Originators of Loans Were Buried

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE:  One of the things that is being universally overlooked is that the original “mortgage lien” was never valid in the first place. Lawyers refer to that as “perfecting the lien.” The reason that the securitization scheme worked so well is that “originators” were used instead of banks at the time of closing. These originators have been buried in bankruptcies and fraudulent paperwork.

 Most of the originators were simply companies incorporated for the purpose of attending closings. In many cases the originators filed for bankruptcy protection. This makes your job easier in establishing the fact that the originator was not in the business of lending money. By using the appropriate online services you can pull up the original schedules and any amended schedules that will show the assets and liabilities of the originator.

 When you look at the schedule of assets and the bankruptcy of an originator you will not find any loans receivable listed as assets. This is important for two reasons. The first reason is that the originator was not in the business of lending money and the description of the business will probably describe the actual activities of the bankrupt originator. The second reason is that many participants in the securitization scheme used fabricated assignments from the originator, many of which are dated after the filing of the petition for relief, and some of which are dated after the discharge order and injunction. In both instances it is clear that the lien is fatally defective from the start and that therefore no effective transfer could ever occur.

 The same logic applies even if the originator is still in existence. However you’ll need to get into discovery to show that the loan was never booked as a loan receivable and that the transaction was considered a service for which the originator received a fee. And the same logic applies even if the originator was an actual bank. The fact that it was the bank did not mean that it was performing a banking function. It was merely performing the function of an originator and collecting a service fee. In that event it too was merely a nominee for an undisclosed  principal. Without the creditor being disclosed on the face of the mortgage or deed of trust it is my opinion that in most states the lean would not be considered perfected, which means that it is invalid and cannot be enforced.

Submitted on 2011/09/05 at 11:01 am by fraudbuddy

Proof of massive bankers’ fraud. Originators all buried?

PROOF THAT POTENTIALLY MILLIONS OF LOANS BETWEEN 2003 – 2007, WERE FRAUDULENT – BY THE BANKERS!??
FHFA (and OFHEO) Legal Filings
http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=110
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

FHFA Filings in PLS Cases, September 2, 2011:

Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC
2. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………..41
a. Government and Private Investigations Confirm That the
Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting
Guidelines………………………………………………………………………………42
i. New Century Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines……….43
ii. HFN Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines……………………46
iii. MLN Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines…………………..48
b. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further
Shows that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines …………………….49
c. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated
in Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines…………………50

Bank of America Corporation
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………45
1. Government Investigations and Private Litigants Have Confirmed
That the Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting Guidelines ………45
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..51
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………53

Barclays Bank PLC
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………32
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..33
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines. ……………………………………………………….37
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..38

Citigroup, Inc.
B. The Originators Of The Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………45
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That The Originators
Of The Loans In The Securitizations Systematically Failed To
Adhere To Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………45
i. Wells Fargo …………………………………………………………………………46
ii. Countrywide ………………………………………………………………………..49
iii. American Home …………………………………………………………………..50
iv. Argent ………………………………………………………………………………..52
v. WMC………………………………………………………………………………….54
vi. Inflated Appraisals ……………………………………………………………….55
2. The Collapse Of The Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
That The Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated In Adherence To
The Stated Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………56

Countrywide Financial Corporation
B. Countrywide Systematically Disregarded Its Underwriting Guidelines …………….69
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That Countrywide
Routinely Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting Guidelines ………………….70
a. Investigations and Actions of Federal Authorities …………………….70
b. Admissions in Countrywide’s Internal Reporting and
Emails ………………………………………………………………………………..75
c. Deposition Testimony of Countrywide’s Top Executives ………….78
2. Actions Brought by State Enforcement Authorities and Private
Litigants Have Corroborated that Countrywide Systematically
Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………81

Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………52
1. A Forensic Review of Loan Files Has Revealed Pervasive Failure
to Adhere to Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………….53
(a) Stated Income Was Not Reasonable ……………………………………….55
(b) Evidence of Occupancy Misrepresentations …………………………….57
(c) Debts Incorrectly Calculated ………………………………………………….58
(d) Credit Inquiries That Indicated Misrepresentation of Debt ………..59
2. Government Investigations and Other Evidence Have Confirmed
That the Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting Guidelines ………61

Deutsche Bank AG
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………45
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..45
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..54
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………56

First Horizon National Corporation
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………46
1. First Horizon Home Loan Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting
Guidelines ……………………………………………………………………………………..46
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..48
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquencies and Defaults Further
Indicates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………50

General Electric Company
6. Falsity Of Statements In The Registration Statements And
Prospectus Supplements…………………………………………………………………..26
a. The Statistical Data Provided in the Prospectus
Supplements Concerning Owner-Occupancy and Loan-To-
Value Ratios Was Materially False…………………………………………26
b. Owner-Occupancy Data Was Materially False…………………………26
c. Loan-to-Value Data Was Materially False ………………………………28
d. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans
Systematically Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines………31
e. Government and Private Investigations Confirm That the
Originator of the Loans in the Securitizations
Systematically Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting
Guidelines …………………………………………………………………………..31

Goldman Sachs & Co.
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………54
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..55
2. The Collapse of the GSE Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further
Indicates that the Mortgage Loans Were not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………64
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquencies and Defaults Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………66

HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………38
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..39
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
That the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..46
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates That the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………48

JPMorgan Chase & Co.
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………….134
1. Government Investigations and Private Actions Have Confirmed
That the Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting Guidelines …….135
iv
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………142
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines …………………………….146

Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp.
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………66
1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..67
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..74
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………77

Morgan Stanley
2. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………44
a. Government and Private Investigations Confirm That the
Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting
Guidelines …………………………………………………………………………..45
i. New Century Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines ………46
ii. WMC Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines…………………49
iii. IndyMac Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines …………….50
iv. Wilmington Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines…………51
b. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further
Shows that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ……………………52
c. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not
iii
Originated in Adherence to the Stated Underwriting
Guidelines …………………………………………………………………………..54

Nomura Holding America Inc.
B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………38
1. Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators of the Loans
in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their
Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………………….38
2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..43
3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………45

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
Generally the same allegations as uniformally described above regarding the Originators’ systematic disregard for their own underwriting guidelines.

Société Générale
Generally the same allegations as uniformally described above regarding the Originators’ systematic disregard for their own underwriting guidelines.

34 Responses

  1. […] on September 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm said: Yes, Martha—crimes against humanity–THE American people/society have been DEVASTATED in […]

  2. […] Drewe, on September 6, 2011 at 7:44 am said: Mr. Soliman, have you provided witness in judicial states? CA forced to use bankruptcy to […]

  3. arie, on September 7, 2011 at 9:14 am said:
    @dodododo—DEBT COLLECTORS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT ON UNSECURED DEBT—ILLEGAL FABRICATING AND FORGING DOCUMENTS TO STEAL YOUR HOUSE WHICH THEY SEE AS YOUR “DEBT”—NOT YOUR HOME/HOUSE. DEMAND THAT THEY BACK OFF AND YOU WILL ONLY DEAL WITH A TRUE, REAL CREDITOR—WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.FDCPA LAWS DO APPLY—USE THEM.

    M.Soliman – August 7th 2011

    In the years leading to WWII – Stalin, out of paranoia, imprisoned or killed the majority of his best generals. When he was finally finished the German War machine moved in and ramrodded through a leaderless military towards the steps of Moscow.

    Know who you allies are. The FDCPA gives you the right to discuss intelligently the practitioners objectives under the act held and enforced under the FDIC claims among others. When you call ask him this – straight up…

    1) Am I the Primary debtor on the obligation your office is collecting?

    2) Is the value of the collection determined by “book” or “market” value.

    3) Are you the law firm I can hold accountable for bringing the foreclosure sale?

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Always contact an attorney to determine what legal rights you have in any matter involving property and the law.

  4. Anonymous –

    Read UCC articles 4 and 8 with preferences over claims and for jurisdiction over the other articles you cite.

    Thank you Anonymous. How do I overlook that one ? . Okay. Wow I’m sorry .

    Thanks man
    —————————————————–

    ….Folks, the UCC arguments are important but he has no idea as to where to use them . Most attorneys do not (that I have been engaged by)

    The UCC is a primary “critical argument in ONE MONUMENTAL ARGUMENT – that THIS GUY IS CLUELESS ON AND something under UCC that fails to make it into court…EVER!

    Here, this comedians is winging it . These arguments are complicated further where brought into the judicious. UCC articles give us the rules for contracting and delivery and for enforcement of agreements and contracts; determining who has standing; redelivery; possession; variety of contractual arrangements, rights and remedies for non performance and failure to deliver, both chattel and real property , recovery rights under assignment; bill of goods, failing to extend the satisfaction under a guarantee , pledges and etc… . Therein you can spend weeks and months with pundits citing case law and enforceability of the agreements.

    Then the Judge say’s
    “Do not concern your self with these arguments – equitable claims under common law said you signed the note.

    What this moron tries to do is to confuse my message – discredit me – etc . I like it – really . its the same pattern over and over. And for what purpose – hear my answers , research the material and come back and support the views as his own later ? … Good Luck!
    ——————————————————————————
    Hey Soliman – “don’t talk to anonymous that way! Stop it! Mers is anonymous —-and the lenders successors are anonymous

    and my modification offer they failed was from an anonymous source, my service agent is anonymous and the debt collector sent me an anonymous letter.

    The foreclosure is by anonymous trustee at sale and anonymous grantee really is the anonymous beneficiary in foreclosure without divulging who the anonymous holder in due course really is ….so there ….

    Annoy -o mous
    Tide “Talking Stain”
    ——————————————————————————–
    …..its not fair to consumers fighting where this person is engaged and armed with enough information to sink a neighbor hood

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Your comments are appreciated . . .

    .

  5. foreclosureinfosearch,

    In order “to understand how securitization is supposed to work, you must have a thorough understanding of UCC Articles 3, 9 and 1-302” — but, first you have to have valid securitization. Not the case in subprime refinances.

    Go back — old pal — go back.

    .

  6. @dodododo—

    DEBT COLLECTORS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT ON UNSECURED DEBT—ILLEGAL FABRICATING AND FORGING DOCUMENTS TO STEAL YOUR HOUSE WHICH THEY SEE AS YOUR “DEBT”—NOT YOUR HOME/HOUSE. DEMAND THAT THEY BACK OFF AND YOU WILL ONLY DEAL WITH A TRUE, REAL CREDITOR—WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.
    FDCPA LAWS DO APPLY—USE THEM.

  7. that table of contents masquerading as a post was very informative and helpful

  8. If you will check the PSA and prospectus you will find that the ‘originator’ was actually [also] a ‘sub-servicer’ to the mortgage backed trust that funded the money. As Neil states often, the ‘lender’ on the note and deed of trust are ‘pretender lenders’. These sub-servicers pretended to be the lender at closing.

  9. To understand how securitization is supposed to work, you must have a thorough understanding of UCC Articles 3, 9 and 1-302. This session will present the most comprehensive look at the UCC and its impact on foreclosure defense available.

    OMG Take …Take me now!

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@;live.com

  10. Dear Nancy
    (1) Every state offers a right to juridical proceedings, upon the election of the beneficiary.
    (2) FDCPA is for purposes of GAAP and basis in assets – I went as high as I could (office below Bair) to get this confirmed with my counsel on line. FDIC Response – NO COMMENT.
    (3) There are no servicing rights or service collections afforded a Purchase and sale under a conversion of assets from one combination to another. Violations stem from SEC 1122 AB and engagement of vendors.
    Conclusion to Viewers Comments:
    Scream, cry, laugh and tell lies -Mischief makers…. believe me or not – THAT’S YOUR HOME YOUR IN DENIAL OVER. It is why the accounting rules are needed to prevail? They repealed FIRREA; Removed reporting requirements; shelved SARBOX ; brought back the NOL carry back; crapped backwards on administrations promise to afford modifications to cash strapped equity depleted households, halted pro consumer lobbying efforts and have used every last cent and effort to restore a “robust” condition to the lending new home purchase and refinance market through who else….the biggest lobbying capital source in the United States – The MBA.
    In 2003 its interesting to raise arguments the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, who appears to have been replaced by BofA and Wells Fargo as the source for member bank short term borrowing using alternative combustible material known as toxic asses. This ravenous forest fire continues to burn , more devastating than Chernobyl. It’s all alleged commencing around 2003, at the time when the Feb 2003 pornography rag “MBA monthly” announced the market could never sustain another three trillion dollar origination mark. So what gives with the Fed handing off FHLBB to B of A$$ and Wells Fungus …the only other thing making news at the time was an invasion into Iraq. Oyyyy!I have over a half dozen unqualified people who (1) researched and (2) affirmed what I am saying and (3) quit their day jobs using my information to start their own company (pathetic) . Problem is there is serious analysis and scrutiny to be delivered to the attorneys prosecuting your case (but they don’t want to hear it .
    Brilliant! None the less you must stack the blocks and fill in the blanks demonstrating the purpose of the madness. It’s not the madness that counts its presenting the court with the purpose of the madness. Therein is the why and how they for unlawful and desperate concealment over the otherwise perfect “collaboration” that in a flat market FAILS! The arguments for a lawful right to foreclosure Fails under the FDCPA, suffers from extreme deceptive practices claims by the household and violates SEC rules 1122AB. and also makes anonymous confused. (You know, the person who say’s “I come to you and speak today of that which I cannot conclude tomorrow therefore yesterday is but a view of next year and too that last month and yesteryear …” WTF (Where’s the Fed)
    Arguing the concealment of good faith disclosure in court for improper contribution, charges to write downs , ambiguous claims, willful false conveyances, bailment , assurances and guarantees from obligations owed from investment capitalization, capital commingling, convoluted creditor rights, reverse creditor bidding and imbalanced capitation in a courts view of a conventional recovery . . . All supporting materiel fact and alleged violations thereof are subject matter that requires prior experiencing having executed these trades first hand. [It’s the equivalent of making the top ten players on the PGA tour. Problem is, everyone goes out and purchases a set of clubs, takes a lesson and is ready to make the private label liquidation tour]
    Your bringing conventional title and transfer arguments against the wrong parties whereby the court says “the lender prevails” .You argue from theory while GAAP is fact and number does not lie. Herein are the failure to exercise the rights as a successor to claims under corporate law and highly convoluted common and preferred stock dealings with entities owned by combination companies. In particular, the law emerges highly favorable to the title holder . The household must pursue the heightened call to enforcing ethical and civil rules requirements for enforcement of non controlling interests to asset recovered from liabilities of a FDIC member bank. What the “jell” are people talking about servicing for? Pooling and Serving is FRAUD!
    Now for the Boner of the Year Award-
    FDIC early, at the height of the wild fire non agency, private label, CMO / CDO fable boasts [citation] “…how the Non Agency Sub Prime Crime, mortgage backed assets or what I call converted securities are not INSURED by the FDIC. Thus these are not insured depositors under the FDIC statutory scheme and will not burden tax payers or result in a tax payer liability –
    Guess what? …. Those deposits were supposed to belong to YOU (FDIC) ! Boinggggg! (take me now Lord – Take me now!) US call to tax payer assistance is around $70 Billion give or take $65 Billion By the way – $65 Billion call in 2008 down to $6 Billion (which is still a lot) Gov. Capitation + Subrogation= F*O*R*E*C*L*O*S*U*R*E!

    Production of “discoverable” reports & writings, “if any” and if demanded [C.C.P. §2034.210(c), C.C.P. §2034.270]
    1. Auditors Attestation Reports
    2. Certain agreement (not pooling and servicing (worthless)
    3. GAAP FAS 140, SFAS 140-3 (rev)
    3. FASB Guidance and related codified pronouncements
    5. Reconstruct General Ledger
    STATUTORY OUTLINE / CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034
    For C.C.P. §2034 text see Discovery Act & Statutory Outline
    EXPERT & EXCHANGE OF LISTS OF PERSONS [C.C.P.§2034.210(a)]
    Simultaneous and mutual exchange of lists by all parties
    Natural persons whose testimony in form of expert opinion party expects to offer
    DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE
    Timing of demand -After setting initial trial date [C.C.P. §2034.210]
    No later than the closer to the trial date of [C.C.P.§2034.220]
    10th day after setting of initial trial date 70 days prior to initial trial date
    Arbitration: Expert discovery permitted after arbitration C.C.P. §1141.24
    Contents of demand [C.C.P.§2034.230]
    Specify Date of Exchange: the closer to the trial of
    50 days before the initial trial date
    20 days after service of demand
    Can be changed by court on motion for good cause
    May include demand for “discoverable” expert report & writings,”if any” [C.C.P.§2034.210(c)]
    Service -Demanding party must serve all parties [C.C.P.§2034.240]

    DISCLOSURE
    Timing: on or before the date of exchange specified [C.C.P.§2034(f)]
    Manner of exchange: meeting of attorneys or by mail [C.C.P.§2034.260(a)]mutual and simultaneous by all parties [C.C.P.§2034.210(a)] Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003), 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 297 [tr ct rev’d when unilateral disclosure ordered in case management conference order; “Thus, the statute provides for an earlier simultaneous, mutual exchange, but it does not permit a unilateral exchange. (See § 2034, subds. (c), (e); see also, § 2019, subd. (a)(6).) Trial courts may not adopt procedures that conflict with any statute.]
    Alternative disclosures [C.C.P.§2034.260] list of persons expect to call to offer expert opinions statement re no present intent to offer expert opinions
    Name and address of all experts [C.C.P.§2034.210(a)] Any natural person whose expert opinion you expect to offer Parties or employees of parties Persons retained to form and express opinion
    Others Expert witness declaration signed by attorney for specified experts
    Experts for which required: [C.C.P.§2034.210(b)]
    Party or Employee of Party: Expert “retained” by Party for purpose of forming & expressing opinion
    Contents of declaration [C.C.P.§2034.260(c)]
    Qualifications of expert: brief narrative statement
    General substance of testimony expected: brief narrative statement
    Representation expert has agreed to testify
    Representation expert sufficiently familiar to submit to meaningful depo including expected opinion and basis
    Expert fees: hourly & daily for depo and for consulting with retaining attorney

    M.SOLIMAN
    expert.witness@live.com

    ——————————————————————————–
    (not affiliated with this site. Legal informational web sites may or may not, from time to time , offer qualified outside expert services. Contact the editor for more information. )

  11. Nancy Drewe, on September 6, 2011 at 7:44 am said:

    Mr. Soliman, have you provided witness in judicial states? CA forced to use bankruptcy to stop foreclosure. Why can’t they invoke rights under FDCPA right away when the creditor sends first notice of default. The transfer of the debt to the sub-service sub-contractor takes place after 90 days per the REMIC instructions.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  12. Reported and argued the same loan fraud findings as in the FHFA lawsuit to the Dept. of Real Estate and up to the Commissioner. They investigated my loan and said they found nothing. Hmm? LIARS!

  13. I read a post on another topic about this person not knowing who their original lender is. I have the same problem. We went through a mortgage broker and he was someone we knew through a friend. We decided to refinance to get a lower interest rate and our friend highly recommended him. The broker just asked for our income tax returns as proof of income and he took some personal info over the phone to fill out the app. In talking to him he mentioned that their business had a bunch of investors who funded the loans and since he knew us and what we did for a living, no problem we could get the loan in less than 7 days. For some reason I felt uneasy about this and didn’t know why.

    Now fast forward and foreclosure happened and we lost our house. Someone told me to go back to the beginning and start with the loan. I noticed that on some of the loan paperwork the broker is the lender and on others a bank was listed as the lender. This bank is now caput but the broker is still in business. So this leaves me with the question who is the orignal lender and how do I find out who is?? How could the broker be the lender if he didn’t lend the money and got the money from investors???? I know silly question but at this point I am confused. Can’t even locate the trust it was suppose to have been put it.

  14. SEE THIS PRESENTATION BY TAVAKOLI TO THE FHFA ON REPAIRING THE DAMAGE OF FRAUD AS A BUSINESS MODEL.

    FHFA JUST SUED THE 17 BANKS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/64099588/JANET-TAVAKOLI-S-FHFA-PRESENTATION-2010-ON-REPAIRING-THE-DAMAGE-OF-FRAUD-AS-A-BUSINESS-MODEL

  15. leapfrog—you said:

    “you will rarely, if ever find that the parties, A, B, C, D etc. made the proper assignments of the mortgage or deed of trust or transfers of the note.”

    Yup, because there was NO “real” note—NO “real” mortgage—NO “real” loan…just collection rights…start at the beginning…

  16. “You must attack the secured status of the Trustee of residential mortgage backed securitized trusts and you must challenge the mortgage servicer’s standing to foreclose.

    In order to make these types of challenges in court, you must have a thorough understanding of how securitization is supposed to work and then determine whether the proper procedures were followed for your client’s mortgage.

    To understand how securitization is supposed to work, you must have a thorough understanding of UCC Articles 3, 9 and 1-302. This session will present the most comprehensive look at the UCC and its impact on foreclosure defense available.

    In order for a residential mortgage to be properly securitized within a trust, the note needs to have been properly assigned by ALL parties to the transaction.

    By now it should be clear to all involved that, in reality, this rarely occurred during the last decade and Max refers to this as the “Alphabet Problem.”

    According to Max and countless others with experience litigating these cases, you will rarely, if ever find that the parties, A, B, C, D etc. made the proper assignments of the mortgage or deed of trust or transfers of the note. What typically happens, however, is that the foreclosing party will “magically” find the “missing” assignment at the last minute before a trial claiming improper assignment from party A to D.”

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/09/upcoming-max-gardner-seminar-uccs-impact-on-securitization-and-foreclosure-defense/

  17. Homeowners CONTINUE to be TARGETED VICTIMS…

  18. Yes, Martha—crimes against humanity–THE American people/society have been DEVASTATED in SO many ways by this MASSIVE FRAUD…and refusal to PROSECUTE…

  19. You know what’s not valid, the lawsuit period. Lis Pendens notice of lien pending lawsuit. Why are the Lis Pendens missing from my friends defaults since Foreclosuregate? Chase and BOA … holding everything up until they pay their ‘sanctions’?

  20. tell this to a judge and it’s over for you buddy! the corrupt system has pulled the wool over the law, and the law no longer matters in the courts. black letter law is ignored. the best thing you should do is make a valid bid at the auction, and then dispute the fake credit bid, after you get the recorded Fraudulent trustees deed.

    the bankster crooks will soon, (expect this folks,) stop making credit bids, and let the homes sell to whoever, just to avoid this, so be sure to file a case for quiet title, and get that lis pens on record.
    sue all the title companies, just so you can send them NOTICE, heck, SUE EVERYBODY! WE WERE ALL DEFRAUDED and the government refuses to prosecute the criminals! 50 percent of the loans made In 2005/2006/2007 were to fake straw buyers, and that’s the loans they are claiming injury on, the government refuses to prosecute the builders who started all this, and blatantly falsified appraisals. they have the evidence, and they refuse to prosecute! this is ANARCHY!

  21. What”money”?
    Strike at the Root….
    a few million are hacking at the branches….

    I repeat,what”money”?
    Mortgage or car,clothing or food…what”money”?

    We have been used.

  22. Million dollar question answered—AGAIN:

    (re-posting ANONYMOUS—because I can and I care)

    “First -tired of parties here working for the crooks –so tired of some here trying to make a business on fraud against homeowners. It simply is not acceptable.

    Second, once all proprietary “records” are finally divulged, subprime refinancing fraud is exposed — game over for those who are still trying to making a buck on the fraud.

    Third, the securitization of fraudulent “collection rights” — was a scam from the onset — never MBS — get your heads out of MBS — these “refinances” (not actually refinances) — were “loans” REJECTED from traditional MBS — credit enhancement was created from layers of mezzanine tranches for credit default swaps — (purchase of collection rights) — and were NEVER secured mortgages. This is what caused the financial crisis FALL. Understand that subprime securization was manufactured securitization fraud.

    Fourth — the direction in courts — has been fraud upon the court — over and over — and, this is finally surfacing. There was no “funding” — PERIOD. —- All that existed was a purchase of collection rights from GSEs — by which “purchase” was covered by insurance for fabricated default and rejects.

    Fifth — if you want to say that any borrower is responsible for any non-”funded” loan — that fabricated “funded” loan is unsecured — because there was NO VALID MORTGAGE.

    Sixth — There is NO lender. NO LENDER. NO FUNDING — NO MORTGAGE — Just your good “ole” debt buyer shyster — for unsecured fraudulent collection rights.

    If anyone hear chooses to think otherwise — you are — and have been — barking up the WRONG tree — and not battling the battle that needs to be fought.
    You are, instead, feeding the “investors” to falsified collection rights — and giving credibility to a loan that is not a loan — and not a mortgage.

    You are feeding the homeowners to “wolf” debt buyer “investors” — as they prefer to be called.

    Proof?? in the mortgage data base proprietary files.”

  23. Mr. Soliman:

    Promissory Notes
    The Courts expect prudent buyer is aware and sought counsel for fiduciary and to be in legal agreement of the taking of cash in exchange for promise to pay debt using property as collateral.One side of the borrowers who took the cash did seek legal counsel, one side is not named on the agreements, the borrower. The borrower is not named on the Sale & Servicing Agreement. The Agency of the Obligor who took cash c/o borrower Loan 0123456789, is a co-borrower / co-signor / co-Obligor, Seller of the Loan for the bank’s closing agent representing the borrower and Temporary Lender, promised to pay $1 Million Dollars. The borrower or the Obligor can default, and their obligation can be resold or not, depends on the agreement. The agreement the Obligor signed did not vest rights to co-borrowers to liquidate and resell debt, and the deficiency to 100% of the promissory note left to be collected from the borrower who is also a Nominee Assignee Successor.

    Stupid people sign stupid contracts every day.
    When a consumer refinances a loan, they ‘believe what they want to believe’ they are releive the existing obligor’s promise to pay c/o borrower. The Obligor liquidates the existing debt and resells the collection rights again to a new Obligor and co-borrower. How could we all be that stupid?

    In 90 days, the new Obligor REO Temporary Lender (affiliate of Mortgage Servicer’s national bank c/o Nominee assignees and/or successors, under four Corners of Contract.
    Who was the PRUDENT BUYER? The Obligor’s debt liquidated, but not the Borrower.

    The Obligor relieved of debt obligation c/o $x payment, and Borrower neglected to do the same.

    Seek legal counsel for Fiduciary over any matter which involves ‘cash’ and ‘property’ is what I’ve learned.

    Promissory note the borrower actually signed as Seller of Loan left with Obligor’s obligation, the new obligor as a Nominee the Assignment is evidence the Obligor resold debt which rights again were bifurcated at time cash changed hands .

    Those who contest ‘Standing’ allegations of Plaintiff in Foreclosure will be hard pressed without evidence to invoke rights they can liquidate debt and repuchase as under the Sale and Servicer Agreement but for the fact they have no copy of Agreement? Were not a party of that contract.

    If consumers werer smart enough (their attorneys) they would be getting the evidence of those 2 cash transactions in which the Obligor accepted cash c/o borrower and borrower co-signed with Obligor c/o Promissory note.

    Get the Sale & Servicing Agreement, Purchase Loan Agreement, etc. into evidence, so the borrower may ask the court to be removed from the ‘matter’ for they are not a named party!

    May a borrower be removed from the case as the Purchaser of the Note before a Foreclosure Court is not a named party.

    The Court reviewing the money laundreing, then, the co-borrower as co-obligor unaware – would not be subject to harm right?

    The ‘business entities’ ask to be removed all the time when the consumers get before the court the party who is not named on the contracts. The borrower is not a named party in the Sale & Servicing Agreement, Agency to take cash out of TRUST c/o Custody of Trust Company / Agency who gave cash to Obligor c/o Borrower!

    Evidence governing documents:
    Cash c/o Obligor Seller of Loan 0123456789′ signed on borrowers behalf creating borrower as a co-signor responsible party who will pay in the event the Obligor does not.

    c/o REMITTER
    Reveals ‘Ordered By Temporary Lender’
    Cash deposited into ‘Depositor’s Commercial Account c/o Bank Closing Agent’
    Copy of that transactions reveals connection and need for discovery of

    ‘Obligor as Seller c/o Tempory Lender and cash deposited received from SALE of Loan.

    Now would I want to be attached to the ‘cash’ No? or Yes by the Loan#. Can I attach DBT Co LTD, Account Holder, who gave Cash to WFHM. Yes. Can I attach Bank Closing Agent yes they are all named. Can I move the court to seek the actual agreements?

    Will I be subject to money laundering crimes?
    I’m not a Mortgage Servicers Affiliate of a national bank …. or am I? c/o Temporary Lender who is an affiliate.

    If I’m an unnamed party to the act of money laundering, and I bring into the light of day the ‘cash’ c/o Loan0123456789, c/o my signature placing my property as security – hmmmm interesting

    Would I too be required to have recorded that cash transaction in accordance with Money Laundering Bank Act 2003 c/o FINCEN?
    Or would I too be exempted from money laundering predatory loan considerations c/o OCC.

    Where did cash come from? Now I’m an aware ‘consumer’ one who understands that the ‘cash’ came from a real ‘TRUST’ custody c/o Agency – Trust Corporation for the ‘Account Holder’ DBT Co LTD, Deutsche Bank Trust Company of New Jersey Ltd, a Non-Deposit Trust Company Non-Member, ordered to take ‘cash’ by ‘WFHM’ for Loan0123456789, deposited into Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp fka Norwest Asset Securities Corp in which (Norwest Mortgage Inc.) is where money flowed to/from to Parent Norwest Corp dba Wells Fargo & Co RSSDID 1120754, and the ‘depositor’ of the Seller the Obligor the Mortgage Servicer already a Nominee assign and/or successor c/o Tempoary Lender’s approval that I would be a good co-signor – hmmmm.

    Cash is not the banks until it becomes a ‘cash deposit’ c/o Seller and that deposit governed under BSA until bank reports otherwise.
    That cash is otta here in the Cayman Islands. All the ‘creative’ ‘origination’ considerations are in plain sight not convoluted.

    Cash is from a ‘real’ TRUST the personal liquid property taken possession of by Agent with Agency c/o ‘Somebody’s Pension Plan Cash’ a REAL TRUST CORPORATION, with CUSTODY (POA) and FIDUCIARY to take ‘cash’ and invest in alternate investments with FIDUCIARY. The Alt-A Loan a vehicle to launder cash between Mortgage Servicers affiliates would I be party to the crime?
    The Loan 01234567890 was purchased based on the Temporary Lender co-signing I was a good credit risk to pay the $1 Million Dollars. (fictitious amount for example). During any default of the Obligor or the borrower as co-signor a nominee assigns and successors of the debt, the Obligor liquidates a small chunk for $100K and the deficiency is reassigned to the new debt owner and borrower.

    c/o Mortgage Servicer of a national bank visitorial powers, Mortgage Servicers exempted from consumer protection laws related to predatory lending.

    Thank you OCC Comptrollers Hawke, Duggan, and who is the new guy?

    Absolutely: Bifurcation is not separating a note from a deed!
    Bring down Ibanez!

    Absolutely Birfurcation occurred when the ‘cash’ taken by Seller who was sold back servicing rights under a Sale & Servicing Agreement and/or Purchase Loan Agreement which the borrower as co-obligor is not party to. The physical possession of the proeprty is the borrower. The Obligor needs the borrower to co-sign the promsisory note ‘Bailment Agreement’ a paid service, which give property custodian a responsiblity and obligation to protect the goods. So as co-Obligor we have a duty to contest the allegations that our new partner the new Nominee Assignor and Successor who holds obligations for debt wants to attach ‘relationship in common law to the security agreement which the Obligor cannot pass without signature of the borrower!

    Servicer active right away when consumer signs they have to be the SERVICER for the transactions to be RETAIL and the Temporay Lender an affiliate of the Mortgage Servicer’s national bank.

    The loan is performing placed into a ‘FWP’ after 90 days, and the Loan then committed to a REMIC c/o junk tranche’ and the Servicers subservicer who is the Nominee assignee and/or successor resells the Obligor’s right to sell the debt part of the debt and leaves co-obligor – The Obligor has moved on, Nominee Assignees and or Successors 12 month receivable asset on books collecting on a performing loan as Mortgage Servicer Retail,

    Indeed ‘somebody else’ split the the accrual from the amortization and sold back servicing rights to Seller. The Obligor depositor of REMIC trust and the TRUST ‘Custody’ Agency who paid cash to REMIC depositor.

    The flipping co-borrower is the Bailee right?
    A bailment agreement is a legal agreement in which one person, the bailee, holds physical possession of a piece of property

    The borrower a cosignor on promise to pay RETAIL DEBT, at any time the Temporay Lender may resell repurchase a part of the obligation leaving the co-signor with whomever they resell debt to. They get out of deal for some fee and move on.
    Do I have it?

    Bank Closing Agent representing cash put up by borrower is in a joint venture if you will with Seller’s Nominee who as Temporay Lender bifurcated

    releases the note under a bailment agreement .

    MERS stand in for the electronic version of the E-Note.

    expert.witness@live.com

    Look – I was one of them ….I wrote the first chapter in 96 with great mentors DOES NOT WORK

    I’m telling you …they cannot hide it from US DOWN HERE IN LA. .Problem is the machine they created is so so efficient …No Way ! Your not going to beat the trust – No way .

    Trust managers …there yo go .

    Only in certain vulnerable weaknesses which still exist.. [1] Trustee and co trustee , [2] GAAP, and [3] Bailment procedures [4] Assets held by the receivers .

    M.Soliman

  24. Neidmeyer

    Read the Bank Secrecy Act
    Read the U.S. Trust Corporation merger with Chase Manhattan Corporation 1993-1996, and merger of Chemical Bank.

    You’ll ‘see’ ‘deposits’ cash moving money out of a ‘TRUST” somebody elses money not the banks prior to consumer closing RETAIL Mortgage Loan, cash is moved by Agency with CUSTODY of a ‘TRUST’ CALPERS for example took out cash, ordered by seller of loan 0123456789, payable to bank closing agent c/o Seller’s Depositor a Domestic Entity Other.

    TRUST ‘custody’ they removed cash from someone elses account and forward sold a loan, attached the loan revenue as the ‘receivable’ asset that Mr. Soliman explains clearly.

  25. Mr. Soliman, have you provided witness in judicial states? CA forced to use bankruptcy to stop foreclosure. Why can’t they invoke rights under FDCPA right away when the creditor sends first notice of default. The transfer of the debt to the subservicer sub-contractor takes place after 90 days per the REMIC instructions.

    This is a loophole for consumers to invoke their rights.

    First 30 days of notice debt transferred consumer ‘MUST DISPUTE” to Credit Bureaus, send C&D, request for full accounting of all monies paid to ‘CREDITORS’ etc.

    Who is providing this service to consumers and if no one, why not?

  26. Foreclosureresearch:

    “They treat the sale as a whole loan transfer Servicing Ret. transfer meaning final”

    -OK, so they “treat it that way.” But where is the language in either DOT/Mortgage or Note that allows those “agreements” to be “sold” by a party that “retains servicing?” How is it a “true sale” if “servicing” was “retained?” Now add in reps and warranties. Were these treated as “true sales” or not? If not, did they still enjoy REMIC status?

    Thanks.

  27. What about American Brokers Conduit ??? them and Countrywide are the only 2 listed on my Mortgage paperwork we signed and now I am dealing the CEO’s office @ B of A , they fired the first Lawyer , Jacob Geesing , yep , robo signing and then they hired Cohn,Goldberg and Duetch , yet they charged me for both lawyers ?? Because Geesing may get disbarred and is under investigation , oh of course he is innocent , he is a Lawyer -they never do anything dis-honest . So I am supposed to pay for both ?? What about in a 3 month period my misc. charges increased by almost 13 k ? when the payment is 1400 and they paid 1260 in property taxes , oh , ok that sounds fair to me . Lets go to court B of A , a jury trail of my peers , in my county of residence since 1989 .Hell I have probably shot pool or at least had a beer or 4 w/ six of the 12 – bring it -PEACE -Malco

  28. Lets say Bank of America funded Option Ones credit line ,, Option One got the origination fees , held the note and got servicing income with no out of pocket ,, a SWEET DEAL… Bank of America got the fees from the creation of the securities and from the spread between the amount of the loan and what it was sold into the trust at , and knowing the “quality” of the loans they purchased swaps and other “insurance” products (from AIG and others) .. BAC had no actual cash outlay as the syndicate collected money from the security investors to actually fund the mortgages and refi’s ..

    Where are the FAA logs for Lehmans , BAC’s , BONY Mellon and WF’s corporate jets entering and returning from the Caribbean (Caymans and Bahamas) ?? Why all the corporate entities from these banks incorporated in those countries??

  29. Brother Neidermeyer ;

    Your tail spin still gives me chills bro…But for comments

    …Not true . Stop focusing on the promissory note. . Forget the note. At least for what your trying to accomplish here.

    Bifurcation is not separating a note from a deed!Bring down Ibanez!
    Its splitting the accrual from the amortization . Got it? The originators releases the note under a bailment agreement . MERS stand in for the electronic version of the E-Note.

    expert.witness@live.com

    Look – I was one of them ….I wrote the first chapter in 96 with great mentors DOES NOT WORK

    I’m telling you …they cannot hide it from US DOWN HERE IN LA. .Problem is the machine they created is so so efficient …No Way ! Your not going to beat the trust – No way .

    Trust managers …there yo go .

    Only in certain vulnerable weaknesses which still exist.. [1] Trustee and co trustee , [2] GAAP, and [3] Bailment procedures [4] Assets held by the receivers .

    M.Soliman .

  30. Foreclosureinfosearch

    The “WHY” seems obvious to me (I may be 100% wrong) ,, the originators physically held the note (undisclosed to the security investors who were told otherwise) and the note was only used as colatteral for the certificates the syndicate produced and sold but the trusts were never actually funded because that would have required an actual sale of the notes and a physical delivery, creating the trust the correct way in fact would have destroyed the banks recourse of foreclosure,, of course this means that they have been cheating on the REMIC side of the equation as these were not truly “Mortgage Backed” and that is what they are most concerned about.. The banks can deal with pesky homeowners one by one but not real cash money investors where an individual suit means $Billions.

    By only using the notes as colatteral but not tendering them they were easily able to sell multiple products with duplicate colatteral.

  31. M.Soliman

    Note as always , thanks Neil and company for putting up with me – I appreciate the chance to share information .

    Good luck to all . . . ..Don’t give up the fight !

    Now back to business —-

    EDITOR’S NOTE: One of the things that is being universally overlooked is that the original “mortgage lien” was never valid in the first place.

    Not true, each is recorded in the county recorders office and represents the only recorder interest thru to foreclosure.

    Lawyers refer to that as “perfecting the lien.” The reason that the securitization scheme worked so well is that “originators” were used instead of banks at the time of closing. These originators have been buried in bankruptcies and fraudulent paperwork.

    >Not true, quite a few deal have been reviewed as of date and the bank funding the loan is the name in the note. In either instance the companies are owned as combinations of the holding company – I do not understand what you’re saying?

    Most of the originators were simply companies incorporated for the purpose of attending closings.

    >Not true again. They were almost exclusively LLCs used as the servicing agent after origination and delivery – Cutoff date.

    In many cases the originators filed for bankruptcy protection. This makes your job easier in establishing the fact that the originator was not in the business of lending money.

    They treat the sale as a whole loan transfer Servicing Ret. transfer meaning final

    By using the appropriate online services you can pull up the original schedules and any amended schedules that will show the assets and liabilities of the originator.
    > Pull their holding company financials, that’s the key. I don’t believe you can pull a combination company’s interest or subsidiary under a lone filing. When you look at the schedule of assets and the bankruptcy of an originator you will not find any loans receivable listed as assets.
    > They held servicing (alleged – I disagree).

    This is important for two reasons. The first reason is that the originator was not in the business of lending money and the description of the business will probably describe the actual activities of the bankrupt originator.
    >Originators only originated and did in fact underwrite the deal Q/C the paper set up funding and What ? You mean it was all under one roof. Well, Okay ..So explain …

    The second reason is that many participants in the securitization scheme used fabricated assignments from the originator, many of which are dated after the filing of the petition for relief, and some of which are dated after the discharge order and injunction.

    Why? This is the million dollar question – Answer Why (if possible) (Expert.witness@live.Com)

  32. […] This article is eye-opening! MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR'S NOTE:  One of the things that is being universally overlooked is that the original “mortgage lien” was never valid in the first place. Lawyers refer to that as “perfecting the lien.” The reason that the securitization scheme worked so well is that “originators” were used instead of banks at the time of closing. These originators have been buried in bankruptcie … Read More […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: