COMBO: CONFUSING FACTS MUST LEAD TO REPORTS WITH CONFLICTING FACTS AND ANALYSIS

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION SEARCH, REPORT, ANALYSIS ON LUMINAQ

The Combo Title and Securitization Search, Report and Analysis, is meant to catalog the confusion created by Wall Street  — the manner in which they intentionally obfuscated the facts and how they are continuing a shell game. Since many people have asked if we can make this simpler I choose to answer their inquiries here. The answer is NO, we cannot make it simpler because it would alter our output into a work of fiction. This is particularly true where there is more than one loan on the property each of which was securitized differently or held differently.

The pretender lenders clearly want the judicial system, the legislative branches of government and the executive branch (particularly law enforcement) to focus exclusively on certain documents created for the express purpose of making the transaction LOOK like a simple mortgage transaction. If we allow our impulses toward simplicity to govern our actions we are falling into the trap they have set.

Here is an example of a recent response I wrote to one such customer who was confused after reading the materials from the COMBO:

What you received can be explained as follows, in brief:

  1. Facts: Documents and transactions of record — that’s the report and the copies of documents. A lawyer can take these facts and exhibits and create pleadings and correspondence based upon them because they are indisputable.
  2. Analysis: Using the facts and documents, you have received a title analysis and a securitization analysis. A lawyer can take this analysis and use it as a guide to focus on those issues that are most promising in your jurisdiction.


Most lawyers have reported to us that these elements are sufficient for them to direct their correspondence, litigation, motions and discovery. Some lawyers need more which might include compliance analysis (TILA and RESPA), loan level accounting, an expert declaration, expert testimony, or strategic advice concerning the use of the litigation support materials we have prepared. In the last 18 months we have seen an upsurge in loan level accounting, an upsurge in TILA and RESPA compliance analysis, and a sharp drop in need for expert declaration, expert testimony or strategic advice.

We are restricted in what services we perform for non-lawyers as it could be construed as the unauthorized practice of law. We cannot give legal advice to you without violating those laws. But we CAN give advice to your lawyer on all aspects of the case.

The materials are always conflicting because that is the nature of securitization as it was practiced by the players. Since their behavior was convoluted and conflicting it is inevitable for us to report that as a fact and include it in our analysis. For example, you might have read in your analysis and on the blog (www.livinglies.wordpress.com) that the loans are CLAIMED as being owned by an asset-backed pool, which may only be a general partnership notwithstanding the use of the word “Trust” or “Trustee.” The issue is further complicated by the fact that the loans claimed lack any trail of documentation transferring the loan documents to anyone. Then the issue is further complicated by the fact that the loan originator is either a non-depository lender or a depository institution, either one acting more as mortgage broker than a lender, hiding the real lender from the borrower. These facts and analysis raise legal issues that may apply to your case but only a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which the property is located could advise you as to what to do with these facts and those analyses or what steps to take. Any decision you make should be based on the advice of such an attorney and not merely on the basis of the reports and analysis.

There are many such examples in which the parties claiming to be lenders or creditors are confronted with facts and documents which contradict their position. Thus the intricate and often contradictory information you see is simply a compilation of the information arranged and analyzed in ways that assist attorneys in choosing their strategies and tactics. We cannot change the facts to make them simple without changing the story. Telling you the name of a “Trust” would mislead you into believing that the “Trust” exists or ever held the loan as an asset. The situation is further complicated by the bailouts, subsequent trading of the mortgage backed securities, insurance payments and other payments by third parties. Application of these facts and local law is the exclusive province of a local licensed attorney.

Regards
Neil

5 Responses

  1. Louise:

    Yes that is great and some states are doing it, but many are not and those that do, are not doing that good of a job. In fact, we offered to audit each and every account for the homeowner who could take the summary findings to legal aid which would have helped them target the issue and handle more homeowners more efficiently.

    Our offer had no impact even though their funds had been cut by 75 million. So there you go.

  2. Patrick Byrne Amends Suit Against Goldman Sachs To Include Charges of Racketeering (GS, OSTK)
    By BenzingaStaffB

    Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/03/930498/patrick-byrne-amends-suit-against-goldman-sachs-to-include-charges-of-racketeering#ixzz1GmYn3JAl

  3. All we need are Judges who follow the existing law.

  4. Recently, it was announced that New York state was providing lawyers to represent homeowners in cases related to foreclosure, etc. I hope other states will be providing legal assistance to homeowners. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  5. Great post – that is why it is important for the people to work under constraints that are possible for them to accomplish what we is truthful and justified.

    We should and can control our own money – why allow the bank to do that?

    If the people have to depend on attorneys many will go without the representation they need and there is no alternative. I am sure a lot of us hear the cries daily for people who legal aid has turned down simply because they did not have the manpower or basically, the knowledge either.

    Neil is right. Each case is basically a puzzle and many times definitely not simple – but I have had many who understand what I am telling them about the general aspects of the layout of how an ownership chain should or may look. They need to put the puzzle together and many have.

    Attorneys are wonderful – but everyone simply cannot afford it and again, that is what the banks are counting on.

    Perhaps we need a “public defender” while we put other plans in place to make some kind of IMPACT

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: