A Brief Summary of RMBS Securitization As We Now Know It

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

  1. In nearly all cases there is a reference to a trust that “owns” the loans. The first transaction is with this fictitious trust on whose behalf money is collected from investors who think they are purchasing bonds, the payor being the trust, but they are in effect non-recourse bonds because the trust only exists as a conduit for the flow of money from receivables that include but are not limited to borrower payments, co-obligor (servicer) payments, loss mitigation payments with waiver of subrogation, etc. The loan product sold to the homeowner occurs long after the money is collected from the investors. At no time are any of the participants in the securitization chain at risk from a default on the loan. That risk is solely borne by the investor. The risk undertaken by the securitization participants is in the bets they placed on the failure of the pools, an occurrence which is declared by the Master Servicer, which is a participant in the securitization chain.

  2. In nearly all cases there is no trust document creating the trust.

  3. In nearly all cases there were no documents of transfer as required by the securitization documents and as required by the IRC for REMICs. So the assignment, endorsement etc are all fabricated, forged, or backdated, notarized by a notary who neither knows nor ever saw the signor.

  4. In nearly all cases the signor of any proffered document by the would-be forecloser is not authorized and there are no documents that can be authenticated proving up a chain of authority or ownership.

  5. Thus in nearly all cases, the only party of record is the loan originator who did not loan any money. They acted as a broker and the loan was physically funded by a third party into the escrow account of the closing agent.

  6. Thus in nearly all cases, the only party of record with any colorable encumbrance is not owed any money — either because they were PAID IN FULL or they never advanced the money.

  7. Thus in nearly all cases, the encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust) is void ab initio because it secures an obligation that was not owed to the mortgagee or beneficiary. Even the note is void because it describes a party to whom the obligation is owed who never contributed one penny to the funding. The obligation, as your opposition will tell you themselves, is to someone else, not the originating lender.

  8. Attempts to show transfers now “fixing the problem” have two fatal defects: (1) both the IRC REMIC law and the securitization documents whose wording is identical to to the statute, require that all assets be transferred in within 90 days of the establishment of the “trust.” This never happened with any securitized loan. (2) in nearly all cases the attempted transfer is of a loan which has already been declared in default. This violates the terms of the securitization documents and any such transfer would be a fraud on the investors giving them non-performing loans when the documents clearly state that the loans must be performing and meet industry standard underwriting guidelines. Hence the parties causing those new transfer documents to be created and signed are prohibited from using them, inasmuch as they are on their face unacceptable as assets of the pool.

  9. All documents prepared or proffered by the pretender lenders are self-serving artifice designed to deceive the court. None of them ever advanced any money which we know because the money all came from investors buying bogus mortgage bonds, which are now in litigation because they were bogus. The point though is that the money came from the investors.

  10. No securitization participant in the chain has the power to satisfy a mortgage, foreclose on a mortgage, or to submit a credit bid at the time of foreclosure auction because they are not creditors and there is no money owed to them.

23 Responses

  1. PELUCHEVEN, I just came across this awesome discussion of what i beleive is directly related to my quest to prove that my mortgage funded 07/16/2007 with First Magnus was part of this! My investor now is Deutsche bank. My servicer then went to homecomings and now Aurora bank fbs. thank you for all of this information!!!! I will read every word of the BK filing.
    Have any of you stumbled on any new information? i am very interested!

  2. Bob G.

    If they filed 10-K – do not know where they filed them because all of these entities filed 15- D – that allowed them to cease filing with the SEC – Because of this, we never got “updates.”

    I think the multiple parties issue stems from the lack of accounting due to the deregulation which allowed entities to cease filings. Thus, removal of loans – due to repurchases, refinances, default, etc. – were often not accounted for.

    The important thing is for trustees to produce remittance/collection ledgers that show full accounting for the full mortgage loan payment – including all servicer advances. At present time – courts have not asked for this in foreclosures.

  3. ANON or someone else with personal knowledge…

    How could these guys possibly sell the same notes to multiple parties? They filed audited 10-Ks every year.

    I just don’t see how this is possible. Where would the cash flows come from, and how would the fraudsters actually benefit?

    Someone help me out here.

  4. Question: If the there are dozen’s and dozen’s of the bank as trustee for xxxx mortgage backed security xxxx, can they say there is still no investor? Don’t they have to have all the items they said were in it to begin with and not switch them around?
    There are supposed to be XXX loans from A bank, xxx from B bank etc, and xx from A and xx from B have closed? What then?

  5. THINK PEOPLE.

    Consider this…Citizens with lawful title record, refi with the pretender bastards and we all know the loan is Toxic crap. ,Bastards sell the crap to Freddie mac . Ginnie and those others. FAST Forward and its bailout time Pretender Bastards get the trillions in taxpayer [ citizen] Tarp funds. The investers loose big time, the lawful citizen owners of title loose property value or the property to the bastards, Freddie mac / ginnie now in conservatorship [ citizen owned] now own the mortgage/ note/ property and the tax revenue for the bastard bailouts….Pretender Bastards foreclose claiming to be real party when the government is actual real party in interest. Citizen files a civil suit for the sham and must join the real party himself [ government freddie mac/ ginnie] for the theft and fraud committed. The judge with his TITLE 5 retirement invested in the sham securities, orders the TITLE 18 Securities Fraud [ Note] as valid proof of claim and the citizen looses his real property, his government, his future tax revenue and his freedom.
    WAKE UP PEOPLE This is what we need to be shouting in the streets,. The Government owns or mortgages. We are paying the tax to bailout the banks so they can steal our property, deeded to the government. We are paying for them to steal our homes, 1776=2011 the riots should be in full swing , but we go quietly like the sheep to slaughter

  6. Bob G.,

    Good point. We just have to always remember that the certificates were always SOLD to the security underwriters – and this is before any derivative CDOs were manufactured for sale to subsequent security investors.

    The banks buys the loans – and then by setting up the trust they remove the receivables from on-balance sheet to hidden off-balance sheet conduit – which, in effect converts the loan receivables to securities – which the security underwriter bank subsidiary FIRST purchases before pass-through to subsequent derivative (CDO) security investors.

    I am not trying to dispute Neil’s premise – but I think it is a very difficult path to claim security investors directly fund the loans. They do not. The security investors’ beef is with the banks – not us. And, our beef is with the banks – not the security investors. The banks are to blame – they funded the loans – and then sold their own receivables to themselves – who passed onto derivative “Synthetic” security investors. Those investors own nothing but receivable pass-through – and when that is gone – so is their investment. The Banks do NOT sell the whole loans (or property) – those rights remain with the bank – whether on -or off-balance sheet in some fake Trust. The BANK OWNS THE TRUST – THEY OWN THE CERTIFICATES!!!. See “Method of Distribution” in Prospectus. Derivative security investors are never the creditor/lender – to us.

    The Trusts were simply set up to convert the bank-owned loans into receivable securities pass-throughs – first to themselves as certificate owners – and then to CDO derivative investors. The only certificate holders to the conduit Trusts are the banks – themselves. .

    David,

    The originators will say that it was their “own” line of credit – (warehouse) – but they will not tell you that the line of credit had to be specifically used to fund loans that were to be sold to the banks. This is table-funding – because the line of credit was not to be used for any other purpose than to sell the loans to the purchasing bank. We were all duped.

    But, regulators should have known this when the scandal hit – and they did nothing. They let the statute of limitations (at least for borrowers) expire against so many originators and actual lenders – who violated RESPA.

    Pelucheven – is absolutely correct – particularly for his 2:44 p.m post. And, also – the brokers collected fees for work they did not do – they did not find borrowers “better deals” – because – the deal was already done. We were assessed higher interest rates – for nothing.

  7. ”Report: LAW FIRM
    OF DAVID J STERN
    Share
    Print Email
    Reported By: blue (fort lauderdale Florida United States of America)
    LAW FIRM OF DAVID J STERN – AURORA LOAN SERVICING – HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL – FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL – FIRST AMERICAN REO – GMAC MORTGAGE, SECOND FEDERAL LOAN FRAUDELENT FORECLOSURE FILINGS CONDONED BY THE FLORIDA COURT IN THE 10 DISTRICT COURT BARTOW PLANTATION, Florida

    Report & Rebuttal:
    1Author 0Consumer 0Employee
    Respond to this report! What’s This?
    What’s This?

    Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide “insider information” on this company?
    Victim of this person/company? What’s This?
    What’s This?

    Are you also a victim of the same company or individual? Want Justice? File a Rip-off Report, help other consumers to be educated and don’t let them get away with it!
    Remove a Ripoff Report?
    Submit your case to be considered
    for the Judge Alex show!!
    LAW FIRM OF DAVID J STERN
    900 S PINE ISLAND RD
    PLANTATION Florida 33324
    United States of America
    Phone: 954.233.8000 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 954.233.8000 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
    Web Address:

    Category: Court Judges

    Submitted: Monday, December 14, 2009
    Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009

    cassandra m. riguad is all over the place filing fraudelent foreclosures. what everybody needs to know is that she files the complaint as cassandra m rigaud then she is allowed to appear by phone as cassandra racine rigaud. she signs the foreclosure complaint as cassandra m. rigaud with florida attorney bar number 450065 if you type that number into the florida bar search you will not find any cassandra m rigaud but you will find cassandra racine rigaud. this is a big wool over our eyes why is she allowed to do this?

    she cassandra racine rigaud works for david j stern the worst law firm in south florida. they are crooks and the judges all of them from the 7-12 district court of are all condoning whagt these people are doing. they all work for aurora, first magnus gmac first american reo and a few more servicers. the judges and attorneys are not interested in justice only lining their pockets.

    This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/14/2009 5:42:29 PM and is a permanent record located here:
    http://www.ripoffreport.com/Court-Judges/LAW-FIRM-OF-DAVID-J/LAW-FIRM-OF-DAVID-J-STERN-'AURO-5D4B4.htm.
    Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permittion of Ripoff Report.

    Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on LAW FIRM
    Search for additional reports

    If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:’

  8. “Report Finds First Magnus Violated Real Estate Law

    Law360, New York (July 24, 2008) — A new audit report released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has revealed that home lender First Magnus Financial Corp. violated federal law by offering incentives to mortgage brokers.

    In the report, issued on July 14, the department said First Magnus violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by paying brokers for generating Federal Housing Administration mortgages….”

    There are always golden nuggets

  9. Shields v. First Magnus Financial Corporation et al
    Share |
    Plaintiff: Stevie Shields
    Defendants: Aurora Loan Services, LLC, First Magnus Financial Corporation, LSI Title Company, MTC Financial Inc., Merscorp, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Ticor Title – Reno, Title Service & Escrow, Trustee Corps, Jessica Vaughn and Wholesale Mortgage Services

    Case Number: 3:2010cv00641
    Filed: October 13, 2010

    Court: Nevada District Court
    Office: Reno Office [ Court Info ]
    : Robert A. McQuaid
    Presiding Judge: Robert C. Jones

    Nature of Suit: Torts – Property – Truth in Lending
    Cause: 15:1601 Truth in Lending
    Jury Demanded By: None

    Access additional case information on PACER

  10. IT WAS HAPPENING THEN, IT IS STILL HAPPENING NOW!

    “The following six orders by Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, of King, should be of interest:
    American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (11 Sep 2007)
    In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on September 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgemnt of foreclosure and sale of a Kings County property without prejudice due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The plaintiff American Brokers Conduit instituted suit on February 28, 2007, but did not receive an interest in the mortgage which is subject of the suit until a March 5, 2007 assignment (CFRN 2007000169450). This case is a little bizarre in that American Brokers Conduit seems to have assigned the mortgage to ITSELF at a different address in Melville, New York. The case does have a good discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have standing.
    American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (28 Jan 2008)
    In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on January 28, 2008, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to include an affidavit of merit by the party. Rahter than having an officer of American Brokers Conduit execute the affidavit of merit, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit excuted by a Robert HARDMAN, who identified himself as Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
    Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 15208/2007 (09 Oct 2007)
    In Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge SHACK denied an application for an order for service by publication and dismissed the complaint by Aurora Loan Services, LLC, due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The plaintiff pled a promissory note and mortgage iin which the promissory note was in favor of First Magnus Financial Corporation and the mortgage was recorded in favor of MERS. Judge SCHACK notes that there is no evidence whatsoever within the record that the mortgage was assigned in favor of the plaintiff and notes that no such mortgage assignemnt was either pled or recorded. Judge SCHACK goes on to note that First Magnus Financial Corporation had gone out of business in AUgust 2007 and filed for bankruptcy on August 21, 2007. The opinion then contains a thorough discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have demonstrable standing in order to be eligible to maintian a suit. In addition to dismissing the suit, Judge SCHACK also cancelled the notice of pendency. Judge SCHACK also found the original complaint and suit to be frivolous, but declined to impose sanctions upon the law firm filing the suit because it was the first instance that the Court had noted such conduct.
    Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 32052/2007 (19 Nov 2007)
    In Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate ownership of the mortgage for the subject property. The plaintiff pled an assignment from MERS to Bank of New York dated August 21, 2007, but Judge SCHACK noted that this assignment had never been recorded. But Judge SCHACK went on to note that Bank of New York also pled an affidavit executed by a person who is identified as Keri SELMAN. Judge SCHACK notes that while in her affidavit in the OROSCO case she identified herself as an Assistant Vice President for Bank of New York, in another case before Judge SCHACK Keri SELMAN had signed an affidavit identifying herself as a Vice President of “Countrywide Home Loans, Attorney in Fact for Bank of New York”. Judge SCHACK ordered that Ms. Keri SCHACK furnish an affidavit describing her employment history for the previous three years. [In point of fact, this would seem to be Keri or Kerri L. SELMAN (b 26 Aug 1969 – Los Angeles, CA), formerly Keri Lynn ATWOOD, of McKinney, Texas. She seems likely to be an employee of Countrywide, which has a large servicing facility near where Ms. SELMAN lives.]
    Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (11 May 2007)
    In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. Judge SCHACK noted that the foreclosure was commenced in July 2006 by Deutsche Bank. After obtaining an order of reference (November 16, 2006) and after preparing an affirmation of regularity (January 10, 2007) and during the pendency of the action, Deutsche Bank seems to have assigned the mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. on January 19, 2007 (recorded February 7, 2007). Judge SCHACK therefore denied the plaintiff’s application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice expressly inviting the Plaintiff to amend its pleadings to appropriately to correct the identity of the plaintiff. Judge SCHACK cites Gretchen Morgenson’s April 6, 2007, New York Times article “Fair Game; Home Loans: A Nightmare Grows Darker” in his opinion.
    Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (14 Jan 2008)
    In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied a renewed application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing (see case above). He noted that the defects identified within his May 11, 2007, order remained unaddressed. In addition, he noted the presence of a affidavit of merit executed by a Mr. Jeff RIVAS, who was identified as Deutsche Bank’s “Vice President Default Timeline Management”. He then notes the presence of mortgage assignment within the files executed the same date which identifies Mr. Jeff RIVAS as the “Vice President Default Timeline Management” for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, the assignor of a the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. Judge SCHACK points out that if Mr. RIVAS was acting as an officer of both the grantor and the grantee of the assignment that this would create a conflict rendering the conveyance VOID. Judge SCHACK then directs that Mr. RIVAS’ employment history be clarified in any future application for a foreclosure order. Judge SCHACK then goes on to note that Deutsche Bank and MTGLQ Investors, L.P. are also shown to share the same address at 1661 Worthington lioad, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, where suspicious transactions executed by one Scott ANDERSON seem to be occuring. Judge SCHACK then also demands an explanation as to WHY so many corporations seem to be sharing the SAME suite in West Palm Beach.
    Judge Arthur M. SCHACK is a Justice of the Supreme Court of New York for King County. [See http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7029077 ]”

    DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS

  11. To me, it seems crystal clear, it was all a Ponzi scheme to defraud the investors. The original loan
    evidenced by the original Note was the starting point of the counterfeiting operation so that the Note color
    copies could be placed in multiple pools and sold multiple times to different investors. The originator
    got paid multiple times on the original Note and the
    servicers had to be in on it by using money from the new investors to make monthly payments to the old investors. It all fell apart when new investors stopped
    buying in, causing the whole house of cards to collapse.
    The bailouts really went to the senior investors, but now the junior investors are still left with worthless CDO bonds. In other words the last investors at the
    base of the pyramid stand to lose everything they invested. This is very “deflationary”. Much of the money
    and money substitutes that were thought to exist, don’t
    really exist. This explains the actions of the Fed in its
    “quantitative easing” to try and head off a massive
    deflationary crash. Personally, I don’t think they will be
    successful, too much wealth has to be erased which
    can never be replaced because it never really existed!

  12. The Last Inspiring News from the Head Honchos at First Magnus

    From: Karl Young [mailto:Karl.Young@firstmagnus.com]
    Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:16 PM
    To: David Quandt; Andrew Kim; Ron Gapp; Herb Lewis; Ramaj Balley; Stephen Olimpio; Brian Reynolds; Patrick Altier; Kenneth Ferrari; Ed Wallace; Isabel Bustamante; Randy Hutchison; Erik Lutz; Bill Gaylord; Douglas Olson; Letty Huffman; Cary Ridenour; Stephen Alexander; Douglas Lemke; Jana Gledhill; Faisal Adil; Amit Gujral; Brandi Shoemaker; Gary Baraff; Elona Sanamyan
    Cc: G. S. Jaggi; Gary Malis; Dominick Marchetti
    Subject: Growth Opportunities for First Magnus?

    The recent collapse of American Home Mortgage / American Brokers Conduit and the tremendous number of their employees that are looking at First Magnus as their new home has prompted some recent questions about First Magnus’ ability to continue to grow in this volatile and contracting market.

    Those who know First Magnus and certainly those that have been with us for any length of time know that much of our success and market share gains have come during times of industry contraction and market turmoil. We have always positioned ourselves in such a way as to be prepared to take advantage of every opportunity to grow through such periods. First Magnus is known to our employees and industry partners alike as a relatively conservative company that has never sought to dabble in the riskiest fringes of the market. We are also known for our extremely risk averse pricing and secondary marketing strategy that has always been to protect First Magnus against any potentially damaging market movement rather than a source of significant gain. This positioning strategy combined with the fact that First Magnus does not pay dividends to any of its seven shareholders has allowed us to be extremely profitable and to reinvest in our technology and infrastructure while building substantial cash reserves in order to grow and prosper through leaner times. The depth of this particular downturn, while challenging no doubt, is already creating opportunities for First Magnus of unprecedented magnitude.

    As most of you are aware, the first half of the year has been nothing less than stellar for First Magnus. However, the remainder of 2007 will likely be the most significant period of First Magnus’ evolution as a company. We are already $3 billion ahead of where we were at this time last year and have obviously been outperforming the industry as this tumultuous and volatile market has wreaked havoc upon many. The collapse of American Home / ABC is one such example of the opportunities we anticipated albeit and bigger and more immediate opportunity than we had even imagined. However, while their exit from the market has created an additional and immediate $2 billion per month opportunity for First Magnus, it has caused some to ask how this could have happened to what appeared to be an otherwise solid company.

    For those that may not know, AHM/ABC was one of the few national lenders that had grown faster than First Magnus over the past few years. Four years ago they were a retail only lender that took over wholesale lender Capital Commerce which closed down overnight due to a risky secondary marketing and pricing strategy. The pressure that this overly aggressive wholesale operation put on an historically conservative retail lender was one of the causes of their demise as this time around they approached the market with an overly aggressive product and underwriting strategy. This not only put them in a position to grow at the expense of profitability but set them up for future losses that they were not prepared for. Additionally, they were structured as a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) for the purposes of securitizing their own loans which, in the end, was the major contributor to their ultimate demise. As a REIT, they were not only forced to pay out the bulk of their profits to their shareholders, but they were holding on to over $1 billion in unprotected, riskier profile loans to sell into the market which moved away from them overnight. As a result, their warehouse lenders knew they would not be able to recover and called their loans due.

    In short, we have always operated First Magnus in a very risk averse fashion. We have built our technology in such a way as to insulate us from the many errors that can plague a company trying to navigate its way through the types of guideline changes we have been experiencing of late. We do not take risks by trying to make money on the secondary market. We take forward commitments on every loan that we originate so we are always protected should the market move away from us. And we have always kept the majority of the money we have made in the company to insure our liquidity position and allow us to take advantage of the very opportunities we are presented with today.

    I hope you all share my enthusiasm for this industry, the great company we all work for, and the tremendous opportunities that lie ahead for all of us at First Magnus.

    Thank you all for everything you do to make First Magnus the great company that it is.

    What a Bunch of CRAP!!!! they new they had been in trouble, liquidated assets like it was not tomorrow.

    Posted by Chris Davis on 03/21/2008 05:26 PM Comments (0) bashing first magnus

    0 Comments on The Last Inspiring News from the Head Honchos at First Magnus

  13. dear Mr. Garfield,

    I know you cannot spill the milk here, and i know that you have sufficient evidence for you to state this facts here. But most lawyers and judges are still acting like doubting Thomases out there. They all want evidence and case law.

    As far as I have been able to get to you are 100% right. The fact that there are no trusts assigned to the loans originated and securitized by first Magnus Financial Corporation and others tell me that your facts are correct.

    But I feel we are still missing a piece of the puzzle. We are very close, so close that we are going to step back a bit and refocus.

    we got down and to the open the their documentation is suspect due to the blatant forgeries. the audits being performed by the investors and other parties indicate there was fraud upstairs as well. We are missing a link in the chain, Where are all the documents allegedly being stored, who has that responsibility?

    What about the accounting? who reports to whom and what do they report?

  14. http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?PID=95

    this is the link to the BK filing for First Magnus Financial, I have other PDF’s But would need an email to send them.

    Look very carefully at the Initial unamended filing of their BK where they tell the BK court how they were pre selling or selling forward their productions. and also the schedule of the warehouse lending facilities.

    pelucheven@hotmail.com

  15. Neil

    Not sure what you are talking about here. I’ve seen Exhibits to 8-Ks that show the trust agreements and trust indentures.

  16. Pelucheven,

    Can u provide actual links or pdf’s ?

  17. GOOGLE ALL THE bk FILINGS FOR ALL PRETENDER LENDERS/ORIGINATORS, THERE IS GOLD THERE. YOU WILL FIND THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP AND THE AMOUNTS THEY GOT FROM ALL THE FUNDERS OF THE LOANS, AND HOW THEY PRESOLD THEIR PRODUCTION

  18. How can we battle with this Shell Lenders/originators crap, since many judges at least in VA, have indicated that you can foreclose with a shell and you can finance with a shell.

    In the next few days I will create a shell and foreclose on their homes to!!

    I bet they will get very technical with that!

  19. The loans for the most part were funded by lines of credit, Google the BK filing for First Magnus Financial, AZ. These lines of credit were set up by Banksters like BOA, Coutrywide, etc.

    In the First Magnus Finacial Corporation BK in their initial BK filing they showed to the BK court how they sold the loans forward. And who their warehouse lenders were. In their RESPA disclosures in all their loans they stated they sold the servicing rights to 100% of their origination.

    Both Mr. Garfield and Mr. Anonymous are correct since the deals between originators and super brokers were a little different. Their compensation schedules should also be suspect since many of these players did receive compensation not shown on the HUD1’s.

    there are plenty of originators which filed for BK and their business practices are public record.

    Ther are no disclosures in any settlement package I have seen in 15 years working in the real estate industry that told any one that their loan was going to become part of a trust, or a securitization scheme. There was no proper disclosure of the true creditor.

    Now the question is, do these TRUSTS own anything?
    They claim to own the loans. If they never paid for them, how can they claim ownership, if they are a Tax free cash flow conduit, how can they own something that was never transferred to them for the most part. We keep seeing blank “Fake” freshly printed NOTES with o endorsement to any trust.

    I did find a forensic document examiner here in VA. I will send his qualifications and resume to Mr. Garfield. He did cryptology work and forensic work for the NAVY and is an expert in Document forgeries and financial money laundering. he will send me his resume. e will need people like him for the FAKE NOTES, ALLONGES and other crap the foreclosure mills are putting out there.

  20. Hi Anonymous,

    I thought I read that warehouse funds were unregulated which allowed them to commingle funds.

    If the Originator can use a Letter of Credit and not their own funds – then sell the transaction including all its rights – without recourse – then isn’t the definition of a broker? If the arrangement is made without borrower’s knowledge, isn’t that misrepresentation? The borrower is lead to believe they are doing business with Originator when in fact they are not and never were?

    Foreclosure Mills attack the default representing they (or their clients) are Holders of the NOTE that is “Secured by the Deed of Trust” therefore are a “real party in interest.” They support their authority by their (fraudulent) Assignment… However the Fraud is proven by the LACK of FIXATION – the allonge and/or assignment is rendered ineffective because it was not “permanently Affixed” to the NOTE and was not done-so prior to the Closing Date. Normally, under Fed. R. Evid. 902(9), the Original, as commercial paper, is entitled to a presumption of authenticity.

    If they cannot prove-up the alloge physically – permanently affixed to the NOTE – that blows their authenticity theory – including the genuineness of signatures & negotiable instruments. It renders the NOTE non-negotiable. Non-negotiable Notes cannot be foreclosed…

    I’m looking at a case “Deutsche Bank Nation Trust Company -vs- Anthony Tarantola – Case No. 4:09-bk-09703-EWH

    Man, this stuff makes my brain hurt..

  21. Guys. We really have to get to the bottom of this. From CWABS, Inc. Asset Backed Certificates Series 2005-Ab3 – Prospectus:

    “USE OF PROCEEDS

    The Depositor will apply the net proceeds of the sale of the
    Certificates against the purchase price of the Initial Mortgage Loans on the Closing Date and to deposit the Pre-Funded Amount, if any, in the Pre-Funding Account.”

    Now this could support both Neil’s and Anonymous’s contentions. The investor money could have been used to take out a warehouse lender’s position in the deal. Or it could have been used to pay for the originator’s loans, without a warehouse lender in the loop. Is this a distinction without a difference? I find it interesting that the deal’s lawyers did not really get very specific about this, did they? Methinks this was intentionally vague.

    The plot thickens.

  22. Now let us know what you really think! Is 1998 still accurate as the time they stopped caring about what they put in the trusts?

  23. Okay – this is good Neil.
    But – you state “The loan product sold to the homeowner occurs long after the money is collected from the investors.” There is a forward agreement to sell the loans to the BANK – before loan is even originated – so partly agree.

    But, security investors are fractional – all they are entitled to is a beneficial fractional interest in “pool’s” receivables – nothing more. No investor directly funds any loans – loans cannot be fractionally originated – and there is no direct tie to any individual loan. The Fed Reserve has confirmed this.

    Loans were funded by warehouse lines of credit (and other short term instuments) provided by the banks to the selling originators. Each loan is seperately funded – and sold to the bank at execution, or with a “pool.”. Prearranged agreement to forward sell future loans – does not mean investors funded the individual loans.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: