White Paper Declares Securitization Illegal

Title: SECURITIZATION IS ILLEGAL. see Securitization is Illegal
AUTHOR: MICHAEL NWOGUGU, Certified Public Accountant (Maryland, USA); B.Arch. (City College Of New York). MBA (Columbia University). Attended Suffolk Law School (Boston, USA). Address: P. O. Box 170002, Brooklyn, NY 11217, USA. Phone/Fax: 1-718-638- 6270.

Email: datagh@peoplepc.com; mcn111@juno.com.

Editor’s Note: I find this compelling. On the other hand there seems to be no political appetite, even in the judiciary to accept it as a whole. So it is up to each and every litigant to make their mark on this scheme so that in the end, the full truth is known.

7 Responses

  1. The entire process is illegal. It includes MERS which separates the note and the mortgage and can hold no right to owning anything. It includes the Securitization process, which takes only the note to sell to investors and represents that it is legal and above board, but hoodwinks the investor into thinking that the product is legit (rating agencies) AND even sells the same products more than once. The servicer which is a pretender/lender taking payments they have no right to, because they don’t own the debt. The entire origination process because of predatory lending and nondisclosure. I would like to meet the masterminds that came up with this gigantic Ponzi scheme. Worst of all, our government sold us out, too. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

  2. To Catherine:

    I am going to disagree with your statement below from your post.

    I think you are confusing, in this instance, the trustee for the securities versus the trustee for the real property.

    For a securities trust, The Homeowner is NOT the trust’s beneficiary.

    Did you need to correct this?

    The trustee of the securitized trust must be held accountable the same as any other trustee:
    ( Unless the terms of the trust state otherwise)
    To use due diligence and reasonable skill and judgment to protect the interest’s of the trust’s beneficiary; The Homeowner.

  3. Here is the way I see it. This paper is the doorway I can go through to make these arguments in my own case. But in order to accomplish that, I will have to take the time to investigate any or all of these issues and apply them directly to my case. This will require a lot of research. I will need to essentially go through this and show how each of these arguments (or whichever ones apply) is true in my own case.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational and informational purposes only.

    Dan Edstrom

  4. In this Pro Se litigant’s opinion;

    With the onset of bulk selling of consumer mortgage loans downstream, in a process called securitization, the consumer’s bank was no longer the one who would be responsible to collect the loan consumer’s mortgage payment, and in a nutshell it was simply no longer economically expedient for the bank to make a responsible consumer mortgage loans.
    Under the investor backed mortgage securitization business system; Predatory Commercial Lenders originate mortgages to consumer borrowers and then pledge them to a secondary lender such as an investment bank or other financial institution in return for a loan under a revolving line of credit.”
    The sub prime home mortgage industry has grown over the last decade, and profitability of the investors backing the resultant securitized mortgage loans, depends on successfully maintaining several illegal mortgage industry practices: including making loans containing interest rates, fees or closing costs that are higher than they should be in light of the borrower’s credit and net income, or containing other exploitative terms that the borrower is not adequately informed of and therefore cannot possibly comprehend.
    Lender, Fannie Mae, early this year, released a press report stating that commercial mortgage lenders are still not complying with the most basic underwriting guidelines, such as confirming a borrower’s identity or verifying a Social Security number. Marianne Sullivan, a senior vice president and Fannie’s chief risk officer, sent a nine-page letter to lenders announcing a “Loan Quality Initiative” to ensure that loans meet the government-sponsored enterprise’s credit and eligibility guidelines. Sullivan said Fannie analyzed the primary drivers of loan-repurchase requests and has launched the initiative to identify ways we can improve lender compliance with its guidelines. “Many repurchase requests are driven by the fact that the delivered loan does not meet Fannie Mae’s eligibility requirements. ”
    Fanny wrote; “ In the next few months, the government-sponsored enterprise plans to add quality-control policies to monitor and assess the effectiveness of lenders’ own quality-control plans. Lenders now will be required to obtain documentation to confirm the occupancy of a property. They also must determine that a borrower’s debts are not only evaluated as part of the qualification for a mortgage but also are disclosed on the final loan application signed by the borrower at the closing table. Separately, Fannie reported Friday that its net loss narrowed to $16.3 billion in the fourth quarter, from $25.2 billion a year earlier. The GSE also said it requested another $15.3 billion from the Treasury to help eliminate its net worth deficit.”
    Fannie Mae has not been able to maintain a positive net worth without government assistance since September 2008. The GSE expects to receive the additional funds from the Treasury by the end of March, bringing its total government support to $75.2 billion.

    The trustee of the securitized trust must be held accountable the same as any other trustee:
    ( Unless the terms of the trust state otherwise)
    To use due diligence and reasonable skill and judgment to protect the interest’s of the trust’s beneficiary; The Homeowner.

    The trustee of the securitized trust has a duty to provide accountability to the property owner, A trustee may not invest or transfer the property without first consulting the property owner, and in no circumstance if it is not eligible for sale, assignment or transfer under the terms of the trust.

    A trustee is an individual or corporation, who sets aside property to be used for the benefit of another person, to manage the property as provided by the terms of the document that created the arrangement.
    A trustee manages the ownership of a property that is held in trust.

    A trust is an arrangement in which one person holds the property of another for the benefit of a third party, called the beneficiary. A trustee may be either an individual or a corporation.

    A trustee is a fiduciary of the beneficiary property owner who is responsible for their mortgage debt.

    A fiduciary trustee is legally bound to act, within the confines of the law, in the best interests of all parties of the mortgage loan contract, under rules provided by the Federal Debt Collection Act , and The truth In Lending Act.

    A trustee holder of a mortgage promissory note is in a special position of confidence in relation to the property owner, because the trustee has power of sale, control of property that is owned by the property owner.

    Trustees possess special knowledge about trusts and investments. By contrast, many property owners are ignorant of such matters. This special knowledge is another feature of the trustee-property owner relationship that makes a trustee a fiduciary.
    A trustee must submit honest reports to the property owner, and keep the property owner informed of all matters relevant to the trust.
    Trustees must fulfill the terms of the trust, which address such matters as when and how the debts and refinance of the trust property will be managed.

    The Truth In Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act, were enacted by the house of congress to protect American Citizens from prohibited creditor conduct.

    There can be no legitimate constitutional obstacle to implementing access to justice for homeowners. Neither doctrines of judicial restraint, based on misinterpretation of separation of power of the State Courts, or federal supremacy arguments, can preclude implementation of the American Homeowner’s fundamental constitutional right to protect their home, property and principal dwelling place by their right to due process of law.

    It is a matter of the gravest political and social importance to our general public welfare, to alleviate the continuing disgrace of large numbers of American Homeowners, in foreclosure, being unlawfully stripped of their homes, while being systematically denied their rightful access to justice, by the illegal practices of an powerful, unconscionable and corrupt, corporate lending and mortgage servicing machine that commonly attempts to use the securitzed nature of the trust, to avoid accountability to the Homeowner beneficiary .
    Our remedy must rest with our state courts and a bar who is committed, knowledgeable, and well versed in the complexities of the consumer’s right to be protected from unconscionable practices of debt collectors who commonly attempt to use the nature of the mortgage loan securitization process, to profit by forcing the home into foreclosure, while confusing and misleading the mortgage loan consumer as to the true identify of their creditor, the true state of their mortgage, and all too often adding wrongfully inflated fines, penalties and other questionable fees and charges to the homeowner’s true mortgage debt.

    A Creditor’s accountability to the mortgage loan consumer is mandated by The Consumer Protection Act, The Fair Debt Collection Act, and Regulation Z, of the truth In Lending Act.

    The House of Congress provides relief through rescission to homeowners, in every case where prohibited creditor conduct can be demonstrated.

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) commonly prosecutes violations of federal lending laws by the mortgage industry creditors who maintain and hold interest in violating consumer loans which have been transferred downstream by the securitization process.

  5. Neil, dont you believe in the next year or so we will see the securitized mess come to a head? All the world will have to acknowledge the deceit. People hang on to your houses!

  6. Somebody has to set the precedent. Hopefully that will happen soon.

  7. So, should litigants argue that the trustee of the securitized trust has no standing because it is itself an illegal entity?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: