Securitization Searches: Devil and Details

I had occasion to respond to an inquiry and after reading it i thought this might help a few people on a number of levels. So here it is:

——–

August 20, 2010 by Neil F Garfield

HI there!. I received an inquiry that was forwarded to me about your “title review.” Since this has gone through several different people, I wanted to contact you directly. You placed your  $149 deposit for a securitization search, review, report, copies of relevant documents and strategic commentary. You were one of the first people to help us get started in launching a search tool for homeowners and their lawyers and we thank you for your support.

My guess is that somewhere in your junk mail folder you received further introductions and since we don’t sell things here to people who are not interested we didn’t follow-up. The $149 you paid was the down payment on the securitization search. We presumed that we could do that without a title search but we were wrong. So we gave our customers two options: Either fill out the GTC Registration form which is a lot of work, or order the loan specific title search, review, report, copies of relevant documents and strategic commentary.

Despite the money we advanced for some very expensive subscriptions that only banks have (normally) costing thousands of dollars per month, and despite our own developing database, we discovered that the pretender lenders had been playing with the loan descriptions. What that means is that there we found that there were “alleged: pools that might or might not have been actually formed, but which were referred to in securitization documents as though they had been created. Close examination frequently reveals that the “Trust” or whatever was often never actually created even though investors received evidence of the issuance of a bond that they had “purchased” that entitled them to the receivables from the loans in one particular pool. It was a shell game/ponzi scheme.

THAT was only part of the problem. The rest was that there were multiple pools in which loans answering the same general description were claimed to be in one or more tranches of the pool. And in most cases NONE of the descriptions precisely matches the actual loan description we were looking for. So we ended up scratching various parts of our anatomy, realizing that the game was on and that we were not dealing with a series of individual events, but rather, on on-going process in which the parts were always moving and the pretender lenders kept their options open at all times because they were constantly “repackaging” loans into new “pools”, CDOs, special purpose vehicles, synthetic CDOs, cred it default swaps sales (the equivalent of buying the loan) etc..

And THAT was only part of the problem: we then discovered that there was literally NO PAPER trail on virtually ANY loan. That means you have a “Trustee” claiming to represent investors who own asset backed bonds which in turn supposedly own the loans, but the loans were never transferred in the first place. So legally, in the public records, the only lender was the one who appeared at your loan closing as the lender, and who also appeared as the Payee on your promissory note. Most of those companies are out of business. None of them, including MERS claim to have any interest in the obligation, note or mortgage. But that has not stopped the pretender lender from fabricating with low-tech solutions the “original”documents. So we are left with an empty security document, a note payable to nobody because the original lender was being funded by a third party, and an obligation hanging like a dangling modifier, if you remember your high school English. It’s an obligation with no where to go because the real party on the other end keeps changing. The only party entitled to enforce anything against you is someone who can honestly say that they advanced money that was used or accepted by you as a benefit and that they have not received the money back.

The services we subscribed to and which told us we can find anything in a snap if we pay all this money over-stated their capability, in part because they were not actually automated and in part because they depended upon the voluntary reporting of the underwriters. So we had the issue of getting all the precise details of each transaction.

That means that without charge you can fill out this form: —> GTC Registration Form For Seach Services
Or purchase this service — > CLICK THIS LINK TO DO LOAN SPECIFIC TITLE RECORDS SEARCH, ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

THEN AFTER YOU HAVE DONE THAT YOU CAN COMPLETE THE SECURITIZATION SEARCH BY PURCHASING THIS SERVICE WHICH IS EXCLUSIVE TO EARLY PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED THIS EFFORT: —>COMPLETION OF SPECIAL OFFER SUBSCRIPTION FOR SECURITIZATION SEARCH (YOUR $149) IS TREATED AS A THREE MONTH SUBSCRIPTION MEMBERSHIP.

Hopefully this clears things up for you. I know it is complicated, but we didn’t make it that way — Wall Street did.

Regards,
Neil

37 Responses

  1. hey max gardner, we have lost respect for you and credit slips; you guys are in on the consumer hustle and are the problem based on what did not happen as to perfection of certificate of title and those defeasance contracts for benefit derived from the recording of he dot/mrtg. in the land recs. and the Glass/S repeal provisions, that were retroactive and applied to every loan so you folks and Liz Warren are all full of shit and are the one percenters who are robbing america blind, tim 410-257-5283

  2. PJ
    Metaphorical – and not contractual – was my intent. Look, if people are paying – and current – and still have difficulty ascertaining where mortgage payments go – and valid mortgage title – we are in far greater economical trouble then currently even imagined. And, this may very well be the case.
    Few want to own a home anymore. But, this administration – and Congress – still keeps sleeping – .

    Confounding… Few people want to own a home anymore? Huh?

  3. PJ

    Metaphorical – and not contractual – was my intent. Look, if people are paying – and current – and still have difficulty ascertaining where mortgage payments go – and valid mortgage title – we are in far greater economical trouble then currently even imagined. And, this may very well be the case.
    Few want to own a home anymore. But, this administration – and Congress – still keeps sleeping – .

  4. […] Continue reading here: Securitization Searches: Devil and Details « Livinglies's Weblog […]

  5. FKA… you should read this posted on another topic here. Thank’s to Foreclosure Fraud & Lynn.

    The Pursuit of NON-Performing Mortgages in 2009 by Bank of America & Deutsche Bank

  6. PS.. should add that JUMBO loan pool on the GSE was closed 9 months after the loan was “assigned” into the seconday market!

  7. Ian… it sure seems that way to me.. Thanks!

  8. PJ- maybe your Jumbo loan prefix was added due to your originator doubling the size of the loan(up to jumbo status) and pocketing the difference post-funding. I have a commercial loan on a commercial property listed as a “home equity” loan. It may be in a residential pool rather than a commercial one. Does anyone know what percentage of securitized loan were refi s rather than purchase money loans? (by year, or collectively as to $ outstanding)

  9. Assuming Anonymous meant “you have serious issues” metaphorically and not contractually.

    This is a performing long standing loan that was sold off into the secondary market years after origination in 2006… that is the only record of assignment in the public records… NO MER’s… employee of the Servicer signed as an employee of the original lending institution.. which is in another state and not chartrtered in the state where it was signed…but we all know that dance.

    Servicer states on the record that a GSE owns it and the look up tool confirms it… the pool prefix is for a JUMBO POOL now closed and it was never a JUMBO LOAN… the only semblance of the loan in an SEC filing is the “appraised value” of the property and not the amount owed…

    If this amounts to a homeowner problem then anyone out there uneducated about this chicanery is in deep S*@T…

  10. The Federal Reserve has re-securitized some of those whole loans in Maiden Lane Asset Backed Sercurities I Trust AND US Bank is the Trustee on those as well…what a tangled web…

    Our performing loan was fed to a servicer in 10/08 to put us in Foreclosure. We received a new LOAN number. Without missing a payment they demanded a lot of money and plainly stated “this will not cure your default ” .

    I have 2 different versions of the servicing records for our loan. The one I received right before they foreclosed shows that the account was opened with 1.20 owing. None of the statements show this deficiency or the other statement. That means we never made a complete P&I payment!!! Nothing we sent them from day 1 was credited to our account. They stole thousands of dollars…not mentioned by Plaintiff on the complaint or Brief in Opposition.
    They also forgot about the 2.5 years of timely payments…I am being sued for 25,000 more than we borrowed.

  11. 2 Anonymous… what are the “serious issues” this is a performing loan… just that everyone and their brother are depositing the payments.

    Probably because the servicer is servicing for some party that you do not know. And, that party can also change. You have some very serious issues. Where your payments go (or are advanced) is your creditor. But, pass-through security investors are not the creditor. Therefore, assuming PSA is valid – the creditor stops at the certificate holders to the Trust – And, if the tranche has been paid by a swap – collection rights are “Swapped-out” of the trust.

  12. Monday 23 August 2010

    Moderator:

    My last post was censored, not posted, with no explanation as to why. An explanation would be appreciated, for all I provided was more resource information for demanding discovery.

    Response?

  13. PJ

    Probably because the servicer is servicing for some party that you do not know. And, that party can also change. You have some very serious issues. Where your payments go (or are advanced) is your creditor. But, pass-through security investors are not the creditor. Therefore, assuming PSA is valid – the creditor stops at the certificate holders to the Trust – And, if the tranche has been paid by a swap – collection rights are “Swapped-out” of the trust.

    edgetraderplus, – Rarely see QWRs answered (at least accurately)- but that does not mean you should not do one. Not a lawyer – so maybe a lawyer will answer your question.

    The problem with the PSA and securitization – is that almost all foreclosures are done by the PSA trustee “on behalf of the certificate holders.” Have to tear apart the structure – or none-structure of the PSA (most are dissolved) in order to get to first base. What makes me particularly angry is that the government KNOWS these trusts have been torn apart – and that the Trustee/Trust is not the creditor. Yet, government allows these false foreclosures to continue. That is why, I agree, we must organize. We literally have thousands of court (precedent)
    decisions granting foreclosures to wrong party. Need to reverse this – when we first come to bat. Everything else then becomes easier – including granting of discovery.

    FKA – is right – “the servicer collects payments and forwards them to the Trustee (US Bank in our case)” – and servicer must also advance any default payments to the Trustee. The trustee must then deposit payments into a distribution account – from which payment is made to the certificate tranche holders. Many of these tranches are now currently held in “Maiden Lane” – thus owned by the US Government. Can the Government verify that they are receiving all current and default advanced payments from the Trustee for the tranches they own? Sure tax-payers would want to know the answer to this. Further, and some may not know this, Maiden Lane also holds more than tranche certificates (and derivative CDOs and swaps) – it holds whole residential loans – which were not publicly disclosed (they claimed privacy issue for homeowners).
    Therefore, it may be the US government who is your creditor – and who is refusing to modify or adjust your loan. Unless the government has already disposed of loan rights to distressed debt buyers – which was the original set-up intention of “Maiden Lane.” Few courts will allow the naming of government in counter-complaints.

    Our problems may be bigger than we realize – and if that is the case, we have no choice but to organize.

  14. edgetraderplus, nice find.
    Unfortunately, this info was out there in 2009 and we are still dealing with a crisis that for all practical purposes should not exist, and decisions that for all practical purposes should be reversed, and no one can do a class action to release these darn obligations because we don’t know who has them. Would be nice for a class action QWR for the entire country to make everyone say who has what….where!

    Bottom of page 12
    footnote 66 Please Release Me! (no one is releasing anything, can’t fathom MERS telling a servicer to release liens as if the servicer takes orders from the puppet. )

  15. Sunday 22 August 2010

    Some sources for what to demand in discovery:

    From “Mass Extinction Of Pools Becomes Clearer” on this site. Do a search under that title and look for the post by…wait. Let me paste the post:

    avirani0203, on July 29, 2010 at 11:24 am Said:
    So true ANONYMOUS. This is where you have to get down to the nitty gritty. I am seeing too many old-fashioned requests for document production. By old-fashioned, I mean that they are asking for paper documents.
    In order to get to the heart of the real fraud, e-discovery is a must. The federal courts and some state courts like Texas have very strong e-discovery rules. What everyone is looking for is in the metadata. Remember, MERS is one huge computer database. The loans were transferred electronically. MERS has an e-note registry. The key information is in those native files. Any tampering or destruction of the metadata is grounds for a spoliation order.
    Following is a sample of some definitions that I believe should be included in each and every document production request:
    ESI” means electronically stored information including, but not limited to, information electronically, magnetically or optically stored as: (a) digital communications (e.g., e-mail, voice mail, instant messaging); (b) word processed documents (e.g., Word or WordPerfect documents and drafts); (c) spreadsheets and tables (e.g., Excel or Lotus 123 worksheets); (d) accounting application data (e.g., QuickBooks, Money, Peachtree data files); (d) image and facsimile files (e.g., PDF, TIFF, JPG, GIF images); (e) sound recordings (e.g., WAV and MP3 files); (d) video and animation (e.g., AVI and MOV files); (e) databases (e.g., Access, Oracle, SQL Server data, SAP); (f) electronic mail, contact and relationship management data (e.g., Outlook, Maximizer, ACT!), including emails resident on Plaintiff’s and/or Plaintiff’s agent(s)’ servers or computers; (g) calendar and diary application data (e.g., Outlook PST, Yahoo, blog tools); (h) online access data (e.g., temporary internet files, history, cookies); (i) presentations (e.g., PowerPoint, Corel Presentations); (j) network access and server activity logs; (k) project management application data; (l) computer aided design/drawing files; and (l) back up and archival files (e.g., ZIP, GHO)
    “Metadata” means system and application metadata. System metadata is information describing the history and characteristics of other ESI. This information is typically associated with tracking or managing an electronic file and often includes data reflecting a file’s name, size, custodian, location, and dates of creation and last modification or access. Application metadata is information automatically included or embedded in electronic files but which may not be apparent to a user, including deleted content, draft language, commentary, collaboration and distribution data and dates of creation and printing. For electronic mail, metadata includes all header routing data and Base 64 encoded attachment data, in addition to the To, From, Subject, Received Date, Sent Date, Time Sent, CC, BCC and Body fields.
    “Documents” means the original and each non-identical copy of any written, graphic, electronic, or magnetic matter, however produced, whether sent or received, or neither, including drafts and both sides thereof, in your possession, custody, or control and specifically includes ESI and metadata (as defined). The term shall include handwritten, typewritten, printed, photocopied, or recorded matter. It shall include communications in words, symbols, pictures, sound recordings, films, tapes, drawings, blueprints, charts, maps, graphs, photographs, still or moving picture films, parts or components of equipment, models, information stored in, or accessible through, computer or other information storage or retrieval systems, all other “documents and tangible things,” and any physical object in the possession of, subject to the control of, or within the knowledge of the party responding to these requests for production, including their counsel, experts or investigators. Any and all documents and data existing as electronic or magnetic data shall be produced on disc, either DVD (digital versatile disc) or CD (compact disc) or on external hard drive in the following format: (a) documents in WordPerfect 5.1 or higher shall be produced in the format in which they are maintained (*.wpd); (b) documents in Microsoft Word for Windows 2.x or higher shall be produced in the format in which they are maintained (*.doc); (c) documents in Microsoft Works 4.0 for Windows shall be produced in the format in which they are maintained (*.wps); (d) documents in Microsoft Excel for Windows 4.0 or higher shall be produced in the format in which they are maintained (*.xl*); (e) documents in Lotus 1-2-3 shall be produced in the format in which they are maintained (*.wk?); (f) web pages which cannot be produced as a hard copy shall be produced in *.htm or *.html format; (g) encoded text files shall be produced in the format in which they are maintained (*.txt); (h) Adobe Acrobat .pdf files shall be produced in *.pdf format; (i) electronic mail shall be produced in .pst, .msg or .nsf format; and (j) all other electronic documents and data shall be produced in native format, or in ASCII format, delimited appropriately, with a key, if necessary, identifying the data fields, if production in native format is not feasible. All hard copy (e.g., paper) documents shall be produced as Group IV, black and white, single-page .tiff or color .jpg images with a standard Summation (.dii) load file.


    Max Gardner’s Top Reasons For Wanting A Pooling Servicing Agreement:

    http://blog.ncblc.com/?s=pooling+and+servicing+agreement

    The Alphabet Problem And The PSA:

    http://www.maxbankruptcybootcamp/alphabet-problem-pooling-servicing-agreement

    Source for the above two is a neat little site:

    http://homeequietytheft.blogspot.com/

  16. To Edgetraderplus….the link to the MERS dissertation was absolutely WONDERFUL! Thanks for the reference.

  17. Sunday 22 August 2010

    Everything you ever wanted to know about MERS and as much ammunition one can need to defeat them on any battlefield.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1469749

    Click on “Download.” This paper is 46 pages long. The meat is in section III MERS Legal Standing. Chock full of clarity and case cite backups….no matter what kind of “argument” MERS may choose in court.

    The mighty fall!!!

    Another example, the Stern foreclosure mill in Florida.

    Case win by case win will do more than anything do undo the wrongs done by the banks, fully abetted by the government and the legal system, the latter being the weakest link, once one knows what to serve up to the chumps, save those judges who not only get it, but do something about it.

    Cheers…

  18. Anyone.. can you answer the question… no assignments recorded… MER’s not on loan…MER’s web page confirms yet it endorsed/deposited by three different entities… sorry to be a pest just seems like there is an explanation out there from those with far greater insight professional experience then me…

  19. FKA… hope that you sent payment’s certified mail… return receipt… have they sent your payments back to you… where did they go… uncashed is one thing… lost in the abyss is another… that is the problem with Check 21 legislation when the “servicer” opt’s you in for conversion to “electronic payments” without proper notice… anyone to this day can opt-out regardless.

    Screw the “paper saving” green agenda… demand your check be sent back or at least a photographic image FRONT & BACK made available on your statement’s….

    Which goes back to the question I have been asking how can there be so many entities passing around a loan payment month after month for deposit when it goes to one mailing address/servicer?

  20. WE CAN HELP! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  21. FKA, one small observance. If you’re digging through trails with US Bank as trustee, you may also want to look at BAC as “interim” trustee. When BAC purchased LaSalle and subsequently dissolved LaSalle, BAC served as “interim” until they put US Bank in place permanently. If any US Banks trails go cold, trying looking in those directions.

  22. Let me put it another way… are the “Mortgage Servicer’s” using performing loans… shifting them around from one “pool” to another to insure insurance payments whats left of the lower sub-prime traunch defaults…

    There is not enough current activity/MBS offerings in the secondary mortgage market to substantiate that one month WF deposits the check, the next month BNYM and then the next month a defunct mortgage aggregator… all thru the same servicer…

    If I am missing somthing here… please point it out

  23. In our case the servicer did not process any payments. According to the Trust documents if everyone was doing what they were supposed to…the servicer collects payments and forwards them to the Trustee (US Bank in our case)…the Trustee puts it into the account established for the certificate holders of the Trust. The Trustee is a bank and supposed to be the Fiduciary in the securitization.

    Having connected some dots…US Bank is listed as the Trustee on ALL the dots. If this all took place within 3 months of our closing US Bank is just the only party left standing! They have the originals because they were the ones holding everything for the benefit of the Trust. Now they are trying to unjustly enrich themselves by trying to steal my house. I know that because this Trust was never incorporated. The REMICS to avoid taxes were!

  24. What you say is correct .. people need to be pro-active and obtain all filed material at the county clerks office… often regarless of their situation… perhaps I was not clear in my prior post… how can a “mortgage servicer” process a loan payment through 3 differnt banks over the course of 9 months? is this not an indication of what everyone is trying to prove here?

  25. PJ

    You are absolutely correct – “and still can not get clean data…” – why? because the software just “tracks” the payment status of the loans in original mortgage schedule. That is – it is just a source of information for calculating default loans, foreclosures and REO properties – nothing more.

    And, here is an additional problem that I am looking at – as relates to refinances. Refinances may not have even been a true refinance (with legitimate assessed YSP and fees) – rather it MAY have been a modification of the prior mortgage.

  26. FKA is correct about submitting a QWR… best have all your ducks in a row before this is done.. know the answer’s to the question’s before you ask it and be ready to fight.

    What is being missed here is that Neil & Team have subscribed to the (very expensive) software that is available to investment banks, hedge fund;s etc… and still can not get clean data…

    “The services we subscribed to and which told us we can find anything in a snap if we pay all this money over-stated their capability, in part because they were not actually automated and in part because they depended upon the voluntary reporting of the underwriters.”

    Garbage in Garbage out… if demystifying all of this was so easy why then did Fannies’ oversight panel have to subpoena 64 “Mortgage Servicer’s”?

    Which goes back to my unanswered question how is it possible for 3 different entities to have accepted/endorsed/depoited submitted mortgage payment’s in the course of 9 months? Anyone have a clue?

  27. About the QWR… sending a QWR to the servicer is what made them Forclose! After 2 years of default it took 17 days to be Foreclosed on after QWR. They only sent me a few pieces of what we asked for and a letter. The letter states “as of the date of this mailing we will proceed with Foreclosure”. If you are trying to get more time I would not recomend the QWR.

  28. It is my understanding that most are not providing details in discovery. Everything you know in advance is ammunition. I started looking for details before we were in Foreclosure. When someone finally did foreclose they did not put the name of the Trust on the summons or online. It just reads US Bank as Trustee on Behalf v us. Since I already knew the name of the Trust we already have MANY details Plaintiff has no idea about.

    The complaint itself is all lies and we can prove it. The Brief in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss is also all wrong and we can prove it. I doubt most of the details will be heard but there is literally no way Plaintiff can fix anything that is broken.

    If it moves past the MTD to Summary judgement our answer will include Quiet Title. Since we have connected so many dots in advance we can prove that our title is clouded and only the Court can fix this.

    I was able to find these details on my own. It took months of obsesive searching in SEC files and I found it without a loan number! I was reading documents in my sleep for a while!
    With the case I built I have found a great lawyer who considered a contingency fee at our first meeting. If you can’t find your details on your own Mr Garfield can help!

    I am not afraid…I do not feel desperate. I feel strong and capable. There is nothing Plaintiff can do that can change this. I don’t care about this house…I care about exposing the Fraud…on the record.

  29. Saturday 21 August 2010

    When it comes to “conventional” foreclosure, I am not sure if there is a mortgage written that cannot be undone. However, the “Trustee” and “securitization” era has passed me by. Yet, beyond all the comments about it, “tranches,” “look up the trust on the SEC website,” ” PSAs,” etc, I do not see a lot of general understanding or direction worth pursuing?

    I have asked, not a few times, if anyone has an example of a QWR. I got one response, and not one posted on this site. What questions/demands should be made in a QWR specific servicers trying to hide reality?

    [That beings up another source of irritation. This site sucks when it comes to doing searches for past posts or information once scrolled off the main page. trying to search this site is like trying to find one’s PSA.]

    Quote:
    “Proving the true nature of the Trusts – should not be left up to the homeowners. This should be investigated by authorities and publicly divulged – at the very least – help for victims. To the contrary, authorities are also pretending all was in order, and authorities continue to allow some entities to conceal their books by deregulation.”

    Say what?

    Maybe it “should not be left to the homeowners,” but there ain’t anybody else that is going to pull back the curtain. Wait for authorities? How has that been working for anyone? It is the efing “authorities” which allowed all this to happen in the first place! Why not just bend over and say, “Go ahead,” instead?

    Of all the court cases I read, about Illlinois cases in the law library and most of the cases mentioned on this and other blogs, I have yet to read one about attacking the trustee or the servicer from the “show me the documentary proof” angle.

    Maybe I am not smart enough to understand this “trustee,” tranches,” “PSAs,” stuff, but in truth, I simply do not understand, yet I have enough confidence to go up against any foreclosure to make the other side prove they are the interested party with a justiciable interest to give them standing to file a complaint against me.

    I prefer dealing with root cause instead of the smoke and mirrors of servicer “symptoms.”

    Being of old school, I like the KISS approach, and I doubt there is a judge who is going to buy into the “securitization process ate my mortgage” approach, nor do I see anyone who is utilizing such a challenge and posting about it here.

    Gwen Caranchini has an excellent point. What ARE the “details” needed to be asked of the “devil?” I also like her point that “good discovery makes a case,” spoken from experience.

    It would seem to me that there must be a simple way to pose questions that require a Trustee, or servicer suing on behalf of a trustee, to prove their standing to sue? Or at the very least, a set of “boilerplate” questions to demand in the discovery process, which beings me back to Gwen Caranchini’s unanswered question.

  30. Agree – gwen caranchini is making multiple good points.

    Am also finding much contradiction in “pools” – including loans in some tranches – but not in the other tranches (this is impossible). Also, servicers are not advancing payments on behalf of default borrowers to the so called stated Trustee (ledgers are mandated by the Trust PSA – (or phony document).

    The government and agencies are aware of what is going on. “Moral Hazard” issue, supported by Mr. Bernanke is blocking any assistance to homeowners DESPITE the fraud that continues. If this moral hazard issue is dispelled – there will be help. TARP Inspector General has tried to point out how ridiculous the concept of moral hazard is.

    Gwen is also right about settlements – once you get discovery – and happen to be successful – they will try to settle – but the settlement offer will often be minimal.

    Proving the true nature of the Trusts – should not be left up to the homeowners. This should be investigated by authorities and publicly divulged – at the very least – help for victims. To the contrary, authorities are also pretending all was in order, and authorities continue to allow some entities to conceal their books by deregulation.

    These so called Trusts did NOT survive the financial crisis. “Trigger events” caused their demise – that is, if they even did exist to begin with. And, one law firm that reviewed these trusts used the same word (to me) as the post above – a “SHELL.” (The law firm is now gone).

  31. AGAIN THANK YOU TO NEIL AND COMPANY FOR MAKING THIS MUCH MORE SIMPLE.

    I AGREE WITH GWEN CARANHINI.

    DICOVERY IS MAKE IT OR BREAK IT.

    OR DO OR DIE.

  32. CEA… bravo… the quilt trip is coming to a screeching halt … if I for one had 25-30 years of successful trial experience under my belt I would be providing free council to all.

  33. CEA

    great point!!

  34. gwen caranchini, you made an interesting point.

    But, let’s get back to basics 🙂

    Instead of asking if defendants can prove anything we should ask if the PLAINTIFF has ever proved a thing.

    Sadly, there is a shift in mindset. We immediately feel guilty when someone makes us feel bad – skilfully. Then we fall for the trap of dissipating energies on a justify and defend game – which is what the scamsters want us to do.

    America was built on the attitude of: “Who are you and what is your claim? Prove it right now, or get out of my office!

    The Constitution and the spirit of civilized law, as you are fully aware, is built on the concept of “innocent until proven guilty BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

    The fact that there is never the latter (no real party in interest, flouting of rules of evidence etc etc), corrupt judges manipulate us into a position of having to prove the negative, which is *&%^^$%$

    In short, at the beginning, defendants don’t need to prove securitization, nothing. The judge, the JA and some staff of the clerk of the court all know that their boss can’t prove a thing. They know that imposters have no standing and that mill mercenaries, testifying illegally in front of the judge by spouting out templates of linguistic fraud (…we have an interest…). How do I know?

    Recap:
    Before dissipating energies trying to prove the negative, which, because of the moving goal posts we never can, stop the imposters right from the start!!
    Counsel is not allowed to testify; only the plaintiff can. Ever seen a real genuine plaintiff in person at a trial let alone in a hearing “chamber”?
    Why not? They are out of it! THEY GOT THE MONEY. The mills are debt buyers only representing themselves!
    Ask questions accordingly and you will get answers – or better, no answers – Default, here we come… 🙂
    This issue of us allowing the mill mercenaries to give testimony and to play their game, is to me, the main mistake right from the start.

    There are more issues but I want to keep the post short… 🙂

  35. Neil & team your post above clears some confusion up… have you also found that the stated mortgage is in the pool at the “appraisal value” and not the actual loan amount…
    Also one person recently told me that their payments/ check’s (please all opt out of Check-21, which converts your paper check to an electronic payment) have been endorsed by three different entities, WF, BNYM & a defunct ‘mortgage” servicer in the course of 9 months… this would confirm what you have found with investigations via the software you have subscribed to… and yes it is very expensive!

    In fact would this not all constitute further fraud on the part of the servicer’s?

  36. Ok, after spending a lot of time with Dave Krieger and reading literally hundreds of these blog entries and doing some research that Dave referred me to–I get what you are saying. However, as a former trial attorney, when you say the “devil is in the details” that means getting this stuff in discovery to me. Ok, having done very complex employment and errors and omission and antitrust litigation for 25 years (always for the plaintiff)I know how to get at what I need to prove my case. Right now the judge is sitting on my motion for remand (three weeks now since the briefing ended) and once that is ruled discovery will go forward. However, has anyone PROVED this theory yet anywhere? Has anyone found for example what is in MLMI2006-HE5 (my trust) or that it is defunct (which I am close to establishing from other sources)? Litigation is all about settling these days and forcing the defendant to the settlement table–not trying cases which is a crap shoot on a good day–so are we proving this anywhere? And if so, what has gotten us to that point–good discovery makes a case, bad discovery breaks it. Documents always make a case and asking for the right documents is the key. What are people asking for in what “exact” terms? I’m still nt hearing back from anyone on this point==I’m proceeding pro se and I would like to know–

  37. I clicked on the link, but it said “out of stock”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: