Talk About a Guy Who Gets It – “Anonymous?”

As some of you knew or probably have guessed, livinglies is a lightening rod for information. We have posts like the one below on the comments and emails sent with details that are neither for attribution or publication. In addition, several people in sensitive government positions use livinglies as a method of getting the real information out. Take a close look at this comment posted from “Anonymous” a frequent contributor. While succinctly stated his points are pearls.

Yeah – searching Maiden Lane is good. But, it will only tell you what “toxic” tranches the government took off the books of the banks that held them. These are the tranches that were NOT paid by the swap protection.

My point is that if the upper tranches were paid via swap protection, then the bottom tranches – held by the government (Maiden Lane) are simply worthless tranches. This is because the pass-through tranche structure has been paid and is no longer existent.

Lower tranches are only paid current payout – if – and only if – the upper tranches have been paid. But, this payment must be current. If a swap payout has occurred, the upper tranches are NO LONGER current. They are done – there is nothing left for for the subordinate tranches to receive. Purchasing worthless toxic assets, by the government, was only a ploy to aid the financial institutions that held worthless “toxic” assets – that are no longer part of the originated “waterfall” structure payout. Worthless assets from a dissolved and dismantled Trust.

You must remember, the REMICs were set up for current pass through of receivables ONLY. Nothing more. Foreclosures cannot be assigned to REMICs with knowledge of default.

My anger is – the government knows this – and what the heck are they doing? They claim to be promoting modifications – and at the same time – are the investor in the toxic securities that are dead. Thus, ironically, the government is the one denying a loan modification and/or principal reduction – and, forcing foreclosure – despite their own law – including the 2009 TILA Amendment and .Federal Reserve Interim Opinion.

But, listen to Mr. Ben Bernanke – he wants short sales. This is their goal. And, for anyone who knows of someone purchasing a new home – ask them their terms – ask them the size of their mortgage, ask them their down payment. These people are going to be in trouble. All is simply a transfer of wealth of from you – to them (new home buyers). I cannot figure out how this ever came to be – except politics in the worst possible way.

32 Responses

  1. DyingTruth
    One thing I am trying to do under the FOIA is to request a list of
    MBS, ABS or other funds which the federal judges can invest in..I don’t need judge level data…just a list. Federal Judges, as I understand, can invest in 3 different retirement programs.

    I don’t know if I will get a list back, but I am trying.

    Here is a template letter

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33563656/FOIA-Can-You-Find-Out-If-Your-Federal-Judge-Has-Retirement-Investments-in-Your-Security-Mortgage-Backed-Security

  2. I’ve actually said all this before, but it’s not just the federal government, congress and judges that are the ones invested as real parties in interest, it’s also state judges, legislators, the sheriffs deputies who evict you, district attorney’s offices, police departments, attorney generals and just about everyone else that has a public employee pension it’s just the aforementioned already know this fact for sure, but you won’t ever see the media touching this fact, not even with a totem pole.

  3. WHY TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE

    Posted on July 6, 2010 by Foreclosureblues

    Editor’s Note….This case and outcome in favor of the homeowner was a direct result of obtaining an accurate title and securitization report from a qualified expert that contradicted the “alleged” evidence of the foreclosing plaintiff and provided substance that enabled the judge to rule in favor of the homeowner.

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/

    NEW JERSEY TRIAL COURT JUDGE ISSUES 53-PAGE OPINION DISMISSING FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT OF BANK OF NEW YORK AS SECURITIZED TRUSTEE: OPINION COULD PAVE THE WAY FOR AMENDMENTS TO NEW JERSEY RULES OF PROCEDURE REQUIRING FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS TO BE CERTIFIED AND FOR FORECLOSING PARTIES TO PRODUCE SECURITIZATION DISCOVERY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE FORECLOSURE

    Today, July 06, 2010, 30 minutes ago

    Jeff Barnes Esq.

    July 6, 2010

    In an extremely well-reasoned and detailed written opinion, New Jersey trial court Judge William C. Todd has issued a 53-page (yes, fifty-three page) Order dismissing a foreclosure action filed by Bank of New York as Trustee for Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes Series 2004-4, Docket No. F-7356-09, Atlantic County, New Jersey. The matter was decided on June 29, 2010 and the formal opinion was approved for publication this week after the matter was tried at the end of June, 2010.

    The opinion sets forth an incredible analysis of a host of issues involving foreclosure in securitization contexts and highlights why a foreclosing plaintiff must comply with its obligations to prove standing in order to be able to pursue a foreclosure action. While we do not summarize the entire holding here, we do want to point out some of the significant findings.

    The court found that there was no meaningful attempt by Bank of New York (hereafter “BONY”) to comply with applicable New Jersey procedural rules requiring a recitation of all assigments in the chain of title. BONY simple alleged that it had acquired possession of the note prior to the litigation being filed. However, the evidence at trial failed to establish this allegation, with the Court noting that there were missing documents incident to the securitization of the loan including the mortgage loan schedule that should have been attached to the mortgage loan purchase agreement. The Court also found that the “MERS assignment was potentially misleading”.

    The Court found that there was a failure of proof as to BONY’s legal standing, warranting dismissal of the action and conditioning any refiling on a certification that the plaintiff is in possession of the original note at the time of filing. This is in line with the recent action of the Supreme Court of Florida which, as of February 11, 2010 by Administrative Order, requires all residential mortgage foreclosure complaints to be verified. It is no secret that Florida trial courts have and continue to dismiss foreclosure actions which do not comply with the verification requirement. It is hoped that the courts of New Jersey will adopt Judge Todd’s well-reasoned analysis and dismiss foreclosure complaints which do not comply with the New Jersey procedural rules requiring proof of legal standing to foreclose at inception and time of filing a Complaint for foreclosure.

    Judge Todd also stated that additional discovery is to be produced when the foreclosure involves a securitization, lost note claims, or a holder in due course challenge (which may arise in the context of the purported assignment of a toxic loan to a securitized trust prior to the trustee of that trust instituting a foreclosure action, as well as any predatory loan claims against the original lender). Judge Todd recognized that there are dozens of legal issues and inquiries where a foreclosure involves a securitization, and that a borrower has both the right to know who owns the mortgage loan and whether a foreclosing party has the legal right to foreclose.

    This incredibly significant decision will hopefully become the law in the state of New Jersey, and it is hoped that the Rules Committee for the New Jersey courts will soon adopt court rules requiring that all residential foreclosure complaints filed in New Jersey be accompanied by the filing of an appropriate Certification, and further requiring that all securitization discovery be produced in all foreclosure cases involving a securitized loan. We applaud and salute Judge Todd for his amazing effort to not only streamline foreclosure litigation in New Jersey, but also insuring that borrowers’ legal rights are protected as well.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  4. Glenn Russell Esq
    Very nice description. But the True Sale is from the DEPOSITOR to the Security Underwriter and not to the Trust. Please read the Prospectus under the “METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION” and to me the chain appears like this:-

    Seller………> Depositor……….> Security underwriter & the security underwriter sell these certificates to investors through its Dealers/Agents. If you can put your email then I can send you something in the form of CHART, very easy to educate the judges and a big slap on the Fraud closure MILLS

    Note. I am not an attorney and this cannot be taken as a legal advise. Please consult some attorney.

    Thanks and Be Safe

  5. Pass the popcorn! This is getting good! Thanks Anonymous!

  6. To THE A MAN

    You are wrong!

  7. Please excuse me if I have missed the answer to this elsewhere:

    Where do the assets (loans) go when the either the certificates have been fully paid or declared defunct (especially when the certificates are part of a waterfall payoff structure)? Are they still held by the trust?

  8. angry & NOT TAKING IT! and THE A-MAN

    Happy 4th to all.

    Agree. There is a definite problem in our courts. But, this is the result of a Congress/Government that promoted a misconception as to the source of the mortgage fraud. Congress/Government stood behind the banks – and blamed the people – a falsehood that was also promoted by the media and infiltrated our courts. Congress/Government just did not know what to do because the fraud was on a massive scale. Instead of addressing the fraud, and restoring victims to whole – they chose to continue victimization in order to save a financial system that perpetrated the fraud. .

    We must stand together. We must get access to our Congressional representatives. We must influence an administration that has ignored the massive fraud.

    A deteriorating economy helps – but we need more. We have to be willing to fight for others – and join together – aside from our individual battles- which are, of course, important. We need a political avenue.

    If anyone wants to do this – I will join and speak out.

    And, to Mr. Garfield – I have said this before – you are the only one – to date – to publicly address the fraud across the country. This July 4th – we thank you – and, I believe, when all is said and told (and confident it will eventually be told) – you will be a part of our history.

  9. THIS 4TH OF JULY
    Collectively we are unbeatable – but singled out we pose very little threat to our opponents .
    on this birthday we need to find a way to unite …
    OUR voices , OUR actions , OUR determinations,OUR pain ,OUR disillusionment ,
    TOGETHER WE TAKE BACK OUR LIBERTY, TAKE BACK OUR RULE. TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY & WAY OF LIFE .
    WE NEED TO THROW THE F*KIN BUMS OUT ,
    THEY ARE TRAITORS and NOW THEY ARE OUR OPPRESSORS .
    THIS U.S. GOV IS NO LONGER OUR GOV , THEY ARE A PERVERSION OF FOREFATHERS IDEAL , LABOR , ULTIMATE SACRIFICE .

    THIS 4TH OF JULY-
    FOR US TO CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE DAY
    WE NEED TO BE INDEPENDENT,NOT INTERDEPENDENT ,
    NOT ASKING FOR HELP ….
    BUT DEMANDING BACK OUR POWER & OUR RULE SOLD OUT TO THOSE THAT WILL PROFIT ON THE BACKS OF THE “REAL AMERICAN PEOPLE “

  10. thanks ANON.

    i think as complex as the real crimes are to unravel here, M Soliman makes some very valid points that the courts dont seem to care about PSA and “investment” related details if you are a homeowner. we need a tactic that with
    allow a homeowners argument to at-least be acknowledged by the courts or “OUT goes the baby with the bath-water “

  11. I am awaiting the TRO. Sale date was postponed until August, so I’m just starting this fight. But, I just want to say as we are nearing our country’s birthday, I feel very patriotic fighting the forces that planned this devastation. I feel like I am taking my liberty this summer as I begin the fight.

    If you are in Washington or Idaho, I have an attorney that “gets it!” Call Karen Pooley 206-396-4486. This team has stopped hundreds of sale dates in both judicial and non-judicial states.

  12. WORTHLESS ASSETS FROM A DISSOLVED AND DISMANTLED TRUST. (Like Nigerian Barges . . .Hint HInt!)

    So LIVINGLIES: Why are you all hung up n the pooling and servicing agreements?

    You say- Lower tranches are only paid current payout – if – and only if – the upper tranches have been paid. But, this payment must be current. If a swap payout has occurred, the upper tranches are NO LONGER current. They are done – there is nothing left for the subordinate tranches to receive. Purchasing worthless toxic assets, by the government, was only a ploy to aid the financial institutions that held worthless “toxic” assets – that are no longer part of the originated “waterfall” structure payout.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………M.Soliman:

    Ahhhh, I told you this well over a year ago and I will testify in Qui Tam to having heard this from the horse’s mouth. It was at the annual MBA convention 2001 in reference to A Countrywide top level executive. Now as for those who get it….kudos to Anonymity.

    Now as for the worthless valuation you attributed to lower tranches of registrants offering and Government ploy to dupe the benefactors of Amerigo Vespuses discovery…here is another “slow it down Cowboy”. A good friend of mine who I worked with at banks over the years told it this way in 2001.
    ….It was upon Steve being appointed the president after taking over Life savings from a majority held ownership led by Dan Pearl. Steve went to MBA School at night while I dropped out to play pioneer in subprime lending. The new bank plan was to shift away from what Steve viewed as a potential toxic implosion (he’s my hero) back as early as 2001. He was not at all interested in originating NINA and “Slated” Assets and “Skated” Income loans regardless of securitization, pooling and sales; due to recourse provisions tied to performance.
    So the new management moves towards commercial lending and the subprime crime business is moved out the door with the bank holding the junior strips. This moment came when talking to the Life President again a year later. In our discussion of the banks projected growth targets, Steve said something I will always remember. It was something to the effect of “Wow” these suckers “Strips” retained at term of the senior sub (preferred) retirement offering are bringing in ($$$)mega earnings…Huge….every month.
    Those were the fruits of a better vintage registration.
    So, let me say this about that said earlier. The brilliance of the moron mentality running Wall Street is always trade at the day’s end for a new counter party’s method and means for liquidity and leverage. These junior strips were a damn good incentive for doing this private placement loans for sale for cash for securities for cash business.

    Suddenly that junior piece can survive maybe 18 mos but 36 months? Forget it! Neil comments are based on a vintage years and in later years was cashed in to make up for the gap in rating agencies demands for more cash needed to hedge and cover insurers costs for indemnifying the investors.

    You may also recall a conversation we had with a OC insurer who was SHOCKED TO HEAR THE UNDERLYING LOANS WERE DELNQUUENT BY UP TO A YEAR That while the loans were performing as agreed under a trustee.

    What once paid huge dividends in 18 months were now beginning leveraged for cash to throw back into the pools to meet the securities heightens requirements for additional collateral? These things were further guaranteed out 36 months now the government is stuck holding the toxicity which a certificate strips. That is likely what the governments covering.Yes there worthless but for a reason . . . that claim should be argued to support the case you’re bringing against the lender.

    Hmmm, raising investors’ capital and then reallocate their own money to pay the next group of investors’. Remember Happy Days and that guy they called “Ponzerelli” and to friends the “Ponz”.
    Want some case law to reflect on.

    Get away from the classic case law and antiquated court interpretations for something I see as a nuclear devises gone mad. Please review the Continental and Charles Keating disaster (and other whit collar CRIMES) again and again till you get it (or just bury your head in sand). Also read the Enron case of the “Nigerian Barges” –this I kid you not! It landed top Merrill execs. Before a tapestry of indictments handed down by the Grand Jury.

    Also maybe NG can talk a little about the First Alliance and Lehman Bros case (1999) for its merit. This cited where a generous settlement was decided by the jury. Over five years later the appellate court throws out the ruling in the subprime crime.
    That award came from a jury and that we try not to mess with. A Juries’ award to the plaintiffs in a separate damages phase of trial is sacred. That’s something coveted by our judicial system. It is like putting down a man’s Mother.

    Whatever the relationship is with Mom and son….do not mess with it.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  13. THE MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION PROCESS
    Today, July 02, 2010, 19 minutes ago | Foreclosureblues
    THE MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION PROCESS

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/

    from Glenn Russell Esq.

    Friday July 2, 2010

    The Process

    While most people just view taking out a mortgage as a simple credit transaction, nothing could be further from the truth. If your mortgage has been securitized, techinically you are actually an issuer of an unregulated security in a highly complex structured financial transaction

    In fact, it is my theory that during the period of time roughly covering 2002 – 2007, originating lenders (as well as everyone else in the chain of the securitization process) bet against the borrower to be able to fulfill their obligation. The strategy can be compared to a situation whereby the lender deposited a single dollar bill into a slot machine, the dollar bill would be gone forever, but the slot machine was guaranteed to payoff every single time and return 2, 3 or even 5 dollars . The mechanism for this process was what is known as “credit default swaps” Credit default swaps were (and amazingly still are allowed) a way for entities to bet against (or for) borrowers of home mortgages to be able to continue making payments on loans that were rigged to fail. This fact means that as a result of these “bets”, your loan has already been paid off.

    Additionally, investors in these securitized trusts that are mortgage backed securities, or collateral debt obligations, were covered by monoline, multiline, or other form of “pool insurance” or mortgage guarantee insurance, which has already indeminfied the securitized trust for a borrower’s default. Moreover, these trusts also “overcollateralized” and/or “cross collateralized” certain “tranches” within these securitized trusts that subrogated losses from borrower defaults to other tranches (thus different investors than the ones trying to foreclose on your home), and therefore the investor on your loan may have in fact already been indemnified for any loss from default on your loan.

    Even in light of the above, the servicer, and other parties that engineered the securitization that includes your mortgage, seek to collect yet again, by foreclosing on your home. I have credible evidence that suggests that mortgage servicers may be auctioning these homes and not turning the proceeds over to the securitized trust and its investors. Thus the mortgage servicer is keeping the proceeds of these foreclosure auction sales as a financial windfall (another reason why your servicer has absolutely no incentive to work with you on a loan modification).

    This issue is now surfacing when homeowners who are attempting to be approved by their mortgage servicer for President Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”). Some applicants are being told that, while technically their loan meets the qualifying criteria of the program, they are being denied because their loan is covered by “pool insurance”. Additionally,borrowers generally get the runaround when trying to get their mortgage payments modified. This is so for a number of reasons, but mainly because the mortgage serivcer receives more money for keeping you in foreclosure. Default servicing pays more money. The trust has an escrow account to pay litigation fees to servicers, and the servicer gets to keep all late fees and junk fees paid by the homeowner. This means the servicer is incentivized to default a home loan and its motivation is at odds with its client, the securitized trust. The largest default servicer in the country is based in Jacksonville – Fidelity National Default Solutions (now known as LPS Default Title and Closing). This is essentially a shadow company that makes it’s money through both legitimate and nefarious methods. It has been known to fabricate loan data, create falsified court documents and charge illegal fees to homeowners. FNDS hires the foreclosure lawyers on behalf of the securitized trust and does not permit the lawyers to directly communicate with the trust, even though the trust is the actual plaintiff in the case.

    This begs the question, “if my loan is covered by pool insurance” (and has been indemnified), where is the loss to the investor bringing the foreclosure action? And more importantly “why the heck am I still making mortgage payments to an entity that has already been paid off on my obligation, and has no legal right to foreclose on my home?”

    Federal Securities Law

    If your mortgage was securitized, it is subject to the securities and exchange commission and its rules and regulations as well federal laws governing securities (acts of 1933 and 1934).

    One of the main requirements under federal securities law is that a prospectus be provided to investors in mortgage backed securites. If your mortgage has been securitized, theoretically your mortgage loan ended up in a securitized trust as part of the securities sold to large institutional investors. Under federal securities law the prospectus determines the roles of all of the parties to the transaction, and sets forth the requirments enabling the trust to qualify as a federally regulated security.

    Another source of authority is the “pooling and servicing agreement”, which is the contract

    Theoretically these trusts were set up to be “bankruptcy remote”. So what generally happens is that a financial institution creates many sub-corporations in order to create a chain of “absolute sales” of the trust assets, leading to the final transfer into the securitized trust. Generally these are the requirements and parties involved in the process:

    Cut Off Date – The date that all of the mortgaage loans must be identified, which will be forming the asset pool of the securitized trust.

    Closing Date – The date that the identified mortgage pool assets (Mortgage File that includes the borrowers mortgage note endorsed in blank and the security interest in recordable form, for each mortgage) must be transferred to the “Custodian”

    Originator or Responsible Party – The Bank, Mortgage company (or broker) who sold you your mortgage

    Sponsor or Seller – A sub-corporation (Special Purpose Entity [SPE]) formed by the financial institution creating the securitized trust, that aquires (by “absolute sale”) and holds the loans (including yours) originated by the “Originator”.

    Depositor – A sub-corporation formed by the financial institution creating the securitized trust, (or other party) that aquires the loans from the “Sponsor” (by absolute sale”) Usally the “Depositor” will not have any business operations other than “securitizing” the mortgage asssets received from the “Sponsor” As part of the “securitization” process, the “Depositor” issues “certificates” that theoretically become the representation of the mortgage assets in the securitized trust asset pool. These certificates are generally in the form of Bonds sold to Investors. The Depositor generally is the only entity authorized by the prospectus to transfer the mortgage assets into the securitized trust.

    Issuing Entity – A sub-corporation formed by the financial institution creating the securitized trust that is formed on the “closing date” pursuant to the “pooling and sevicing agreement”. This is the sub-corporation that forms part of the very long name of the entity bringing the forecloaure action against you. This SPE creates trusts to be sold to investors, including the individual trust that your loan is in (usually the last part of the very long name of the entity foreclosing).

    Trustee – Generally a National Bank (Predominately Deutsche Bank National Trust) theoretically represents the interest of the securitized trust investors of the specific trusts..This is the party that generally brings the foreclosure action in its name “as trustee” against the borrower.

    Servicer – Generally a company hired by the securitized trust responsible for the billing, maintenance, and foreclosing of the mortgage loan pool contained within the trust.
    Therefore, taking into consideration the above; if you get a notice of foreclosure that states that an entity is bringing a foreclosure action against you is named:

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as TRUSTEE UNDER POOLING AND SERVICING
    AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006, SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES
    LLC TRUST, 2006-WM3 MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-WM3.

    Deutsche Bank is the Trustee acting on behalf of the trust

    The pooling and servicing agreement date represents the cut-off date for the mortgage pool assets to have been identified to the your specific trust.

    Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC Trust, is the Issuing Entity

    2006-WM3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-WM3 is the specific trust containing your mortgage that was created by the “Issuing Entity”.
    Securitized mortgage backed securities prospectuses generally require that the mortgage assets (your mortgage note and mortgage), be transferred by absolute sale from the Originator to the Sponsor to the Depositor (who is the only party authorized to deposit the mortgage assets directly into the securitized trust asset pool) then to the specific securitized trust.

    This is a supposed A to B to C to D transfer of assets to the securitized trust. The reason this is set forth in the prospectus is to keep the mortgage asset pool bankruptcy remote (referring to the other entities in the chain of transfer), as well as to qualify these securities as Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”).

    Pooling and Servicing Agreement (*”PSA”)

    The PSA is the “glue” that binds all of the players in the securitization process together and is typically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, although you might have to dig a bit to find the one that governs the securitized trust that owns your loan.

    The PSA requires that all promissory notes must be endorsed by the originator and delivered to the trustee shortly after the creation of the trust. Similarly, an Assignment of Mortgage must accompany each note. In reality, this NEVER happens, and the consequences of this failure are potentially catastrophic for the trust. I surmise that the mortgage-backed securities market was so white-hot that actual delivery of these critical documents just got in the way of an “efficient” process.

    The PSA requires the servicer to make mortgage payments to the trust regardless of whether it actually receives the payment from the homeowner. The only way for the mortgage servicer to stop paying the monthly payment to the securitized trust is to foreclose on the home. Once again, here is another reason the mortgage servicer does not want to work with you to modify your loan.

    Some of the above was taken from an article describing what a pooling and servicing agreement is, an can be found here

    REMIC

    Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits, or “REMICs,” are a type of special purpose vehicle used for the pooling of mortgage loans and issuance of mortgage-backed securities. They are defined under the United States Internal Revenue Code (Tax Reform Act of 1986). The main advantage of these entities is that income is tax exempt from double taxation..

    Though REMICs provide relief from entity-level taxation, their allowable activities are quite limited “to holding a fixed pool of mortgages and distributing payments currently to investors.” A REMIC has some freedom to substitute qualified mortgages, declare bankruptcy, deal with foreclosures and defaults, dispose of and substitute defunct mortgages, prevent defaults on regular interests, prepay regular interests when the costs exceed the value of maintaining those interests, and undergo a qualified liquidation, in which the REMIC has 90 days to sell its assets and distribute cash to its holders. All other transactions are considered to be prohibited activities and are subject to a penalty tax of 100%, as are all nonqualifying contributions.

    However, cash contributions after the cutoff date can avoid this tax if they are given three months after the startup day, involve a clean-up call or qualified liquidation, are made as a guarantee, or are contributed by a residual interest holder to a qualified reserve fund. Additionally, states may tax REMICs under state tax laws.“Many states have adopted whole or partial tax exemptions for entities that qualify as REMICs under federal law.”

    Therefore, all contributions (read as delivery of the mortgage loans into the trust) to the “REMIC” must occur on the “start up date”,or at most 90 days after this date, which is also the “cut-off date” specified in the securitized trust prospectus.. As all other contributions (after the cut-off date) are considered prohibited activities, therefore, if a mortgage loan has not been identified by the cut-off date (ie placed in the securitization pipeline by the Originator), any transfer of the borrowers mortgage note and/or mortgage into the securitized trust after the cut-off date. subjects this “contribution” to the securitized trust to a 100% penalty tax .

    REMICs are subject to federal income taxes at the highest corporate rate for foreclosure income and must file returns through Form 1066. The foreclosure income that is taxable is the same as that for a real estate investment trust (REIT) and may include rents contingent on making a profit, rents paid by a related party, rents from property to which the REMIC offers atypical services, and income from foreclosed property when the REMIC serves as dealer.

    My Experience

    What I generally see happening is a A to D transfer, that is the Originator is transferring borrowers mortgage notes directly into the trust, by passing B and C. Additionally, I am seeing the transfer of mortgage loans into these securitized trusts well after the cut-off date identified in the prospectus. This is very problematic for the foreclosing trustee of the securitized trust for two reasons.

    In the above scenario, even if the attorney for the servicer who is foreclosing on behalf of the Trustee (who is in turn acting for the securitized trust) produces a note, it was not conveyed into the trust under the requirements of the prospectus for the trust. The end result would be that the mortgage file, or any part thereof (mortgage note or security interest), would not have legally been tranferred to the trust to allow the trust to be considered a “holder” of your mortgage entitled to bring the foreclosure action, as they would not be a proper party before the court.

    The other evolving area that may help bring down this criminal enterprise is the recent case law involving MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System). Please see the page I have dedicated to MERS for more information of this rapidly evloving area.

    The transfer of mortgage loans into the trust after the cut off date destroys the trust’s REMIC tax exempt status, and these securitized trust’s (and potentially the financial entities who created them) owe a tremendous amount of 100 percent taxation on these assets. I hope you are paying attention to this IRS.
    The key to a successful foreclosure defense in a securitized mortgage transaction is to obtain the prospectus for the trust that supposdly holds your mortgage. The prospectus is usually fairly clear on the path that the mortgage note, and security interest (your house) must take to be lawfully in the trust. Most times this protocol is never followed. This provides an avenue for the borrower to challenge the foreclosing entities right to enforce the power of sale in the mortgsge.

    As mentioned above there is always a “cut off date” mentioned in the prospectus, whereby the the mortgage notes and security for these notes had to be identified, and thereafter the pool is permanently closed to future transfers of mortgage assets on this date. I frequently see foreclosing lenders try to explain away the fact that the assignments of mortgage (security for the note) and /or the mortgage note were transferred to the trust after this cut off date.

    The mortgage servicer may file confirmatory corrective assignments (after being challenged by me in a foreclosure defense action) that now magically attempts to change the transfer date of the borrower’s mortgage to the trust to the cutoff date identtifed in the prospectus. Unfortunaely this creats a real problem for the foreclosing trust, as it cannot now legally claim that it is legally the “holder” of your mortgage or note, or that it is entitled to the REMIC tax exemption on this transfer.

    If your loan is securitized and you get notices from the “bank”, rest assured that the bank does not actually own your mortgage as they may try to represent to you,, The “bank” is merely servicing your loan for the Trustee of a securitized trust.

    Indemnification Of The Securitized Trust

    These trusts also have different levels of risk (and thus varying interest rates of return paid to the Investors) based upon the underwriting of each individual borrower. These levels are called “Tranches”. The “upper tranches”, are purportedly “higher quality” borrowers based on FICO scores, etc. Usually within these upper tranches there is an agreement to indemnify the trust should the borrower default on a loan within this upper tranche.

    Credit default swaps were another example of ways the investors in the tranches of securitized trusts were indemnified. One of the main credit default swap”counterparties” taking on the risk of deault of these”tranches” was AIG. AIG took premiums for credit default swap “protection” when it had no possinle means to be able to meet its obligations should there be significant defaults. Unfortunately as we have seen AIG could not in fact meet its obligations therefore you, me and the rest of America had to pay dearly by throwing an
    unfathomamount of money at this crooked enterprise to bail them outable

    .

    Predictably the only beneficiaries of this bailout were the executives who received their bonus payments. Left unsaid however, is the fact that the homeowner who was the pawn in this massive fradulent scheme, received basically nothing from this bailout. Articles such as this 12/24/2009 story from the Boston Globe about the bonuses paid to Fannie Mae workers illustrate this point

    While the securitization process in general, is a risky, but efficient investment model, the distinction in what is happening today is the fact that the mortgages procured from homeowners were purposely manipulated in order to appear to maximize return to the insitituional investors, but were designed to fail from day one..

    Therefore, if the mortgage servicer/lender cannot actually produce the original contractual right for payment from the mortgage (mortgage note), the mortgage servicer/lender should not have the right to foreclose on your home.

    There is also generally “cross-collateralization” within the tranches of a securitized mortgage backed securitized trust. Usually what this means is that the risk of default is “subrogated (transferred) from the upper tranches downward to the lower tranches, thereby indemifying holders of mortgages within these upper tranches.

    It is my theory that many of the foreclosure auctions taking place currently in America are an action by the securitized trust to collect more than once on a mortgage obligation. I have reliable sources who work on the other side of the foreclosure process and I have it on very good authority that there have been documented instances where the same borrowers loan was in more than one securitized trust.

    This is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon America, and this information desperately needs to be publicized.

  14. Happy Fourth of July! Last check sent to Wells Fargo, July 4, 2008, for $1776.00 (made it easy to track in the servicing records). ANONYMOUS, thanks for clearing up the 15D. My trust had 40%+ defaults (delinquent/foreclosed/bankrupt/REO) as soon as (if not earlier) than two years. Assuming the A1/A2 (principal only tranches) are retired and the toxic assets (lower tranche certificates) are disposed of either through extinguishment and write-off or sold off in pools to create CDO’s, I would opine many of these “bad bonds” are still sitting in the hands of investors. Often the investor (holder of rights to revenue) can turn out to be the one and same originator, sponsor, servicer, appraiser, and you have proof of, proof of….what?

    SCIENTER

  15. WE ARE FIGHTING THE FORCES OF EVIL, FOREIGN INVADERS OF ALL TYPES.

    DEUTSCHE BANK IS OUR ENEMY AND WE WILL PROVE TO THEM THAT WE ARE NOT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

    LEAVE BEN BERNANKE ALONE. HE IS TRYING TO FIND A PEACEFUL SOLUTION BEFORE WE SEND IN THE TROOPS AND THIS TIME WE WILL DESTROY ALL THE THE DEUTSCHE NAZIS AGAIN.

    AND IF NOT HE IS A “KAPO” WHICH I HOPE HE ISNT.
    KAPO ARE JEWS THAT HELPED THE NAZIS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

    NEVER AGAIN

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  16. ABBY WHY IS G-D REFERRED TO AS A MAN IN THE BIBLE BOTH BIBLES.

    WHY IS JESUS A MAN AND NOT A WOMAN?

    UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE CORRECT ABBY
    BUT THAT IS LIFE . AND THANK G-D IT IS CHANGING

    THE BIG A IS A MALE AND PROUD OF IT
    .

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  17. zurenarrh

    I have no ex. I am a victim – and an advocate for victims. Victims are not gender specific. But, thank you anyway- appreciate it. And, my best to you and everyone else.

  18. Happy Fourth of July everyone. Let us celebrate the independence of stopping the banks and wall street fat cats from taken peoples homes! Anyone in Rhode Island or Massuchusetts can call us for a free consultation and a budget plan for everyone.No family
    will be turned away for lack of funds. Call Kim Thomas
    at George E.Babcock Esquire at 401-274-1905 for a Lawyer that gets it. Over 300 MERS Cases pending.
    Stay in your Home!!!

  19. I believe Anonymous is a woman–she once referred to having an ex-husband. But, male or female, Anonymous is a great contributor!

  20. Angry and NOT Taking IT and all others

    !5-Ds were routinely filed as a part of of deregulation – less than 300 “investors” meant no need to file further documents.

    Thanks to Neil – and my friends.

    Just trying to help – keep at it everyone!!.

    Happy 4th – America belongs to the people – fight for it.

  21. @fighting foreclosure:

    Simply cut and paste the URL here, or provide the case title, number, venue, etc.

    Would it happen to be:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33752461/Bank-of-New-York-v-Michael-Raftogainis

    If so, it is a ruling that MUST BE READ for great EVIDENCE & DISCOVERY insight, as well as UCC and securitization, amongst others.

  22. if you can locate your [mbs] trust as i have.. the chances are good that the filing of a 15d ends their need for reporting to sec .this is the info we are all seeking.. after 2 years it seems they all file a 15d.. the irs reporting of these mbs seems to “end” for all of 2008. 2007 is avail then “no 2008” and reporting starts again in 2009. matt weidner pointed this out & i posted it here last month .

    MR OR MS ANONYMOUS may shed some light here.

    imho ..many of the bodies have been buried next to jimmy hoffa.

  23. Very interesting read at the link I posted… I followed this because I’m fighting about the securities that come from EMC…seller… bear stearns the despositer… jp morgan… trustee and finally the BONYM as successor trustee and I have been in contact with Muriel Payne of the Federal Reserve after the complaint I filed Against the BONYM for filing foreclosure against me since I have The ORIGINAL WET INK NOTE in my phyiscal possession stamped fully paid and satisfied. Let me just tell you That Muriel has been out of the office more than he was in the office according to all the emails I have from him.

  24. Neil —

    what makes you think ANONYMOUS is a man?

    gender bias?

  25. http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html

    maiden lane, maiden II maiden lane III

  26. Any ideas on pin pointing the relationship between servicers and the foreclosure mills? The mills and the servicers seem to be subsidiaries of one another. One West Bank/Indymac seem to favor a company out of WA state called Regional Trustee Services. GMAC seems to favor a company called ETS. I smell a racket between servicers, mills and real estate investors at auctions. If loan balances are either paid in full or partially by swaps and government shared-loss programs, then the “loans” should show up on someone’s books as a simple charge-off or paid in full. It seems like the mills buy the “loans” for pennies on the dollar just like any other junk debt buyer of unsecured debt so that they can appear to own legal title with power to sell as “trustees.” The mills identify themselves as debt collectors in their notices. In my case, MERS assigned its “interest” back to One West, who happen to be both servicer and investor holding “beneficial” title. But if One West and Regional are virtually the same company by way of fraud, then both beneficial and legal title have quite possibly merged, which terminates the trust and creates a fee simple absolute. We should be demanding equity because trusts and mortgages are equity specific and we obviously aren’t getting many results at law. Mandatory injunctive relief in equity is a good start for most folks until we can trace the accounting and seek real damages at law at a later time as we peek further behind the veil. Neil, do complaints filed in equity look the same as complaints filed at law? Is there a specific way to invoke equity/chancery? Chancery is an unusual venue but at least the rules favor substance over form instead of the other way around. Thanks-

  27. ANONYMOUS

    We like your posting(s) . Keep the information and ideas flowing. This web site and it’s contributors are the best. The cover up continues but we are gaining some leverage.
    Thanks to all.

  28. yuh huh

  29. Darn right

  30. How can I fiind out if my Trust is disoved or dismantled? I have the CUSIP # and cannot find any information on the bond lookup sites. Also asked my financial advisor and he replied with this ” This cusip number is bad.. I can’t pull out anything.
    What is the description of the bond?”

    Any ideas?

  31. Neil, it’s not Anonymous, it’s ANONYMOUS.

  32. can someone tell me how can I post an important case from New York on UCC and securitization?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: