfully used multiple times. The officers of recording offices in the counties in which deeds and mortgages are recorded are all aware of the problem — many of whom have stated openly that there is no clear title anymore.

And many if not most consumers know it. This accounts for much of the distrust of government and government institutions. Recording offices are intended to provide certainty in the marketplace. They can’t do that when courts refuse to comply with clear, unambiguous law.

Without allowing the statute to be given effect in courts, the disclosure requirements of the TILA statutes and the rescission enforcement mechanism for compliance were rendered not just moot but nonexistent. And once again, Congress, led by so-called conservatives, is doing nothing to reassert its authority over the matter. And so, despite the law being on the books for over 60 years, it will not be applied, thus clearing the way for thieves and grifters to dominate the lending marketplace.

The 4th Circuit says we cannot do things that way because the penalty is too great. They are wrong on many levels.

First, they don’t know if there is actually a penalty — i.e., loss to anyone. They had nothing in front of them that corroborated the assumption (or presumption) that RMS had suffered a loss. If there was no loss, then there was no penalty. Since virtually all transactions that are labeled as “loans” are actually paid in full several times over by the creation, issuance, sale, and trading of unregulated securities, the existence of an unpaid loan account receivable that is maintained on the books of a creditor as the creditor’s asset is at best questionable. Since no such creditor in any foreclosure action has ever shown that it maintained such a loan account, we can safely assume that they don’t have it, they don’t own it, and therefore could not have suffered any loss in that account.

Second, even if there was a penalty suffered by violators of the statute, that was the point. It was either that or establish a grandiose nitpicking federal agency that would check every detail of every mortgage loan transaction. It was one or the other. If there was no enforcement mechanism at all, which is what the courts seem to be saying, then there was no point in passing the Federal Truth in Lending Act or any of its complementary successors.

But the court was correct in that the rescission statute does not automatically void the underlying obligation. It merely replaces the contractual mechanism for collection with a statutory mechanism.  However, the homeowner was nonetheless correct that the obligation no longer existed. That is because the right of the claimant to collect on the underlying obligation is barred by the statute of limitations on TILA claims. Since the claimant neither complied with the statute nor applied for relief from rescission, their claim for recovery of the underlying obligation under the provisions of the statute expired.

========

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: foreclosure | 6 Comments »

I have had a large number of decent civil conversations with many people who consider themselves lifelong conservatives and who use the slogan “Stop the Steal.” My conclusion is that they believe in the slogan. And they are not attempting to propel lies into public discourse. They understand the facts. They continue to promote the slogan because it stands for the foundation of current political unrest. And I find that many Democrats and Independents (not all) agree with the premise when phrased without the slogan.

So what is it? Based upon thousands of emails, comments, and conversations with people of all stripes on the political spectrum, most people simply believe that the government has enabled theft from the consumer, the worker, and people who intended to be borrowers in a traditional loan transaction. Further, once the illegal activity is exposed, the government has refused to make corrections, prosecute the business entities that committed the violations, and even rewarded the perpetrators.

In my opinion, the true basis for the behavior of the prior administration was the government itself, which was doing the same outlandish things that Democrats decry as reason enough to give them full power despite their absence on the political battlefield. The reason for the apathy of Democratic voters is that the party has failed to convince anyone that they will actually produce a result that corrects the imbalances in our society.

There are hundreds of laws and regulations on the books concerning consumer protection, antitrust, and the creation of government agencies to regulate and even stop fraud from being committed against the American consumer. For the last 4 decades, the enforcement and even the acknowledgment of such laws and regulations have been ignored. People understand this happened because of a conscious policy decision by the government to preserve and even assist the thieves who have consistently undercut the wages, wealth, and welfare of the average American citizen.

Politicians point to the growth of GDP and the DOW. But the majority of Americans are suffering from stagnant earnings imposed by illegal maneuvers in the marketplace designed to remove participation of the average American in the “growth” that is touted by those politicians.

Governance by both parties has overtly allowed the imbalance and inequality to grow despite clear evidence that raising the wage and opportunities for the creation and growth of wealth results in a MORE vibrant economy and BETTER overall survival of companies. History does not lie.

Herman Daly, who recently surfaced again, has been arguing for decades that the love affair with the slogan “growth” or the slogan “GDP” must end. We are neither measuring national economic growth nor measuring the economic welfare of the average American citizen. That is what the “Stop the Steal” proponents are so angry about.

Announcements and reporting of current “measurements” of GDP and the DOW are merely tools of propaganda to convince all of us that prosperity is just around the corner.  For most people, it isn’t. For decades the number of people who have been able to keep pace with inflation has been shrinking. And most people do not believe the government and the media propagated myths — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Very few people understand how they become victims but know or believe they have been cheated and defrauded in most or even all of their major transactions. I think they are correct. They have been unable or demoralized (and distracted) from opposing the forces of organizations that claim “capitalism” as the basis of their activities but whose revenues and profits come strictly from cheating consumers, closing out options for competing products and services, and frequent government support, directly or indirectly. That government support is at the expense of the American taxpayer, the American homeowner, the American consumer, and the American government itself.

As many of the readers of this blog have pointed out, the list of activities by so-called business entities is nearly endless in its depiction of those activities as crimes for which an individual would be aggressively prosecuted and imprisoned.

American media started out doing investigative journalism about the 2008 crash and suddenly went dark as they neared the truth about the players and the illegal activities that produced worthless junk masquerading as loans and certificates that were merely betting on the future announcements of performance of transactions with homeowners. Some of those high-profile journalists have admitted in private that they were shut down. So people of all stripes are suspicious of the media, much of which is owned by titanic corporate enterprises or people of titanic wealth.

Whether the voters are from a rural or dense urban area, they all agree that they are not getting a fair shake or a fair opportunity. The problem is neither ignorance nor ideology. The problem is that the people are right.  So, at the risk of incoming hate mail from my liberal friends, I suggest we stop vilifying those who chant “Stop the Steal” and maybe join them on the underlying sense of betrayal. We can fix this if we all admit that there is a problem. We will never fix it, and the political divide will get more strident if we don’t admit it.

Filed under: foreclosure | 8 Comments »

It all starts with the assumptions you make at the beginning of the case, which is actually the declaration of default.  There is only going to be one witness designated by one company and proffered by one lawyer who is prosecuting the claim for foreclosure remedies. That one witness is generally a contract labor “employee” who knows absolutely nothing relevant to your transaction.

*

I think you should be asking about data that is generated by them. The actual money trail is confusing. Maybe this will help.

This is exactly why I have successfully argued that the copies of reports proffered to the courts on behalf of the company that was designated as a servicer are barred from evidence because they are both hearsay and hearsay on hearsay.

In addition there is no foundation for the admission of what they are calling “payment history.” Those reports are not business records because they are not records of any business conducted by the company that was designated as being a servicer.

If they are not business records, the other questions about whether they were kept in the ordinary course of business or made at or near the time of a transaction conducted by the company become irrelevant.

If they are not business records they are not qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule and therefore they are not admissible as evidence.

But a common  error  both before a hearing or trial and during, is the failure to object at the time that the witness starts testifying and proffering documents.

In most cases, the failure to object is taken to mean that the homeowner or the lawyer who is representing the homeowner has waived that objection.

Having waived the objection, for purposes of the case at bar, the testimony generally must be accepted as being true and the documents must be accepted as being authentic records of business conducted by the company that was designated as being a servicer (despite the fact that they conducted no such business).

This is court procedure not court bias.

Once you eliminate their ability to testify, you eliminate their ability to introduce any documents. They won’t have another witness. No officer of the company that was designated as being a creditor will ever execute any affidavit or testify that his employer is the owner of an unpaid loan account receivable.

Filed under: foreclosure | 4 Comments »

I take a break from my usual advice, consulting, strategies, tactics, and research on the current excesses in our economic system that allows lying and stealing to be covered and allowed as “capitalism.” Stealing is not capitalism. The sanctity of the contract requires consent. Homeowners had no idea about the true nature of their transactions with entities posing as lenders. Thus there could be no consent.

OK. I said I was taking a break to discuss recovery from a heart attack.  As most of you are already aware, I had another one on June 2. It was a surprise to all concerned — including doctors who administered 30 minutes of CPR. Thank goodness it did not result in broken ribs, which is often the case. But it did leave me with a bruised chest, legs, arms, neck, shoulders and back. And it reminded me that death is Nature’s way of telling you to slow down.

After the major medical intervention, I woke up feeling extremely fragile, vulnerable, and confused. For one thing, seeing myself in a hospital room with my daughter standing over me along with my cardiologist was a surprise. For another, the news that I had suffered a “massive” heart attack and was lucky to be alive was something that I had difficulty processing. What were they talking about? The last thing I remembered is that I was going for a follow-up appointment to my primary care physician. It was now 2 days later.

My strength and stamina were virtually zero. Despite them saying I was a miracle man for surviving, I did not feel like a miracle. I was in pain from head to toe.

After 9 days, I was discharged and my daughter drove me home. I have lived with her since 2016 when doctors told me to stop going to court. At first, I required help doing virtually everything. My brother is a cardiologist in South Florida. He told me to get over the despair and depression that comes from such fragility and that I would noticeably improve daily. It was difficult to accept his optimism. As for what appeared to be memory loss, he said to think of it as a concussion. At first, you might not be able to remember your own name. It was never that bad for me but it was disconcerting.

Then there was Lasix, which every patient recovering from a heart attack is required to take, at least for a while. This essentially drains fluid out of the body to reduce the pressure in the heart. It also drains out all the electrolytes leaving the patient dizzy, disoriented and foggy. I learned that the intake of this or any other diuretic must be timed properly, monititored closely, and offset by well-timed rehydration.

I had to use a walker to get around the house until suddenly, I didn’t need it anymore. Each improvement step was a surprise and jolted me back to the reality that I would get better instead of the “all is lost” mentality plaguing me.

Most of all, many things that most survivors experience that are not described by the doctors. In our hypervigilant minds, this leaves us wondering whether the latest pain, symptom, or event is significant. I found that reading a book written by a psychologist who had done a phenomenal amount of research helped me “know” what was in store for me. The book is “Thriving with Heart Disease,” and the author is Wayne M. Sotile, Ph.D. It has great information for both patients and caretakers.

I am now entering the phase of cardiac rehab — 1 1/2 hours every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I wanted to rebel against this regimen. But I cannot deny that my mental, emotional and physical stamina needs building. This is the test. I will find out just how much better I will get and maybe a clue about how much longer I will live.

Speaking of which, about 100 people have now asked whether I saw the light or experienced what others have described as a death or near-death experience. My answer disappoints everyone. I recall nothing from the experience. I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the afterlife.

I will continue to add to my body of work on this blog. There are literally thousands of articles — many of which are in-depth — about the alleged “mortgage meltdown.” I, of course, contend that the explosion in derivatives had nothing to do with the creation of loan accounts and everything to do with creating and selling unregulated securities — all in unmonitored securities accounts.

For their part, homeowners failed to receive compensation in their essential role of executing documents that memorialized transactions that never happened. Thus was born the “virtual loan transaction” (hereinafter VLT), which had no analog or support in statutory or common law, replacing the traditional transactions that created an asset on the books of the “lender” (and its successors upon sale of the unpaid loan account).

VLTs are neither enforceable nor legally subject to recognition. They’re legal nullities. And there is plenty of statutory and common law support for that proposition. The conveyance of a mortgage, either originally or to a successor, is always a legal nullity if it does not also transfer the unpaid loan account receivable owned by the seller (i.e., the underlying obligation).

I will continue to oppose the efforts of those who want to chalk the resulting slaughter of homeowners as judicial corruption. The premise is false, and while it might have some value in generating donations and in providing a vehicle for venting frustrations, it diverts energy from real tasks at hand: sharpening the language of the statutes and winning these cases one case at a time, as I have done for 16 years.

I will also complete the writing of my book on the crisis, including how-to information on the successful defense of foreclosure and some proactive measures that homeowners can take that will not be dismissed out of hand like the current attempts to bring wrongful foreclosure actions against false claimants with no claim.

And I will be developing an up-to-date forms library for pro se homeowners and their lawyers. That is already in the works.

And on a more selective basis, I will provide service and assistance to individual homeowners and a few attorneys left who are willing to believe that consumer defense can be accomplished successfully and profitably for lawyers.

That’s my current status. Thanks for reading.

Filed under: foreclosure | 11 Comments »

As previously reported there is abundant statutory and case law support for holding the credit reporting companies (CRCs) liable for publishing false credit reports went they fail to conduct adequate due diligence. This is covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.  Like everyone else in the orbit of securitization claims their entire business (or most of it) consists of claims and “reports” arising from unpaid loan accounts receivable that do not exist. Having received numerous challenges to their reporting from homeowners who were sophisticated enough to make the claim, there are only two possibilities: (1) they have known for a long time that such reports were unfounded or (2) they practiced “willful ignorance” which any lawyer will tell you is no defense to a claim.

Like title insurance companies these CRCs are faced with a dilemma. Either they play along and receive the fees that account for most of their revenue or they challenge the financial institutions that can shut off all business now being sent to them and who can start their own CRCs and title companies. As one chief executive officer confided to me, it is a choice between no existence as a business and a business founded on the fraud being committed by third parties. licensed appraisers warned of this in 2005 when 8,000 of them signed a petition to Congress that said that they were being forced to falsify the appraised value of property or stop working.

Wall Street investment banks responded with “Fuhgetaboutit” and contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the campaigns and pockets of politicians. That is how Glass Steagall was repealed and that is how we ended up with a “mortgage meltdown” that virtually destroyed the underpinnings of economies across the world, cost millions of people their homes (which were their only major investments) and millions more their jobs. The best answer was not what Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson went down on his knees about to save a $40 billion windfall for his alma mater, Goldman Sachs.

The best answer was the initial impulse and opinion of President George W Bush — let the chips fall. If Bush did not succumb to the entreaties of Paulson, the trillions of dollars in relief funds would have actually provided relief to those who were actually hurt by fraudulent practices that lured homeowners into transactions that were extremely well-disguised partnerships in a securities scheme and not, as represented — i.e., loan transactions in which a loan account receivable was maintained at the end of the transaction cycle. In fact, only a fraction of that money would have been needed by simply forcing settlements and reformation of the illegal contracts with consumers.

Needless to say, we would also not be dealing with continuing fraudulent practices consisting of illegal, extra-legal, and morally repugnant practice producing in every case a windfall for Wall Street companies and all their affiliates and satellites while trapping consumers into deals that gave them no participation in the schemes and fuller exposure to risks that were unknown to them.

Here is a response I suggested to an unusual letter from a white-glove law firm responding to a contributor to those pages:

My demand for settlement is linked to the damages caused by Equifax — i.e., denigrating my credit reputation based upon a false claim. The false claim is based upon an unpaid loan account receivable that does not exist and a false declaration of default. The details are contained in my original claim already filed with you.

Equifax had a duty to exercise due diligence as to the initial report because Equifax had adequate information to reject the claim. Equifax now has the additional duty to conduct an investigation to assess the claim.

The slander on my credit reputation interfered with my ability to refinance or offer a refinance deal to claimants who were falsely claiming that they were owners of an underlying obligation due from me. This has resulted in years of litigation in which the claimants and their predecessors failed and refused to produce any evidence of the existence of the unpaid loan account receivable, any evidence of the existence of an unpaid underlying obligation due to them, and loss of quiet enjoyment of my property together with substantial personal and emotional distress damages arising from the continuing stress of dealing with false claims and false reports of default to credit agencies.

Equifax is only one of the credit reporting agencies that contributed to this situation, accepting fees and making credit reports that were false. My total demand is that all references to the claimed debt and any history of the debt be removed from Equifax, that Equifax notify any person who made inquiry during the period in question that the report was erroneous, and that I receive a total payment of $10,000,000, part of which is owed by Equifax.

Filed under: foreclosure | 3 Comments »

there is no witness from the named claimant — ever. This slips by because homeowners or their lawyers fail to object and undermine such proffer through earlier discovery and motion practice. It also slips by because homeowners agree or even make claims or assert defenses that use the lies promulgated by the attorney for the false claimant.

He called it the “investor trust.” — This is why you need experienced trial counsel — and maybe experienced appellate counsel. You could refer to it as the alleged investor trust.” But I think that the more appropriate tactic and strategy is to give it your own label, like “securitization vehicle” or even “Special Purpose of Vehicle” that would make it hard for the opposition to discount. That needs to be done in the context of the defense narrative that the SPV is a vehicle for Wall Street firms with right, title or internet in any debt, note or mortgage issued or owed by any homeowner.

Filed under: foreclosure | 2 Comments »