SCAM: $3,000 TO GET THE NAME OF THE TRUST

Based upon two reports from what I consider to be reliable sources, there are some people who have associated themselves with this blog that are scamming and gouging people on getting the securitization information. The basic proposition is this: “I have someone on the inside at the SEC who for $3,000 will get you the name of the trust.”

DON’T DO IT: OUR FEE IS $195 TO GET THE NAME OF THE TRUST.

There is no magic to this. We have the ABS.net and other subscriptions and sources to get the name of the trust. Sometimes in private securitizations we are unable to do so, but there is about 95% customer satisfaction with what we do. We don’t mind if people use our commoditized services as part of their own work and mark it up because they are adding value. But $3,000 just for the name of the trust is gouging and misleading. BE CAREFUL IN YOUR DESPERATION. ANYONE OFFERING “INSIDE INFORMATION” IS MOST PROBABLY SCAMMING YOU. 

Getting the name of the trust doesn’t solve your title issues nor does it give you the ammunition you need to fight off a foreclosure or otherwise challenge a servicer or pretender lender.What you need is a full COMBO Title and securitization analysis with ALL the information and that costs, at most, $995 on our site, which is 1/3 of the “special information” offered by the scammers. SEE COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION SEARCH, REPORT, ANALYSIS — SINGLE PAYMENT

You should be aware that while we are successfully nearly all the time, there are certain “private label” securitizations that are buried so deep that we cannot access them. The work is the same whether we find it or not and so is the charge.

see also http://livinglies.me/2011/01/25/just-give-me-the-name-of-the-trust-explained/

40 Responses

  1. M.Soliman

    Good for you!!! But, have no knowledge of anything you do — I copy nothing. And, no one more than me cares about peoples lives and homes. I have no business — profit by nothing — and cannot fully disclose certain cases and information I have here.

    I speak the truth only — use it – or lose it — and stop being so pompous.

  2. Mr Solimon;
    Please if you will explain the definition and context of the use of the word “derecognition” —-I am not familiar with that as a “term of art”——perhaps in your background as a financial manager and accountant you have encountered a regulation or business usage in this portion of the retail financial industry with which I do not have experience.

    Also simply for your benefit, because whatever the disputes that you have among youselves over whatever, if I were a plaintiff counsel, I would be capturing and placing in an online industry accessible file, all of these commentaries that you have made and use them to discredit you -not by relying on substance but on the tone which could be used to discredit you as an expert if you are used in a case for that purpose. Somebody might lose an MTD if the affidavits or expert reportsor however you might characterize your material in a particular jurisdiction or forum, or level of procedure/pleading motion practice etc. I do not have substantial judicial litigation experience to support this perception, but I have litigated a few large cases [ie in excess of $ 20 million-each] in an administrative hearing context that involved experts and I would never have used one that had this sort of material laying around in the internet for an expert on the particular topic—it may be ok to rant on a non-expert topic–we all do from time to time–but not in our area of expertise. But its your career??——-just some friendly advice sir.

  3. ANONYMOUS

    I KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING HERE AND ITS MANIPULATION OF OTHERS. You are copying things and proffering claims you have no knowledge of – This is not a game. These are peoples lives and their homes

    THE STATE OF CA COURT OF APPEALS Graupner Vs Select Portfolio Services; 2010
    Order to Remand to the trial Court / “Motion in Limine” Pettibone / Galipow

    Henderson Vs First Franklin Financial Services
    Los Angeles, CA $500,000 settlement offer/ Confirmed Law Firm Gareeb Pham Counsel

    Lopez Vs SPS ; Lender Cash for Keys Offer
    No California $50,000

    Goines Vs. Wells Fargo / Trial Decision for Plaintiff 2009 CA Superior Court Los Angeles, County **Trial Counsel Jessica P. Esq

    Corbett Vs Aurora Loan Services CA Superior Court Northern CA Branch / District Previaled ; ruled with Prejudice (appearance attorney)

    I have another 14 cases but I am tired of listing them so ….Peace

    expert.witness@live.com

    M.Soliman

  4. M.Soliman,

    Gave the olive branch – but you continue your rants.

    i have no use. Tried. Do as you please. Problem is — I have seen no results.

    Maybe your attacks on me will cause you to get more motivated for results — At this point — I WELCOME ANY RESULTS.

    Will not respond your antics anymore. Useless.

  5. GAAP and the mal practice of derecognition are the ONLY chance to penetrate the guessing game of “wheres the breach”.

    a. Malibu
    b. Jersey Shore
    c. A Son of a XXXXXX
    d. GAAP

    GAAP caused a few good men to get out of the business. Now Citi, BAC and the likes have found the fountain of youth. Trying to discredit my work discredits this site and all the efforts of those who are working to bring this mess to an honest end with a positive outcome.

    Times like this imakes me think about what if – I stayed put on the other side! I used to take homes and know what it takes to move folks out.

  6. ANONOMUSH on April 25, 2011 at 11:50 am said:

    Dear M.soliman,
    Working on much more important things now. Will provide no names — and cannot make contacts.

    M.Soliman – I know. Secret agent man. You have people relying on your word and it’s wrong. And you have more important things to do – really. Like what?

    I can let the neighbor kid plagiarize under an anonymous name too.

    You’re traveling into an areas you never have ventured before . Areas of subject matter that authorites also read. I spoke with leading accountants (for trust audits) who cannot dispute or challenge my findings. Now you’re rattling off gibberish and people are listening …if the guy writing you back is not a shill.

    Do as you see fit – careful – your information is wrong. I have served as a CFO and accountant. You ?

    Do me a favor. Don’t drink and drive. I do have a few CPA’s that would be willing to hear you ?

  7. M.Soliman,

    Working on much more important things now. Will provide no names — and cannot make contacts.

    Have no time for this — so truce??? No desire to debate you. Stand by my statements — despite any disagreement. My best to you — as always.

    There is much, much, that is being concealed.

  8. I would certainly love to participate in any call re Soliman and Anonomous. i see glimmerings of fact and law in both of these positions. My own thought was that you both appear to be informed layman. Probably with financial industry backgrounds in there somewhere–I see frequent interchanging of plainly understandable legal terms with what appear to be industry practice terminology. I dont want to throw stones because frankly the differences appear to eminate from possible semantics rather than substantive disagreement-but as Soliman suggests -its hard to work out a string of complex and generalized actions like those described in an email string–email and blurbs are notoriously subject to misinterpretation.

    As for me, I am on the fringe of this site–I do not get paid for helping people where I can-its pro-bono and try to make sense from a policy perspective——im concerned about the country and the damage of repeated meltdowns–iv got 3 college aged sons that must live with what comes from all this–along with over-stuffed nuclear plant storge ponds and depleted uranium that injures our soldiers as badly as those they bomb with the stuff——there are plenty of battles to be fought–a little fuss over terminolgy seems childish to me–

    So please diagram it and discuss it without the rancor.—we all really need to know the answer.

    And so do our kids.

    I have had 3 decades of finanial law experience-but this stuff was a fairly recent invention-at least in the extremes we are seeing. The agency enforcement or lack therof is not limited to foreclosures and predatory lending. It is the result of a decade of de-funding of agency enforcement and appointment of regulatory heads based on philosophical dogma rather than fact-finding and logical application of law.

    I dont like to hear terms like “belief” and philosophy used in technical discussion. That belief that a financial community will self-regulate or the “unseen hand” will put everything right does not work in an era where monopoly power is the ultimate goal.

    My email is dcbreidenbach@aol.com and my name is there for all to see. I do not mind if somebody can make use of my comments or help —im not copyrighting——Please keep your eyes on the ball folks.

  9. ANONYMOUS said
    MERS as “nominee” is also not the creditor/lender as they own no right to anything — and, also according to the Fed Res — the creditor/lender is the entity that accounts for the largest position in the loan — on it’s balance sheet (this has been confirmed to me by Fed Res).

    OMG this dude is toxic – Joke the creditor/lender is the entity that accounts for the largest position in the loan — on it’s balance sheet (this has been confirmed to me by Fed Res)

    .Get me the Fed persons number please.. Sure that what your told. The truth is not what tthe Fed is telling you . . .Where are you really getting this because it will not help anyones cause.

    How come LivingLies now shows up on GAAP searches ?

    How come web sites attacking my character from years ago gibberish are showing up again ?

    Defamation is a big big number if you lose . . .

  10. Anonymous

    You’re kidding right.

    Look at what you wrote again – You are kidding. You had me going Chief. Really. For a moment I thought —Okay

    A REMIC set up as a debt vehicle and pass through is debt- I am talking mortgage accounting scheme and Derecognition…Ah okay….. .Goodwill friend – Hmmmm See Goodwill – I am also announcing our belief from research suggesting the GSE were approving people for loans and not placing the loan into a Fannie Mae pool for example. Charging them the extra freight – 250 BPS. And getting it insured without them knowing. People say – I never knew I had a Freddie Mac loan…Really You is telling me that this is what they want me to believe? WHAT?
    That would be prison time and one reason I can think of for why a CEO would hang him after the Lehman Bros scandal erupted

    I’m sorry, you gave your hand away…..have fun. Enjoy….. (Do not give up your day job- or, I am always here to answer your questions- no hard feelings)

    People – if you’re in court and have your shot – one question you cannot answer and the parties over GOT IT. One of our attorneys asked to see the note Never ask to see the note NEVER. The other side showed the note and blank endorsements right? What’s wrong with this picture?

    Oh yes – He presented Duetsche Bank

    Attorney holding alive note shoots himself in the foot..
    and counsel missed it –
    He missed to homerun.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  11. To Anonmous–
    Thankyou for the detailed walkthrough. This is a useful description into which I can see a few fact patterns fit. I would like to come up with a diagramatic depiction that demonstrates the operation over time but maybe a graphic to show division of proceeds. maybe a spreadsheet by the investment bankers that cranked out the ious–that would show the intended collapse ? Surely there is at least one financial spreadheet out there?

    Anyway i tracked your thought process and made sense of it -at least most–I gotta check the cusip again and see if it moved from the koreans.

  12. im thankfull to those who share valuable knowledge. valuable information should only be directed in living true, otherwise we are no different than this site, living lies.

  13. foreclosureinfosearch aka M. Soliman.

    You have been misinformed. But, that is your choice to choose to believe what you want to believe.

    I copy from no one — and speak only by experience. I have no concern as to what others say — except that everything that is currently being utilized in courts —- has given us little solid ground. .

    Mr. Soliman – as I have said before — I do not care what you do — do not intent to interfere with your approach or profit strategy. In fact – if you can get some case published — I would support it.

    Quote — “(MERS) ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMMODATING INTERIM ASSIGNMENT’S AND RECORDING NOTICES.”

    WRONG — that is WHAT they would like to you believe.

    Quote —

    “WRONG – OVER 33% WERE QUALIFIED AS gse AND THAT’S RAISING SPECULATION AS TO “WERE THEY RECORDED AS AGENCIES LOANS AFTER THE FACT”

    WRONG — that is what they would like you to believe — agencies recordings are hugely in error.

    Quote —

    “WRONG THONG! THE “B” IS THE RISK HELD BY THE COMMON TRUST SHAREHOLDERS.”

    WRONG — REMICs have no Common Trust Shareholders to DISSOLVED trusts. And, they are are strictly a cash-flow pass-through. If someone is telling you otherwise — you need to get this falsehood out there — I will back you!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote — “WHAT RECEIVABLE’S – FINALLY, I TOLD YOU THIS TWO YEARS AGO – FINALLY, COPYRIGHT INVADER – SO TELL ME MR. ABBY OR WHOMEVER THIS REVERSAL IN STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS REALLY IS –”

    You have told me nothing — I do not rely on anyone who posts here — and do not have any access to your emails/information — nor do I care to. Am not Mr/Mrs. anyone — what I post is strictly my own. But — I do not care WHO takes credit — I have no name — I am ANONYMOUS — whoever has the courage to speak the truth will prevail. And, I do not CARE who gets credit — as long as victim homes are saved. THAT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT.

    Quote —

    “WERE YOU NOT THE ONE TO CONTRADICT EVERYTHING I SAY AND DO FOR LATER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND GAIN ….YOU’RE THE ANTITHESIS FOR THIS EXPLANATION AND YOUR ALL WRONG ”

    WRONG — I have no monetary interest or benefit from ANYTHING that is posted here – or anywhere else on the internet. I do not care who benefits — as long as the truth is told and homes are saved.
    I solicit NO Business — and do not dispute any business practice. Not an attorney — and give no legal advise – and have no financial gain from ANYTHING..

    I only speak from what I personally know — and, frankly, I do not give a darn about whether or not anyone here accepts my opinion or not. Not in the business — not in foreclosure — and not interested in any work-out financial agreements.

    Am concerned – again — only for the victims. And, believe many are not proceeding in right direction — that is NOT directed at you. I am uninterested in what you pursue. That is your choice — I do not care — and have no knowledge of your business. You are well aware of that.

    General direction by many has been misdirected – in my opinion. If you can utilize anything I say — and use in right direction — maybe homeowners will really start reversing losses. If you care not to — so be it. No reason for ranting and raving.

    I am greatly disappointed in approaches by many who claim to have answers. Believe boat has been missed. That is my opinion — and I am entitled to it. Again, I am not your competitor — and seek no financial gain. You can take posts — file them — disregard them — attack them — do whatever you want — I take no offense.

    My only complaint — homeowners as whole — continue to be victimized. My conclusion — wrong or lacking approach.

  14. Anonymous

    How do you live with yourself?

    Let’s have a conference call and let everyone join in. Go find someone to replace yourself if need be – let’s do it. Conference call open to all the readers. Whomever and put them on telephone. Your copyright over everything I have said is timed with every attack on my character.

    Who are you and what is your realtionship with the site?

    These people are not stupid they known you’re a poser jumping in on a bandwagon here. My own “speculation” about MERS is that it was set-up to conceal transfer of debt collection rights.

    Your comments – Joke WikiPedia

    My own “speculation” about MERS is that it was set-up to conceal transfer of debt collection rights.
    WRONG – ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMMODATING INTERIM ASSIGNMENT’S AND RECORDING NOTICES.
    Nearly all of the subprime “mortgages” were refinances. These refinances did NOT qualify for traditional MBS — and the “trusts” bypassed the rating agency standards by creating their own “credit enhancement” (as were not GSE guaranteed).
    WRONG – OVER 33% WERE QUALIFIED AS gse AND THAT’S RAISING SPECULATION AS TO “WERE THEY RECORDED AS AGENCIES LOANS AFTER THE FACT (copyright – do not steal please. Exclusive research to our clients)
    As I have said many times, the lower tranches to trusts were sold FIRST to distressed debt entities (some banks included) /hedge funds and utilized for CDOs.
    WRONG THONG! THE “B” IS THE RISK HELD BY THE COMMON TRUST SHAREHOLDERS.
    The security underwriter (parent bank subsidiary) retained the upper tranches to trust. It was the security underwriter’s parent corp. – via the Depositor — that originally purchased the loans at – or before- origination.
    WRONG BONG! No one but the distressed debt buyers/hedge funds funded anything — and they did for small principal amounts. The upper tranches were just an accounting conversion from whole loan to off-balance sheet securities — if you can even call them securities.
    PREFERRED STOCK IS SOLD BY THE TRSUT COMPANIES AND IS THEN TRADED AMONG INVESTORS ON THE SECONDARY MARKET. PREFERRED STOCK IS RISK ADVERSE WOW MORE THAN COMMON STOCK, THEREFORE INVESTORS CAN EXPECT LESS REWARD. PREFERRED STOCK WORKS LIKE BONDS AND THUS A PASS THROUGH. . WHILE BONDS GUARANTEE REGULAR INTEREST PAYMENTS, PREFERRED STOCK GUARANTEES REGULAR DIVIDEND PAYMENTS

    “….FOR A SPECIFIED TIME. PREFERRED STOCK PRICE IS LESS VOLATILE THAN COMMON”

    AND ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY OF LARGE CAPITAL GAINS – IN A TRUST, THEY CONCEALED THE RISK..
    It is the parent bank corp — that removed the receivables from its balance sheet to off-balance sheet conduit.
    WHAT RECEIVABLE’S – FINALLY, I TOLD YOU THIS TWO YEARS AGO – FINALLY, COPYRIGHT INVADER – SO TELL ME MR. ABBY OR WHOMEVER THIS REVERSAL IN STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS REALLY IS –

    WERE YOU NOT THE ONE TO CONTRADICT EVERYTHING I SAY AND DO FOR LATER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND GAIN ….YOU’RE THE ANTITHESIS FOR THIS EXPLANATION AND YOUR ALL WRONG .
    You are a joke – wow Go on with your week to week change in philosophy Mr. No to the accounting rules – – -don’t call me knowledgeable call me anonymous

    What receivable’s /– Let’s do it. On the phone with anyone who wants to join. When …call…. whatever?
    M.Soliman

  15. BSE

    Provide your email.

  16. David C Breidenbach

    Lots here — know this is long — sorry,

    First, I am not disputing homeowners paying for services for assistance, I have just always emphasized that we need more – we need a joint voice.

    My own “speculation” about MERS is that it was set-up to conceal transfer of debt collection rights. Nearly all of the subprime “mortgages” were refinances. These refinances did NOT qualify for traditional MBS — and the “trusts” bypassed the rating agency standards by creating their own “credit enhancement” (as were not GSE guaranteed). As I have said many times, the lower tranches to trusts were sold FIRST to distressed debt entities (some banks included) /hedge funds and utilized for CDOs. The security underwriter (parent bank subsidiary) retained the upper tranches to trust. It was the security underwriters parent corp. – via the Depositor — that originally purchased the loans at – or before- origination. No one but the distressed debt buyers/hedge funds funded anything — and they did for small principal amounts. The upper tranches were just an accounting conversion from whole loan to off-balance sheet securities — if you can even call them securities. It is the parent bank corp — that removed the receivables from it’s balance sheet to off-balance sheet conduit. In this process, only receivables are “securitized.” REMICs can not hold anything that is not liquid — that is, easily converted to cash (foreclosures can be held as an investment — but for short period only). Little funding needed for the REMICs – because, in effect, the refinances were nothing more than modifications of already classified default/scratched “mortgage” loans.

    In the process, the bank remains the “lien” holder — and receivables (actually just “cash flows” as the loan was nothing more than a debt and not mortgage loan receivables) are assigned to the trust. All we have is an assignment — the Depositor is the last stop for “assignment” of mortgage — as to borrowers creditor/lender — because security investors are NEVER a creditor/lender. (this is clear from the TILA Amendment and Fed Res Opinion – which is now Rule/law). And, also according to TILA the servicer – who is usually -but not always- also a subsidiary of purchasing bank — is not the the creditor/lender.

    The “equity” tranche (passes through residual cash flows) is one of few tranches that were not sold to the parent bank’s subsidiary security underwriter. Instead, they were held by the servicer.

    MERS as “nominee” is also not the creditor/lender as they own no right to anything — and, also according to the Fed Res — the creditor/lender is the entity that accounts for the largest position in the loan — on it’s balance sheet (this has been confirmed to me by Fed Res). Thus, as long as the Mortgage loan (debt) is performing — the creditor is the party who held the largest positional tranche ownership — and that would be the security underwriter (parent bank) as the upper tranches was retained by security investors and contained a much larger proportional interest — as compared to the lower tranches. MERS has no balance sheet – and holds no positional interest in the loan. .

    Whether the equity tranche survives despite collapse of the trust is questionable. But, assume it did. The servicer, who owns this tranche – and committed to advancing all payments to the trustee/trust — is NOT the creditor/lender given the above. Only if the servicer purchased collection rights itself — could it be the current creditor (and with some independent servicers — this could be the case). Once the servicer stops advancing payments to the trustee — the trust/trustee — all tranches — have nothing to do with the loan. However, the servicer continues to service for itself, or for it’s parent bank (who may also be a “debt” buyer) — or for undisclosed debt buyer.

    By this point — no longer a “loan” — if it even was to begin with — and MERS no longer has a “Role” — even as “nominal mortgagee” — because there is no longer a mortgage/loan. I go further — because I do not think there was a “mortgage” to begin with — but, as stated — just a modification of default debt. So MERS “role” is questionable to begin with. But, even if MERS wants to claim a continuing role — then MERS must continue to record transfer/sale of collection rights — they do not — they stop with either Trust or servicer. Servicer, again, is not the creditor unless they can prove they purchased the collection rights and are not servicing for any other party.

    As far as SEC documents on the Trust — 8-K , 10-K, etc., there was no continued reporting due to 15-D — (limited number of security investors). So we have NO updates. The accounting I refer to is actual financial statement accounting by the banks (unfortunately hedge funds and other debt buyers are deregulated). At this point, most have brought back off-balance sheet “Depositor” owned trusts to the on-balance sheet. And, have sold off distressed debt “pools” (collection rights) to deregulated debt buyers/ hedge funds – at steep discounts (although BofA may have had more difficulty (recently) doing this – as they did in past).
    If there is manipulation of the banks balance sheets — that is up to authorities — unless party is allowed to demonstrate in court.

    For borrowers/homeowners — we are subject to the same “servicer” problem that is encountered in all asset securitization — starting first with credit card debt. That is, servicers continue to conceal the current creditor. Servicers also cannot attest to any personal knowledge of whereabouts of collection rights. They cannot attest to anything but payment history — which is likely flawed.

    The outrage of the whole process is that someone is benefiting by purchasing collection rights at steep discounts (and funded false loans to begin with even though they were likely just modification of default debt). And, that homeowners have been denied valid modifications by a faceless creditor — who has — and is profiting from the homeowner victim.

    I completely agree about the importance of the chain. It has been said that In the banks greedy haste — nothing was executed properly. Disagree about the “haste” — rather, it was because nothing COULD BE executed properly — the whole process was a “sham” to begin with. And, they knew — but no one was watching — and they continue to flaunt their power in courts. Power — our biggest obstacle.

  17. ANONYMOUS

    Can we talk offline ?

  18. Question Anonymous please;
    Do you have any speculation why MERS was being used as nominal plaintiff in past-seems to be reduced after bad cases-was it servicers trying to collect and keep it simple because the names looked better? And now seems like pickup of servicers as plaintiffs w/o revealed trust——-has servicer bought out the trust residual–the voting units-not really common or preferred because these are partnership-like units REITS/REMICs–but somebody was entitled to scoop up the residual.

  19. Re, Anonymous comment–vis acctg details? If compliance with SEC representations and UCC filings are acctg details, so be it—-because that has been treated as affecting investor rights rather than homeowner considerations. I was kind of following along this set—–I am confused at MERS being anything but a “nominal” possessor of a mortgage interest which is unenforceable w/o the note. so MERs has been well-described as a “distraction”

    If a party professes to be a holder via a complaint–and the trust has a list and you are not in ot that raises a doubt as to the claim and you survive aMTD. Or if the trust did not actually exist because of filing failures.

    The security is the mortgage interest—the credit is the homeowner on the promissory notes—but the MBS credit is usually an originator or a securitizer who promised to pay MBS holders various amounts at various times –with credit support from the mortgagor payments and CDS etc

    Some experts are not so expert people-and $3000 is a lot and it may put you no better than anonymous says. In the end they pull a document out that appears to be an original note and the argument of risk of double pmt dissipates–if the note is real. But only a string of custody transfers and negotiations establishes the trail–or else you must prove the note is a fake at great cost. Never waive the list of chain of custody–forget the securitization-it is the holder that is supposed to prove it. [as a legal matter if not always in practice]

  20. foreclosureinfosearch,

    I do not plead anything — not an attorney..

    MERS is owned by banks — it’s capacity only as “nominee” for banks. No right to foreclosure without disclosing the current collection right “owner.” MERS stops short of disclosure — fails to continue identification of “investor” as to collection rights. MERS is not complete “nominee” — as they are ONLY nominee for the LOAN — when that loan has RECEIVABLES. Once the loan is gone — no receivables — MERS ceases to be nominee. So who discloses the collection right “owner” ??? Not MERS — their job is long done.

    Banks own MERS — but process is deeply flawed. No one is getting that once loan is in default — whether valid or not — the loan ceases to be a receivable — with a “Nominee” — it is over. DONE. MERS job is done. But, if MERS wants to claim to be continued nominee — they better disclose the true and current collection rights “owner.”

    Debt collection, however, continues under the false name of the original creditor — and false “MERS” nominee.

    MERS process is simply faulty – and/or completely negligent — in reporting of CURRENT collection rights. How do they get away with it?? By reporting on the loan ONLY when it was current. BUT — IT IS NO LONGER A LOAN WHEN IT NOT CURRENT. Only collection rights survive — and MERS has no authority as nominee for collection rights. Collection rights are transferred — very differently — from the original note — for which MERS claims to have authority for. And, I will also dispute this “original’ authority as the “loans” were fraudulently originated to begin with.

    MERS authority ended a long time ago. And, as to banks — remember — many banks were debt buyers. The problem is that loans were falsely originated with false “lender” and “nominee” as to the LOAN. MERS “authority” is questionable to begin with. And, once charged-off — authority it is gone — MERS is done. IF MERS wants to claim to be nominee — they better well darn provide the name of current “collection right” creditor. THEY ARE NOT. They are fraudulently STOPPING — when they choose – as to the chain they are representing to be “nominee” for. .

    MERS claims and reporting is greatly in error. MERS is lying – and by the direction of the bank owners — and THAT is the problem. .

  21. Ann,

    Good research. However, just because your loan shows up on an initial “list” — does NOT mean your loan actually went there — and does NOT mean your loan stayed there. (I have not seen one Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement that is NOT only an “INTENT” to sell — not one MLPA actually executed.)

    All of these trusts were allowed to cease reporting and updating according to 15-D (Deregulation).
    Thus, loan could have been “scratched” from the initial “list” — or, could have been removed when servicer ceased advancing payments. You have no idea as to where collection rights CURRENTLY lie.

    I will add that foreclosure attorneys state only where the loan MAY have been earmarked to go INITIALLY. Once that loan is non-existent — either by repurchase — or failed repurchase – or by removal after default or fabricated default — only collection rights remain. There are NO receivables. Anybody’s guess as to where those collection rights currently lie.

    All we have access to, and not all 8-Ks even provide this information, is where your loan was SUPPOSED to go. it is my premise that loans originated in refinance where not new loans at all — but rather modifications of already orchestrated subprime defaults/scratches (ie- modifications).

    Servicers know nothing because servicers, in their capacity, only collect payments and record payment histories (likely false as recorded). It is the actual lien holder — that originally purchased the loan (and this is BEFORE securitization) — (and not assignment of receivables) — that KNOWS where collection rights currently lie.

    I have been your path — and numerous times for others – and, have validated with high level government agencies. It is only a starting point — and will not lead anyone to ascertain current collection rights “owner” (unsecured) — who is being concealed — over and over again.

    I do not care about accounting — that is up to regulatory authorities to investigate. All I care about is that the real party – who claims foreclosure rights — is NOT the party standing before you in court. And, that the real party has purchased collections rights for pennies on the dollar, BUT refuses to negotiate any valid loan modification. They even REFUSE to identify themselves — in violation of TILA Amendment.

    I care about the violations of law – as to consumer rights. For those that want to take accounting violations higher — go for it.. Support it. This is publicity that we need!!!!. Without that publicity – it will not spill over as to help consumer rights – and combat violations of consumer law. .

    Anyone who can ascertain the actual information during expansive and valid discovery — will gain exposure and substantial monetary gain. To them and all others — I say — I am waiting.

    Otherwise — we are playing tiddlywinks- meaningless games.

  22. ANONYMOUS, on April 23, 2011 at 4:35 pm said: MER IS the bank (?)

    Help me here my friend incognito!

    Your comment is too broad and too basic. Are you pleading this statement? You need to be way more specific.

    According to what you’re saying than . . . MERS has standing to foreclose?

    If your correct, then how can BofA list itself and MERS or dual beneficiaries on the mortgage or deed?

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  23. MERS IS the banks.

  24. MERS is the security and holds the equity Trust “Common” [not Preferred]

    M. Soliman

  25. David – The servicer is supposed to know who the owner is because presumably the money coming in goes to the owner distribution trust.

    M.Soliman – The servicer does know of the owners identify because what you call “the money” the distributable Cash Flow is insulated from the borrower loans. The aggregate amount of the total pool is represented to investors as a lump sum receivable. The owners are responsible for a third set of obligations owed by the common stock shareholders.

    These shareholders are represented by MERS (who is in fact the Bank N.A.) In this instance MERS is the security and holds the equity Trust Preferred shares under a registration; the security instrument referred to in a mortgage and or deed of trust. A custodial bank a.k.a. Trustee holds the security “registration and collateral” Trust shares on deposit that are represented by its owner MERS. Remember, the loan payments are limited to a servicing lock box and no contact with a borrower.

    The “Put” is one reason they ask borrowers to miss three payments until the modification process can begin. These alleged servicers are violations under 1122Ab SEC enforcement and we always ask counsel to rely on the accounting staff (discovery) to verify the asserted of claims. Expert.witness@live.com

  26. TO ANN;
    That was an impressive walkthrough in the securitization. The servicer is supposed to know who the owner is because presumably the money coming in goes to the owner distribution trust.

    However in your case they filed the list required under reg Z?——by SEC for investors’ benefit. They need to actually make filings with a sec/state office of the host/domicile state of the trust. Those 2 filings constitute the actual legal transfer to the trust of its “corpus” –aside from the negotiation issues. If the lists needed to perfect the security were not made then the trust by its own terms fails to come into ownership. That moves it up the chain a notch as far as the nominal claimant. In the end you can chase these paper trails and delay—this is lack of capacity related as if a corp were suing but not registered to do business. This is the next level—trust fails.

  27. HOW TO GET THE NAME OF THE TRUST
    ————————————————————–
    From a friend’s post.
    The method I used may be known to most people, but until today I couldn’t figure it out.

    Here’s what I did:

    1. Aurora Loan Services is the servicer for my loan. I asked an ALS telephone rep “who owned my loan?”. (The MERS system only showed me Deutsche Bank as the “Investor”). To my surprise, the operator told me my loan was owned by “RALI”.
    2. I didn’t know what RALI was, but with some “google research” found out they have put together a ton of these mortgage backed securities.
    3. I went to the SEC website, the security look-up section, and typed in the company name RALI. About 40 different securities popped up on the screen, sorted by year of issuance.
    4. My loan was early in 2007, so I started clicking on the 2007 securities. Each security has about 20 different documents listed, but I focused only on the 8-K forms. Each security had a couple of 8-K forms listed.
    5. When you click each 8-K link, it then shows you 2-5 different documents that are available to see. One of these documents contains the list of every loan in that security. It doesn’t have your name, but it has your City, Zip Code, Loan Amount, Interest Rate, etc.
    6. Since there were hundreds of loans, I used the “Edit/Find on this Page” function on my browser and typed in my city name and zip code. I hit search and see what would pops-up The first few securities I checked did not show my loan, so I went on to the 8-K forms from the next security on the 2007 RALI list.
    7. After about 30 minutes of this, my loan popped up on one of the RALI securities (it had the correct address, loan amount, interest rate, date of closing, etc.). I was pretty excited, because I think people pay a lot of money to have someone do this “forensic” work for them.
    8. Once I knew I had found the right security, then you have a huge amount of information that can be researched.
    9. The Pooling & Service Agreement is there. There are documents that show the sale of the security to a different entity. It shows how the Service responsibility was assigned from Homecomings Financial to GMAC to Aurora, etc. It shows how Merrill Lynch did a colateral swap with Deutsche Bank, etc. It shows they stopped filing reports because there were only “3 beneficial owners of record”.
    10. I printed some of the interesting docs and will start reviewing them next to see how they may help with my affirmative defenses regarding “lack of standing”, etc.

    I think I have my hands on some pretty good information now. Aurora is the Plaintiff in my foreclosure case. None of the other parties that may have rights is listed on the complaint.

    I hope this summary is of use to some of you who are trying to do some research on your own. Good Luck!

  28. Check Out This Website!
    http://www.propublica.org/

  29. Correction : “The post Re Harris – Massive class action lawsuit named Ben Erza and LPS “‘ above is quoted from http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog

  30. In Re HARRIS – Massive Class Action Lawsuit name Ben Etza and LPS

    The street fighters that are out there fighting these battles every day are making headway, but things are only going to change now that the real prize fighting, hard-charging, sword wielding super lawyers have joined the fight.

    Take some time to read what a great, well-researched piece of legal masterpiece looks like. Allegations from this complaint include:

    As alleged in further detail herein, all the Defendants acted in concert and conspired to unlawfully and secretly violate and avoid the bankruptcy rules, the bankruptcy code, and the federal and the state common law in their roles as attorneys and vendors to creditors to the detriment of Plaintiff.

    Each of the Defendants reached an agreement to illegally split attorneys’ fees (“Illegal Agreement”), acted in concert and conspired in furtherance of the Illegal Agreement, enjoyed a significant benefit from the Illegal Agreement, which caused harm to the Plaintiff, and the Court. The Plaintiff’s class representative and the Class members consist of those persons other than the Court who have been harmed by the conduct set out herein. Each of the Defendants was a necessary party to the conspiracy.

    Please read the full complaint here:

    In-re-Harris—Northern-District-of-Florida-Bankruptcy-Court-Filing-v-LPS-LPS-Default-Solutions-and-Ben-Ezra-Katz

  31. GREG B . . . AND THE GREAT STATE OF VA

    Hey, how are you? The TBW story is unique and not much there . . . these guys were run by a car sales man. Maybe a very smart car salesman.

    Here you see how Securitization can be exploited and Bof A did have to report that $10 Billion mistake that disappeared fast. . . .oh, I mean Colonial!

    I find that few of the narrow circumstances in the case apply here to TBW, a whole loan seller and alleged party that forced BofA into receivership. Hey, did I say Colonial …I mean BofA Oppps.

    There is more than meets the eye in this storyline.

    The TBW Colonial drama had no other choice than to feed one another This is your text book shot at what was going on under Derecognition and for capitalizing Trust Commons, industry wide derecognition of liabilities (creating an absurd volume of toxic debt for small and middle sized banks to pair off their own depositors base of CD’s, MMA’s and short term investments . I would love to testify in the TBW case.

    People have to reconsider pursuing a foreclosure defense and see the act of repossession of title. Attorneys and title holders cannot let go of the foreclosure argument. .and that is a killer.

    Remember the Poseidon Adventure – the boat capsized and everyone stayed at the top of the ship. The passengers that made it got away making it to the bottom of the boat. Remember – it capsized. . .

    The files we look at suffer from post-sale forfeiture, defective transfers , maybe capitation, divestiture of chattel assets, irregular subrogation claims under agency Repudiatory power, judgment assets in non-judgment hearings, manipulating the courts, woefully strict limits on subject matter jurisdiction and claims made by a debt collector under the FDCPA for chattel charged or written down to zero .

    There is no conversion of assets classes unless you credit the accout with real property siezed – whats left to credit the G/L and close out these accounts under GAAP, IASB and FASB? Where are the TARP funds . . .?

    expert.witness@live.com

    Not to be construed in any manner as legal information or advisement. See your local bar for information and names of attorneys in your area.

  32. I can attest to the statement and work you guys do. I have reviewed a few cases and your work is very helpful. In fact, clients that come to us with your reports are put at a huge advantage – big time.

    Your record searches are uncovering a world of other opportunity in lender fraud . . . beyond what even I suspected. It is allowing my office to expand claims.

    Its good work no doubt. We just last night uncovered a sham deal by the biggest of institutional lenders. One client is now a year into his deal and going to court …he has a very strong argument. Another who we just received and befitting from your records analysis is streamlined by 364 days in his petition and coming adversary.

    These folks I talk with however paid quite a bit more than $195.00??? That’s your Biz – but would love to see more of your client’s reports – the records found are helpful (for what we are looking for) and offer things a trained eye can pick up . . . i.e. fraudulent inducement and for belief for claims attacking predatory, negligent practices.

    Just email if you like

    expert.witness@live.com

  33. Here’s a story from the collapse of Merrill Lynch in 2009 ,, they sold off a CEO’s shares granted as options and apparently in a margin account but only owing $1.5M on $14M ,, nowhere near a call situation.. sold the shares to their own sub Blackrock to get the margin loan off the books to help the sale to BofA and pocketed about $3m in profits in a few weeks… WHAT SLIMEBALLS … http://www.sanduskyregister.com/sandusky/2010/oct/16/cedar-fair-ceo-kinzel-sues-merrill-lynch-bank-america Lets hear them say anything about moral hazards..

  34. look it it up on the sec yourself alot cheaper, check your county’s ROD office as far as assignments.

  35. There was a time when you could call the servicer and ask the name of the owner of the note–who was going to sue you.

    Many of the foreclosures in judicial foreclosure states simply state the plaintiff trust-but if there are no loan schedules filed you cant be sure if the named plaintiff ever had it. More recently, iv seen the servicer suing in its own name w/o disclosing the trust. Small dollar claims. The non-judicial foreclosure states take my breath away though.

    You folks in Florida may have escaped personal income taxes forever [so far] but they sure make you pay for it in terms of lost due process. I would be terrified to own a home there with a mortgage on it.

  36. In light of recent news, securitization research buffs may want to check out the case of U.S. v. Farkas, 1:2010-cr-00200. Although it was a criminal case, it went into quite some detail on issues of securitization. The case is in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

  37. […] Source: Livinglies’s Weblog […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: