Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Notes:  

As we predicted more and more County recorder offices are suing to collect transfer fees on loans that have gone to foreclosure under the allegation that a valid loan and lien was transferred.  Expect other revenue collectors in the states to start doing the same for registration fees, taxes, interest, penalties and fines. This battle is just beginning. We are now about to enter the phase of finger pointing in which each type of defendant — bank, servicer, MERS, Fannie, Freddie etc. defends with varying exotic defenses that more or less point the finger at some other part of the securitization chain. 
The real story is that title chains have been irretrievably corrupted — which means that title cannot be established by using the documents alone. Parole evidence from witnesses and production of back-up documents must show the path of the loan and the proof that the transaction was real. Defenders of these lawsuits may be forced to admit that there was no actual financial transaction and that the assignments were assignments of “convenience” negating the reality of the transfer or of any transaction at all. 
Either way they are going to have a problem that can’t be fixed. They can’t prove up the documents because the documents are contrary to the path of monetary transactions and recite facts that are untrue —- in addition to the fact that the documents themselves were fabricated, forged, robo-signed and fraudulently presented. This is why I say that regardless of how hard anyone tries to do the wrong thing, the only right way to correct these problems is to negate the foreclosures that have already been concluded, stop the ones that are being conducted in the same way as the old way, and make them prove up their right to foreclose. They either must admit that there were not valid transactions — including the original note and mortgage — or they won’t be able to prove a valid transaction because the money came from sources other than those shown on the closing documents. 
The actual sources of the money loaned the money to borrowers without documentation believing they had the documentation. But the mere fact that borrowers signed documents is not an invitation for any stranger to imply that it was for their benefit. For these reasons the mortgage in most cases was never perfected into a valid lien and cannot be perfected without corrective instruments signed by the borrower or upon some order by a court. But the courts are going to be far more careful about the proof here. Most Judges are going to take the position that they could be fooled once when the foreclosure originally went through on the premise of valid documents and an actual financial transaction attached to THOSE documents, but that they won’t be fooled a a second time. They will demand proof. And proof according to the normal rules of evidence is completely lacking because the entire securitization chain was a lie from one end to the other.
The borrower will end up owing the money less offsets for payments received by the real creditor, once the identity of the real creditor is revealed, but the absence of a mortgage or deed of trust naming that actual creditor will void the mortgage and negate the credit bid at the auction.

Ohio lawsuit accuses Freddie Mac of fraud

by Tara Steele

The battle between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and various government entities continues, each taking a different approach on the battlefield.

Freddie Mac sued by county in Ohio

Last year, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) became the subject of lawsuits from counties across the nation as District Attorneys allege the company never owned the loans they were facilitating foreclosures for, and in most cases, judges agree, and their authority to facilitate has been denied in several counties. Dallas County alleges the mortgage-tracking system violates Texas laws and shorted the county anywhere from $58 million to over $100 million in uncollected filing fees due to the MERS system, dating back to 1997.

Others sued MERS as well; in February, in the U.S. Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Chief Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Christian County Clerk, denying relief to the County for the same relief sought by Dallas County and others.

Rampant mortgage fraud, continued robosigning

Studies have shown that MERS destroyed the chain of title in America, and other studies reveal that illegal robosigning is still in play, and that foreclosure fraud has occurred in themajority of loans.

As the courts have not yet rewarded cities, counties, or states pursuing action against MERS, other tactics are being taken by these entities, for example, Louisiana is using RICO laws to sue MERS.

Summit County, Ohio taking a different approach

Summit County, Ohio filed a lawsuit1 Tuesday against Freddie Mac, alleging a failure to pay fees on transfer taxes on over 3,500 real estate transactions over six years. Court documents show that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is accused of committing fraud by claiming it was a government entity, thereby exempt from transfer taxes. The County has not released a final assessment of the amount they believe is due, but they will also be seeking interest and penalties.

This approach is far different than going after MERS (which coincidentally was established by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over 15 years ago), rather going directly after the still-functioning Freddie Mac.

“The reality is Freddie Mac is a federally chartered, private corporation and they should have been paying these fees and taxes,” Assistant Prosecutor Joe Fantozzi told the Akron Beacon Journal.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae began paying transfer taxes in 2009, so the lawsuit is only seeking transfer taxes due from 2002 through 2008, which in Summit County are $4 per $1,000 on all real estate transactions. Additionally, the county also charges a 50-cent lot fee and recording fees, which are $28 for the first two pages and $8 for each additional page.

Fannie Mae not named, FHFA already fighting back

Although Geauga County in Ohio sued MERS, Chase Bank, and CoreLogic, the Akron Beacon Journal reports that Summit County is believed to be the first county in the state to file legal action against Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae was not named in the suit due to the low volume of mortgages in the county it handled during the time period.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the conservator of Fannie and Freddie, is fighting back on these same battle lines, suing in Illinois to validate the two mortgage giants’ tax-exempt status, the Chicago Tribune reported. This move is likely an effort to circumvent more lawsuits like the one currently being filed in Summit County.





70 Responses

  1. What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this
    I’ve found It positively helpful and it has aided me out loads.
    I am hoping to contribute & aid different customers like its helped me.
    Good job.

  2. […] Corruption of Title Chains Is Pandemic   Posted by Kelly L. Hansen at 7:51 […]

  3. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Carroll County NH High Sheriff Chris Conley Press Conference 7:2:12 BofA shareholders may pursue lawsuit over MERS, Mortgages » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  4. […] Corruption of Title Chains Is Pandemic […]

  5. @johng – we may never know the end of the story on the 9011 sanctions case you posted. per pacer they resolved it by paying the debtor atty fees and it was withdrawn. i recently saw a hearing where the objection to proof of claim was based on an allonge to the note that was dated prior to the note’s execution. now that was entertaining to watch.


    For anyone in WA state. According to this, the WA SC overturned
    a lower court, stating the f/c purchaser was NOT a bonafide
    purchaser – and why (circumstances lead to duty of inquiry).

  7. Here’s some apparent corruption:
    Transcript of Deutsche’s first hearing on Order to Show Cause
    (Rule 9011) for submitting notes with different endorsements.

    The judge called for an evidentiary hearing (why? what was missing, your honor?) and appeared to want to involve the U.S. Trustee.
    Seems to be it could have been decided at this hearing instead of moved out, which just gives Deutsche more time to hone its tapdance.
    At any rate, if you’re up against Deutsche, d/l and file under
    “Deutsche Pattern of Behavior” for future use.

  8. @TNH
    “i think the fact that it exists at all rather than what it actually says is what you would use as exculpatory.”

    Yes that is my thought. If it is subject to judicial notice because it is a statement readily verifiable as a public record, then it seems one could point to it in a MTD on that claim. Ie the claimant has no material issue of fact. Is it plausible that my nobody client can have an impact upon reputation of bigco—in the wake of BB et al.?

  9. Haha—that’s a good one, tnharry—I haven’t called anyone a name—I just post information that has truth in it and some people jump all over me for it—they call ME names—and I defend myself. That’s all.

    I’m not interested in name calling and fighting—ever—but I will defend myself if I’m being attacked…your buddy likes to call people “idiots”—I’d say that’s name calling—how come you didn’t mention him? Uh huh.

  10. tnhairy,
    You are not qualified to say what I know or don’t know. Get over yourself.

  11. @tnharry

    you said:

    “it’s what you can prove with admissible evidence…”

    But, what about all the judges who won’t even allow discovery or evidence to be shown?

  12. @ D.W.: “…is this the modus operendi?” YES, exactly, the entire title & lending networks’ doings are criminal MO.

  13. Fidelity Title robo-singing page shut: So, clients can go directly to for quotes on forged docs!!!

  14. @dcb – interesting example. BB’s statement would be at issue less for its relevance than in the Nora example though. it certainly merits more reflection, but my first impression is that the BB statement’s existence, rather than the veracity of the statement or its admissibility in the litigation you describe would go to allocation of liability and to damages. in your example, i think the fact that it exists at all rather than what it actually says is what you would use as exculpatory. i’ll think about it some more though – you might be on to something.

  15. @nora – read my post again, i haven’t been hurling insults beyond suggesting that some folks are using words that they don’t understand. your continued reliance on 25 pages being somehow relevant to the concept of judicial notice would seem to reinforce my statement. look at yourself, tolle, carie, and others if you are curious about the name calling. and frankly i don’t care is Levitin is an associate professor of law at Georgetown or the basketball coach at Georgetown – his statements are either relevant to your case or they’re not, and his qualifications don’t figure into that equation.

  16. @ NORA C
    The comments that you have expressed are perhaps accurate—-perhaps not—but in my view, it is beneficial to hear the perspectives and arguments that people might have that happen to disagree with you—-surely you want to know what the opponents will say—and what their basis is for so saying.

    I do not think its in the best interest of everybody to sing the same tune and condemn a dissenting opinion simply because you disagree with it. Frankly Id rather hear the dissent rather than the majority opinion–i know what the biases are—I may respect your opinion as one side of an argument but im not willing to accept that you are so knowledgable or perfect that this is all i want to hear—if that be the case–just go stand in a cave and listen to your own echoes and be happy everyone agrees with you–at best irts a false security——if you listen and try to understand what hes saying you will be better off–because you are going to have to respond to it sooner or later

    in law school it was always renquist dissents i paid closest attn to—even though he was 1:8—-but interestingly he eventually ended up being Chief and writer of the majority opinions—–and reversed quite a few of those older decisions that frankly i did not understand—–its an example —and ill note even people that work for bans have 1st amendment rights—although they are all too quick to steal yours

  17. @TNH
    I understand yourpoint–my implicit assumption was that whatever the report read whether by BB or staff with agency endorsement is of “substantial relevance” to the particular case—or something of that nature.

    Ill use an example and ask your opinion. Lets suppose that your client is being sued on a counterclaim by a well-known financial entity for slander of reputation because your client stated that the entity had engaged in sloppy record-keeping and that sloppy business practices and your client was injured by a specific example of that sloppy practice. BB testifies the fed has made an administrative finding of fact that the particular or a group which includes it expressly has engaged in or is responsible for that particular type of sloppy business practice.

    The issue in question is whether the statement your client made about that particular business activity of that particular entity as to which BB makes public comment is damaging to the entities reputation?

    From a simplistic perspective it would seem that accusation by the entity of damage to reputation by John Doe’s statement would be undermined by BBS public testimony on the same matter vis the same entity. Thus the question would seem to me to be two-pronged—is the statement true? Im not sure that BB saying it makes it true that the business practice is in fact sloppy—maybe so—-but the 2nd prong is true or not——-does your client repitition of the same statement as BB constitute damage to the entity—or is not BBs statement in front of congress determinative of the question of “what is XXX co’s reputation vis that particular matter–ie sloppy practices of the type described?

    is this specific enough for you to form an opinion—reach a conclusion?

  18. @tnhairy
    Levitin is Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and if his written testimony isn’t on point, why was he testifying as an expert on the fraud, before the House Financial Services Committee? Your opinion is what I’d consider worthless, inadmissable…and irrelevant. In the real world, judges don’t like to read. Any filing over 25 pages isn’t permitted in GA courts. You’re just mad because eTolle will profit from the ticket sales when we conduct a cyber hanging of your ass for being nasty to people, you banker! So there! Take that! If you were any good at arguing in court, you’d be there instead of here, hurling insults.

  19. @dcb – could you qualify Benanke as an expert? undoubtedly, but at what, and how would it be relevant to Nora’s case specifically? that’s what I keep trying to discuss – evidence must be authenticated, relevant, and otherwise admissible. just because i may be able to qualify Paula Deen as an expert on southern cooking doesn’t make anything she says relevant to the matters at issue. that’s part of why I’m so unpopular here – I keep saying that it doesn’t matter what you think, hope, or wish – it’s what you can prove with admissible evidence. too many are focused on hopes and wishes instead of hard facts

  20. @TNH I understand the one guys opinion aspect—it is not inherently reliable lets say

    What if it were Ben Bernanke’s testimony? Where would you come down on the judicial notice issue?Or a key Fed Reserve periodic report on their site?

  21. @nora c – more using words that you don’t understand. Levitin’s testimony before congress doesn’t qualify as “judicial notice” due to it being “brief enough at 25 pages”. length isn’t the determination of whether something is judicial notice. his testimony before congress represents his opinion, and unless he was talking about the facts of your case specifically, his opinion, even if it’s accepted as an expert opinion, would likely not be admissible.

    that’s what so many of the posters miss – even if you have the best legal theories, it all comes down to what you can prove in court using admissible evidence and testimony. can you actually prove the elements of the theory you’re planning to use? if not, and potentially even if so, you stand a good chance of losing on procedure and rules of evidence unless you’re using a competent attorney

  22. @ENRAGED

    Please read the WSJ today—yesterday the Euro-ministers imposed a condition on the Spanish bank bailout that the Spanish equivalent of US IRA retirement accounts is “subordinated” to the banks foreign bondholders. There are hundreds of thousands of pensioners and other savers towards retirement that were wiped out in effect in order to pay the offshore hedge funds and London banks. So today there will be imposed restictions on early withdrawal—rather than telling the folks that they just lost their lives savings in order to pay off the foreign billionaires.

    anybody who thinks that the banks have been or are in midst of being reined in —is a dreamer

    the worst aspect of this spanish deal is that it was announced as a “blueprint” for recapitalizing banks across europe and to prevent bankruns——your money is sort of there–you just cant have most of it right now

    this is consistent with recent US agency proposals to restrict withdrawals from money market funds—delay—maximums etc

  23. eTolle;
    Levitin offered testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on Housing and community Opportunity back in 2010 on “Robo-Signing, Chain of Title, Loss Mitigation, and Other Issues in Mortgage Servicing” that is blatantly critical and laser sharp. He states that the Chain of Title issues pose a systemic, huge risk to the U.S. economy. His roughly 25 page written testimony is brief enough to file as a “Judicial Notice” piece.
    On to tnhairy, (does that stand for terribly-nasty-hairy?) Please print tickets for the planned execution. It should be a sell-out.

  24. “the chickens will come home to roost”
    if they can steal a house and get away with it they can issue false debt collection on us from outta thin air…wells is asking a company to collect from me- i have no clue where this came from i do not owe wells any money, nor the other 3 players i guess they are trying to take anything i may have to fund the suit, i say ill see you in court at the very least,….is this the modus operendi, to stress us with bogus debt collection, they can and they do, so i just keep fighting, what choice do i have.

  25. come on Neil… who’r you kidding? courts & judges were all bought in advance of foreclosure tsunami. The few good ones were liquidated with early retirements or other means. I know you can’t say anything against them or you will lose your licence. at least the people must know that too!!

  26. @las vegas

    I wish I could help, I really do. I would like nothing more than to be able to really help people defend themselves against the “fraud machine” that is mowing down the lives of millions…but I can’t. They have it all figured out—at least up to now. I wish there WAS “closure”…I wish we had an advocate—but these monsters squash anyone who tries to get the truth out and truly help people. The CBO fired Dr. Lan Pham when she was starting to dig into the (fake) mortgage backed securities…they told her “Don’t make waves…just act like everything’s okay…we don’t want to upset the mortgage industry by getting the truth out…” is basically what they said to her. She refused to play by their dishonest rules and was fired.
    The things I have been posting today about Fannie/Freddie is information (excerpts from letters) from someone who is in litigation and can’t come forward here, but he has physical proof that false default and massive insurance fraud was perpetrated by Fannie/Freddie…but when he talked to Fannie/Freddie—they told him “Let it go.”
    I’m not making this up—it’s the truth.

  27. Gee, everytime I come on I feel more stupid. I am just an housewife, I do not have a 4 year degree. I HATE politics, and politicians and think each one is as bought as the next..

    Carrie though picked up on a point of mine from a post maybe yesterday.
    carie, on July 10, 2012 at 1:22 pm said:

    @Martha said:
    “…yet the majority of the issue is all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied…”

    An no one seems to really address this ELEPHANT.

    I do not read the papers, and only scan the news blather, as its mostly propaganda, ( I mean who OWNS the press?)

    I do not even know what the heck LIBOR means, and yes, I could go and google it, and find out, but I am just the average housewife, not some stockbroker or lawyer of political pundit.

    Tthe majority of the issue IS all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied” and I found out this from just simple research.

    So take the house I “manage” in Thousand oaks, and add up ALL the re-fies on this one house, $210,K $310,K $350K, $400k, $500K over the past ten years, and then multiply this to all the other situations out there in the US, and THIS IS THE ISSUE.

    Its NOT the ONE last $500K default! ( we stopped paying when we found out we never had the title to begin with!)

    That last loan is NOTHING!

    Its all the OTHERS that were never satisfied!

    The Chickens will come home to roost.

  28. @tnharry—it’s not a “small portion”…do some research. I’ve explained how it applies to refinances AND purchases—and as for everything else—as he says: “…you will likely never know if loan ever first passed through GSE…”
    Re-read what I posted if you don’t get what I’m saying about the GSE’s.

  29. The loans are than pooled after origination and the originator and the GSE both take an interest (see participation agreement) they are sold into the master trust (series subtrust) etc…

    The Lender is a tax payer Corporation who elects to form a REIT. The member bank is a commerical warehouseline provider and often used as the gestation facility for pre funding the shelf through to the cut -off and closing date.

    The Sponsor is typically formed as a not -for-profit. The originations are funded in the tax payer name and transferred under a bailee agreement on instructions provided by the lender to the member bank.

    It’s all under a bailment agreement that is subordinate to the purchase and sale agreement. The bank is actually the transferor while the transferee is the registrations Sponsor / Seller.

    The management is formed as an LLC with 100% of capital / voting rights ownership held by a TRS for the securities sale through a 506 D private placement.

    The mark to market consideration capitalizes the investors paid in capital account held into the trust corpus and the securities are placed on deposit as collateral held as new issues -common shares (TCS) in the name of the lender. The depositor is the Sponsor for the REMIC who is a subsidiary of the member bank or Hold Co.

    The repository is held to satisfaction, in my opinion, holding the deposit for like consideration for the outstanding balance it is owed by the lender (left hand – right hand).

    The common stock are used to create the basis for the waterfall offered imps and this is where is gets crazy transferring a five year zero coupon into 90 day commercial paper at a 10:1 ratio.

    In my opinion it’s a legal with one minor exception …To issue a trust certificate the Master Servicer (what is that anyway) or Securities Administrator must have good title ….bare legal title ……If true they take title in advance of a default and look to the REPO to resolve no harm no foul controversy.

    Here’s the bad faith business dealings and “busted” in the event of a absence of a robust condition ….claims include misjoinder , Unlawful conversion , fraudulent conveyances in a securities offering, slander of title , estoppels by lace, restraint on alienation, surety ship, breach of trust. Tortuous interference with the right of salvage and subrogation, unlawful use of servicing vendors ….etc etc

    It’s called marketing bank debt for which investors are paid to buy the banks obligations or move them off balance sheet.

    Always consult an attorney to determine your title rights and to obtain a valid legal opinion. Not an attorney and for info purposes only .


  31. iwantmynpv-wow i wish i knew that- its not cheered me up any though.

  32. @TNHarry Cary is actually right,not in the way it is being explained but her premise is correct. It is not just mortgages that are funded this way,it is all credit. That’s right credit cards, school loans, auto loans, all the same structure.

    You are wrong that it is just subprime loans that are funded in this manner. Fannie and Freddie provide warehouse lines from the corporate side of the quasi-judicial corporation, the loans are than pooled after origination and the originator and the GSE both take an interest (see participation agreement) they are sold into the master trust (series subtrust) etc.. by the corporate Fannie to the trust or agency fannie as debt,hence collection accounts begin immediately.

    That is exactly why all the servicers announce themselves as a debt collector, whether you are current on in default on your loan. Look up the terms implicit recourse, residual interest, discount rates and loan loss reserves,and than come back and tell me they sold any loans to any trusts. Frankly, where do you think these guys got the idea for private label MBS back in the 80’s. They learned from the goverment scams, they just had to wait for the pesky Glass Steagal to be repealed.

    Even the note in your pocket (Dollar) is created the same way, balance sheet credit, fund loan, held for sale swapped or sold to pool SPE, 10% left for initial reserve requirement, strip our notes to form securities, disect and target tranche so as to get triple aaa rating, buy monoline insurance, close all forward swaps on the balance sheet, bet the loans will fail through synthetic swaps, make shelf registration efffective, steal investor money and issue worthless certificates, close Trust, and begin wagging the long end of the tail.

    Laugh, smoke a big cigar,pat one another on the back and repeat the process over again.

    On July 02,2012 the EU announce they would begin to remove the sovereign rights of the citizens living in member countries. ON the same day China purchased its first energy package from Japan using the Yuan – no conversion. As you can see, we only have to keep the hosue about another year before this all unwinds. The FED must force another 450 billion into the money supply to keep velocity tuned to their private currency expansion which is approaching 7 trillion.

    There is no way back and we need to get together to take down the banks now. We are both entering survival mode and they can print the money, so we need the votes and the same level of coordination they use.

  33. @carie

    Okay, I believe in learning the truth and I believe in justice, but all I am trying to find out is what recourse do I have when I find out the truth? And just when I think it couldn’t get worse, it does.

    It has been 7 LONG years of dealing with this horrific loan. I have had a loan audit, I have had the OTS review, I have had my loan in default, I have had a sub of trustee after the NOD, I rescinded the loan and their response was to file notice of trustee sale and then when Countrywide made their settlement in Oct 2008 offer a forebearance. I have BOA offer a loan mod and 18 months later deny it, I have had robosigned documents, I have had 2 assignments ( one by LPS and one by Corelogic) to the same trust 6 years after the trust closed, I have had the nod rescinded……and so on. My spouse is disabled and I believe there was discrimination that I have to report to HUD….my spouse’s health is failing and I am trying to find closure that’s all.

  34. but carie you can post that junk argument a thousand times and it doesn’t change that, even if valid, it applies to a relatively small portion of the “universe” of mortgage loans. not merely refinances, but subprime refinances…

  35. @las vegas

    I’m sorry, but the whole truth of this fraud HAS to come out…so far we only have bits and pieces and massive cover-up. The devil is in the details—and unless we understand how Fannie/Freddie was involved in false default, we will never get to the truth.

  36. Bickering doesn’t help anyone. Can we all agree that there has been massive fraud?

    Everyone’s situation is different. I have been reading this site and others for information on how to help my family. I am not a lawyer and do not want to become one (no offense) I just want to know what the heck happened to us and when for g-d sakes this will all end. So far we have had EVERY fraud done on our deal.

  37. Dear tnharry—NOT NONSENSE…read very carefully:

    “…I have always said that the no funding applies to subprime refinances – I have tried to make that clear. There are prime loans (meet market standards) that are legitimate GSE loans. Subprime, however, is what caused the near financial meltdown.

    All that had to be funded in subprime refinances was any “cash out” that borrower received by the subprime refinance. This is because the subprime refinances were a transfer of collection rights on already classified default/non-compliant debt by the GSEs. But, a subprime new purchase may have gone through the same GSE path. GSEs have mortgage limits on both new purchases and subprime refinances. Thus, a ‘money purchase” loan (subprime) would often be split into 2 loans — one loan that qualified for GSE approval — and another loan that was privately funded. The loan that passed through the GSE would be found as non-compliant and, therefore, rejected – often by also assessing a (false) early payment default against the borrower. Thus, the collection rights to the GSE loan would pass to the investor who was funding the second loan (and with insurance collected on the GSE loan.) Subprime new purchases that were structured to pass through the GSEs (by at least one loan), were not immune to the fraud.

    What (certain people) do not understand is the difference between an “investor” and a “security investor.” Yes, a new purchase would ALWAYS require funding — regardless of whether or not the seller of home is paid all cash — or the sale price minus any mortgage owed. The seller has to be paid off. There are 3 types of investors — 1) GSE 2) financial institution 3) private investor. In certain cases– it appears there may have been a private investor who indirectly funded the new purchase. But, these private investors did not KEEP the loans, they did not have to capital to keep the loans. Thus, loans were sold immediately to the GSEs or to financial institutions. If sold to financial institutions — loan was not GSE compliant. (or as stated above — one loan can pass through the GSEs first — by which non-compliance removes the loan immediately). In either case, someone is directly funding the private investor. The second part of the process involves “security investors.” Once the subprime loan is deemed default/non-compliant, the collection rights (from default/non-compliant loans) — are sold to Depositor to Trust, whose parent then “securitizes” the cash flows to collection rights — and the security certificates are sold to Depositor’s (usually) parent (some exceptions here) — the security underwriter. Security underwriter then repackages “securities” into CDOs. At no point in subprime refinances, subprime purchases — and also prime refinances/purchases, do the security investors fund the loans. The security investors only purchase a stream of pass-through cash payments to the subprime collection rights (or prime pass-throughs). .

    Not all mortgages were subprime. If yours was not a subprime — your loan would likely still be with Freddie/Fannie — unless you have defaulted. But, loan may have been privately funded by whoever funded the “investor.” In this case, good luck finding where it is now. And, you will likely never know if loan ever first passed through GSE…”

  38. Tell me if you can see why the major players jumped into sub prime with a vengence. You see something wrong here? – really wrong ?
    90 Days Commerical
    Paper Timeline

    Sub Prime Start

    Sub Prime Explosion

    Intro of Low Teaser Rate

    Start of Predatory lending

    Market Collapse

    T.A.R.P. (Fed intervention)

    More Charts avail -no charge

  39. @tolle – as much as I enjoy the detailed stories you weave of my inpending demise into becoming a street urchin, you seldom respond to the substance of what I say…

    I actually agreed with you that standing (or “right”) to foreclose can be a valid issue. but what were you referring to when you said the liens were not perfected?

  40. Tn,

    That’s the one thing i haven’t read on yet: whether there are any records of what the true Libor was and how much it was moved up as a result of a specific intervening event (e-mail, phone call, etc). We know that phone calls were made and e-mails were sent but, from what i have read, the requests to change Libor were never specific as in “I need it to be 3% today but it’s only 2.87%. Can you manage something?”

    On the other hand, if it can be established that, let’s say:
    1) Libor was X% on the day I purchased my house and, consequently, I paid in excess of $amount I shouldn’t have had to pay over the course of so many years;
    2) Further, I refinanced in such and such year, Libor should have been Z% on the date I signed and I paid for so many years. therefore, based on the those numbers, the difference owed back to me is $amount,

    Then, people would be able to claim a reimbursement while still in the house which, incidentally, might be enough to pay for an attorney so that they can, finally, get the money back AND keep the house by suing the servicer on everything else (Tila, respa, fdcpa and whatever else they can put their hands on).

    Because what troubles me is that, even when banks pay fines, we, homeowners, don’t see one cent of it. Where is it going? Back to the banks?

  41. Oh tnharry, I can only hope that soon you’ll receive an auction notice in the mail. You’ll chuckle, realizing that someone somewhere made a mistake. You’ll pick up the phone, and wait patiently for an hour for Bodhisattva to finally pick up. He’ll introduce himself as Billy Bob, yet in a very heavy Mumbai accent. They much prefer to use what they believe to be endearing western sounding names when they play games with the little folk from the west that they’re aiding in the demise of. Games such as, “Refax Them”, a favorite pastime involving as many sheets of paper as there are stars in the desert night sky. Or maybe you’ll be treated to, “We Have No Record Of That Conversation”, another oldie but goodie known to cause their sweatshop phone room to break out in uproarious laughter as you go on and on about how there must be some mistake. The entire phone crew in India will simultaneously wet their sarongs as one at your bewilderment.

    No amount of litigating on the phone with this guy will do you any good, who up until last year was scaling trees barefooted back in his village trying to outreach the monkeys in search of bananas to sell in his village. Nothing against these people whatsoever. I truly love Indians and their culture, just not when my mortgage is involved. I do, however, have serious issues with Jamie Dimon and his ilk for hiring these fine folks for rupees on the dollar in an attempt at 1) outsourcing jobs that used to be performed very well by Americans, and 2) continuing their pattern of exploitation and usury the world over, and 3) adding yet another layer of obfuscation in a system so obtuse as to rank right up their with your questions on the imperfection of notes to the trusts and the ensuing criminality.

    Finally, being the stellar guy that I am, I’ll personally walk you through the steps you’ll have to take to clear your title and prevail against these bandits. And I’ll only do it for $35K, which is about the going rate on the street. On second thought, just for you tnharry, I’ll do it for $40K, K?

  42. @enraged – it’s certainly an interesting question. damages and proof of damages may be the real questions though. did you really pay more because of collusion on the LIBOR rate? how could you prove that you paid more if there were no alternatives to the LIBOR out there? and as to your suggestion that they “reverse” the voidable contracts, that would imply putting both parties back to where they were prior to the contract, right? so you would go back to no house in a purchase and the prior principal balance in a refi??

  43. Never mind. I got my answer… And it’s not just houses. it’s every kind of credit, be it for student loans, car loans, credit cards, any kind of loans.

    If that doesn’t push people to stop paying what they are alleged to owe, nothing will.

    Cleveland Fed: Large percentage of mortgages tied to shaky Libor

    By Jon Prior
    • July 10, 2012 • 12:56pm

    A large percentage of mortgages are tied to the now shaky Libor rate banks charge to borrow from each other, according the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

    U.S. and British officials launched recent investigations into more than a dozen banks after news surfaced that Barclays ($10.26 0.03%) manipulated the rate to report lower borrowing costs and higher profits.

    Twisting those rates could have cost more than banks but many homeowners as well.

    Roughly 45% of prime adjustable-rate mortgages are tied to the Libor index, and 80% of subprime ARMs are tied to it, according to the Cleveland Fed Economist Guhan Venkatu.

    He analyzed data through May from Lender Processing Services ($24.82 -0.32%), which covers roughly two-thirds of the mortgage market. Venkatu noted just 3% of the LPS data came up as subprime, so he used Mortgage Bankers Association numbers as well, which shows the subprime share closer to 10%.

    “Libor has historically been the dominant index for subprime loans,” Venkatu wrote.

    More than 80% of subprime ARM originations were also linked to Libor in 2000, but by the time the housing bubble burst in 2008, essentially all subprime ARMs were linked to Libor as were half of prime loans.

    A story in The Daily Mail showed it would be difficult for borrowers to prove they lost money on the Libor-fixing scandal, but that it may not keep many from filing lawsuits against the largest banks anyway.

  44. Hey tn,

    I do have a question: once it has been proven that all the US banks colluded with the UK banks to fix libor, and once it becomes obvious that it started long before 2007, what do you think the likelihood is that we’ll see massive lawsuits and class actions from homeowners and investors alike, purporting to reverse what they will allege are “voidable” contracts? We’ve seen every shape, form and color of fraud and, so far, not much good has come out of it in terms of redress. Do you anticipate anything different this time?

    I’m trying to figure out what i want to do when i grow up and becoming a lawyer is starting to look like a pretty damn good idea…

  45. @carie – i’m sticking with “nonsense”, thank you very much. i’ve heard you tell that story here at least 500 times already. what you fail to distinguish, and wrongfully try to generalize ALL loans to fall in line with your theory, is that your claims only refer to sub-prime refinances. not purchase money deals, and not even standard refinances, ONLY SUBPRIME REFINANCES. you’ve tried time and time again to sell this fairy tale as applicable to every person on this site, often to their own detriment. truthfully, you have been guilty of war crimes against humanity every bit as much as e.tolle would like to convict me of.

  46. sorry tn—that sentence you referred to should read:

    OCC comes back in a letter and tells him that his Freddie Mac loan (which he paid-off by a refinance) — was never paid off — BY HIM — but, rather by a “pay-out” by INSURANCE. OCC tells him he is currently in default on Freddie Mac loan!!

  47. @tolle – i’ll grant you that there are legitimate arguments over the right to foreclose out there. maybe not as widespread as some believe, but i agree it’s a valid point. but what are you referring to about the liens not being perfected?

  48. “…He got Wells Fargo (Master Servicer to his prior “mortgage” supposedly securitized into a trust) to admit that they never received payoff by his subsequent refinance…”

  49. and, tn—have you seen how this is massive INSURANCE FRAUD?

  50. Come on, tn—re-read it—carefully—he was told he was in default on something he had the PAYOFF CANCELLED CHECK FOR!!!

    Not nonsense. Truth. And we ARE in a “world of hurt”—that’s getting worse every day.

  51. Oh tnharry, I’m not swinging….it’s just a little game of jousting….no harm intended….unless of course you are in fact tossing people out of their homes with a fraudulent or no chain of title, which btw, in case you haven’t noticed, is a slightly pandemic disease in the good old USA.

    Of course people should pay their car bills. But something you seem not to understand, and I’m all ears if you do, the banks are separating people from their homes by the millions and at a steadily increasing rate, all the while having no standing to do so. So, this has little if anything to do with making one’s car payment.

    You said, “ […is it] okay for the lienholder to repossess?” Of course it is. But in the present context, the liens were never perfected, they’re being summonsed up for quickie foreclosures by entities that have zero rights to do so. You know that, and yet you play dumb to the atrocities as if your part of Appalachia was in a different solar system.

    You know exactly what’s going down, and yet you play on like nothing’s up. Therefore, I accuse you of crimes against humanity, find you guilty of the same, and sentence you to 20 years of listening to Kate Smith sing “God Bless America” over and over until you repent. It could be worse, there’s always Michael Bolton.

  52. @carie – if that’s the REAL TRUTH, we’re all in for a world of hurt. i can’t make a bit of sense out of that post. what in the world does this sentence mean : “OCC tells us him he is currently in default “? the whole thing reads like that!! where is this from? who is “him” and “he”?

    nonsense indeed.

    and carie – bemoaning and extoling the “massive fraud” and calling it unprecedented doesn’t make up for a lack of court decisions. precedent is either there or it’s not. and like it or not, the concept of following precedent in court is part of the battlefield on which the fights are conducted.

    what i was commenting on was the concept that the uniform note is not a negotiable instrument. that question is separate and apart from all of the LIBOR fraud, appraisal fraud, robosigning, forgery, and securitization scandals.

  53. and, tnharry—we can’t show you any “court decisions” because this kind of massive fraud is unprecedented—and you know it…you know it and you don’t care and you think it’s funny…which is pretty pathetic.

  54. @Martha said:
    “…yet the majority of the issue is all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied…”

    Indeed. I am posting this information (excerpts) again for everyone who still doesn’t get it–(including Neil)—read and learn—the REAL truth:

    “…He got Wells Fargo (Master Servicer to his prior “mortgage” supposedly securitized into a trust) to admit that they never received payoff by our subsequent refinance… He wrote to SEC — that investors were never paid — never expected a response — but, they forwarded a complaint to the OCC (Comptroller of Currency) — on his behalf. OCC sent him on wild goose chase. Then he contacted FDIC (there is connection to WaMu — which he did not know about). FDIC sends another complaint to OCC — on his behalf.
    OCC comes back in a letter and tells him that his Freddie Mac loan (which he paid-off by a refinance) — was never paid off — BY HIM — but, rather by a “pay-out” by INSURANCE. OCC tells us him he is currently in default on Freddie Mac loan!! Normally, you cannot access any checks older than 7 years — so the banks would not have record. HOWEVER, he had the CANCELED CHECK in his files!!!… Not only the canceled check — but all closing documents — AND prior mortgage payments. All was in order –Wells Fargo was paid off — by him — and Wells Fargo was supposed to pay Freddie Mac!!! But, they did NOT. Wells Fargo claims no record of pay-off by him– -no record at all — he is missing from the system.
    He has informed OCC that this fraud likely involves millions — or more. All that stands for him — despite the two refinances — is collection rights to a FALSE default Freddie Mac loan. Coordinating this information with SEC documents that he has been researching for years, it is apparent that most — if not all — subprime/alt-a/jumbo loans — were manufactured default GSE loans – for which collection rights were purchased by banks (acting as debt buyer) — and could not be securitized into any pass-through security trust. This is why trusts are empty — there is no funding necessary for collection rights. They are not a mortgage, not a loan. They are unsecured (false) default debt — which was fraudulently presented to homeowners as a secured mortgage.
    When the system was operating — the bank — as debt buyers of non-compliant (manufactured) GSE loans — would sell collection rights to third parties — via swaps or direct sale once the time for collection passed a certain amount of months (usually 180 days). However, at the financial crisis height — even sale of collection rights came to a halt — leaving many bank debt buyers with collection rights on balance sheet (falsely removed by off-balance sheet transfers that were fraudulent). After TARP bail-out — banks continued their process of sale of collection rights — and, no one will now state who actually owns them — attorneys in court will only name original creditor — or trustee to falsely securitized trust. Trustees have NO RECORDS.
    Federal Reserve Bank in NY (he talked with top officials (Director) for Maiden Lane — for months) cannot tell him if they are receiving his CURRENT payments — even though the trust his adversaries claim he is in (he is not) — is part of Maiden Lane portfolio. They are not receiving pass-through from supposed trustees. Fed Res — tried to help him for months — but, finally sent him to legal department — who stated they could not help.
    Many participants on LL are working for distressed debt buyers — by purchasing distressed loans — and refinancing with undisclosed parties. He has consistently emphasized to Neil — that the Investors in the subprime — where junk debt buyers (including banks) — that did not fund anything (except excess cash in refinance) — these “investors” were the credit enhancers to the false securitizations of collection rights. Security pass-through investors were victims — but, they have been paid out by swaps.
    We are dealing with nothing more than collection rights — and this information is in hands of government…
    It is tremendous fraud — with huge power that we are up against…”


  55. @tolle – i’m curious, what’s your take on whether people should pay their car payments and whether it’s okay for the lienholder to repossess? do you think people should pay their american express bill each month? is your animosity solely limited to the attack on the american dream of home ownership or does it extend to all banking/creditor relationships?

  56. @tolle – you sure come out swinging hard, don’t you? am i to understand that because Ann posted the comment and you say that Adam Levitin has said it before it is therefore the law of the land??? show me some court decisions on the issue from appellate courts and then we can discuss rationally.

  57. Market rigging banking scandal

    UK PM David Cameron says Bob Diamond’s bonus waiver is a sign Barclays understands public concern, banking culture must change – @Reuters

    Submitted 8 hours ago by editor

    [My take on it: Naw… Bob Diamond is only scared that, were he to take the money and run, he might not go very far! People are watching… Hear that, Jamie boy? People ARE watching!]

    Meanwhile, we are working ourselves to a repeat pathetic, pitiful exhibition of the Senate Banking Committee’s abject impotence and thorough brown-nosing. Hopte Matt Taibbi will take copious notes. At least he knows how to put a hilarious spin on things…

    Senate Committee to Question Geithner, Bernanke on Libor
    By Cheyenne Hopkins and Caroline Salas Gage – Jul 10, 2012 12:45

    The Senate Banking Committee will question U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on the scandal surrounding the London interbank offered rate.

    Committee Chairman Tim Johnson said in a statement that he will question Geithner and Bernanke at regularly scheduled hearings this month. Geithner is set to testify before the banking committee on the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul act, while Bernanke will deliver his semi-annual monetary policy report. Johnson didn’t say whether he would have a separate hearing on Libor, which is used as a benchmark for $360 trillion in global securities.

  58. Adam Levitin has been saying all along that the notes aren’t negotiable.

    “Perhaps the bigger point to make about the PEB report is that it is utterly irrelevant. It is a report about the enforceability of “negotiable notes”. The problem is that no mortgage note in the country qualifies as “negotiable” under the definition of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. This might as well be a report about the enforceability of mortgage notes made of green cheese. Even if it were technically correct on every point (which it ain’t), it just wouldn’t matter.

    Courts haven’t really taken up the negotiability point, but it seems beyond peradventure as Ronald Mann noted nearly 15 years ago that the uniform Fannie/Freddie note doesn’t meet the requirements of negotiability because it contains additional undertakings and conditions. This report makes no mention of this issue. But the fact that the notes aren’t negotiable makes the report irrelevant to the legal issues involving foreclosures.

    Now I should note that the fact that the notes aren’t negotiable doesn’t solve the trust law problem of the notes lacking the endorsements required by pooling and servicing agreements. If the PSA says that the note has to be made of green cheese, that’s what it has to be. PSAs, as it happens, apply to all notes, whether or not negotiable. PSAs don’t require negotiability of the note. Instead, they require endorsement of both notes and mortgages (mortgages are themselves never negotiable instruments), as a way of indicating ownership, as a way of documenting chain of title, and as legal protection for the securitization trust if the note does happen to be negotiable.

    Tnharry’s take on this issue is a lot like the current view from on high concerning the LIBOR scam….as long as they can get by with it, why not? What’s a little fraud amongst friends? Tnharry believes the banks should keep on pillaging borrowers homes until the courts start to take notice of the correct interpretation of UCC. How many more millions of homes will be stolen before little issues like centuries old law are adhered to tnharry?

    Oh, and btw tnharry, I have a pair of handcuffs waiting just for you. I can hear your pleadings now, “But wait! I work at a bank that does only in-house, portfolio foreclosures! I’ll give back the money, really I will!” At which point the floor gives way and our friend tnharry swings as if Duke Ellington himself had pulled the lever.

  59. @Jim – how dare you disagree with Ann on that issue. You must be a bankster or one of their minions. What’s next – questioning Carie’s “no loan/no creditor” theories??

    Joking aside, I’ll believe this theory when it starts picking up some momentum. It’s Max Gardner’s pet theory, and you may be able to convince one or two activist courts to buy it, but it’s just an anomaly until appellate courts start picking up and running with it.

  60. Ann

    I just read the letter to which you refer in weidners blog. I disagree with you and perhaps weidner. The letter is no smoking gun. As a matter of fact it refers to separate enforcement of the note as a possibility

  61. Every time I feel like I am losing hope, something happens that rekindles it. Here, Oakland, CA, is pretty much telling Goldman Sachs: “Go F.U. yourselves…”

    Click here to read about more municipalities taking a stand. We’ll get to the debt forgiveness. We will, we will, we will! No two ways about it.

    Tuesday, July 10, 2012
    Are the Mice Starting to Roar? Municipalities Turn Defiant with Wall Street

    Municipal finance has long been a cesspool. States, towns, hospitals, transit authorities, all have long been ripe for the picking. Sometimes local officials are paid off (anything from cold hard cash to gifts to skybox tickets), but much of the time, there’s no need to go to such lengths, since preying on their ignorance will do. As we’ve pointed out, even though these bodies often hire consultants, those advisors are often either not up to the task (how can people who don’t know finance vet an expert?) and/or have bad incentives (more complicated deals, which are generally more breakage prone, tend to produce higher consulting fees).

    Dave Dayen highlighted one example yesterday: the city of Oakland has decided rather than pay $15 million in termination fees to get out of an interest rate swap deal gone bad:

    The council voted to demand Goldman Sachs to negotiate with the city to get out of a 1998 interest rate-swap deal without having to pay a $15 million penalty. Currently, because of the locked-in rates, the deal is costing the city $4 million a year. Oakland estimates they have lost $17.5 million on the deal so far, and even though the underlying bonds were sold back four years ago, because of that $15 million penalty, the city will have to continue losing money on the deal until 2021.

    So the City Council simply voted to terminate the deal. And if Goldman Sachs won’t let Oakland out, the city will stop doing any business with the bank, per the resolution.

    In other words, the headline is: “Oakland to Goldman: Drop Dead.” I sincerely doubt that Goldman would litigate to get Oakland to pay the termination fee, but it will probably instead enlist enforcers, meaning the rating agencies, to issue the usual threats about how Oakland will be downgraded and shunned by investors for daring to press hard to have a transaction renegotiated. Funny how it’s OK in our society to break contacts with individuals over their pensions funds, but not with financial firms, when ZIRP (a tax on savers implemented to prop up the banks that wrecked the economy) is making many of these municipal swaps profitable beyond their wildest dreams.

  62. “…payments received by the real creditor, once the identity of the real creditor is revealed…”


  63. I am NOT willing to concede that we are doomed. Yet, when I read that kind of thing, I have to wonder… ToLLe is right: unless we start hitting the pavement and demonstrating, unless all state employees, health care providers, transportation staff walk from their jobs, we may have to face a terrible fact: that we had a slim window of opportunity to act and we blew it.

    News business, us-news, world-news, technology, economy, middle-east, occupy-wall-street, wallstreet

    Roubini: My ‘Perfect Storm’ Is Unfolding Now

    “Dr. Doom” Nouriel Roubini, says the “perfect storm” scenario he forecast for the global economy earlier this year is unfolding right now as growth slows in the U.S., Europe as well as China.

    In May, Roubini predicted four elements – stalling growth in the U.S., debt troubles in Europe, a slowdown in emerging markets, particularly China, and military conflict in Iran – would come together in to create a storm for the global economy in 2013.

    “(The) 2013 perfect storm scenario I wrote on months ago is unfolding,” Roubini said on Twitter on Monday.

    Chinese inflation data released on Monday, suggested that the economy is cooling faster than expected, while employment data out of the U.S. on Friday indicated that jobs growth was tepid for a fourth straight month in June.

    Roubini said that unlike in 2008 when central banks had “policy bullets” to stimulate the global economy, this time around policymakers are “running out of rabbits to pull out of the hat.”

    Policy easing moves by the European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of England (BoE) and the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) last week did little to inspire confidence in global stock markets.

    “Levitational force of policy easing can only temporarily lift asset prices as gravitational forces of weaker fundamentals dominate over time,” he said.

    Bill Smead, CEO of Smead Capital Management, agrees that there is little central banks can do arrest the global slowdown.

    Last week, he told CNBC that there is “virtually zero chance” that pump-priming by central banks will succeed, suggesting that policymakers should instead let the economic bust work itself through the system.

  64. So what happens when the banksters paint themselves into this big catch-22 corner? They send congress golfing while they rewrite the laws to benefit themselves, and make the bills 600 pages long so that instead of reading them, congress groans and hedges, then accepts the cliff notes version from lobbyists to base their descision on as to how to vote. Why are we paying these idiots?
    A good example of just what good our court system is currently, is the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on unconstitutional ObummerCare. We have to accept the fact that as long as bankers and their mega corporations control the legal narrative, we aren’t going to get a fair shake. No across the board band aid to repair the land registry will ever be offered, because our government is selling America to foreign interests as quickly as they can grab the money. Invalidate not just your fiat mortgage, but your worthless, corrupt, greedy, Wall Street government who’s used you to subsidize their criminal theft and keep them at it. All money is fake, all mortgages are fake, and the only one involved who can show a legitimate loss is the”borrower” who got in reality, NOTHING because he paid an inflated price for the use of the property even though it was already paid for, written off and
    discharged, in secret. Helluva racket.

  65. Ann


    Like your analogy of the courts. Only problem is the courts have a lot of power; the abused spouse, none

    July 10th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    The fact that the standard Fannie/Freddie Mortgage Promissory note is not negotiable isn’t really subject to much argument at this point in time. Oh sure, we’ve got courts…and even some appellate courts…failing to engage in any analysis and making a practical determination to prop up an industry that has ignored the law, ignored their own contracts and generally just bullied and obfuscated their way into an analysis that continues a fiction and delusion.

    Well, just to provide additional support for this argument, I include a letter from Fannie Mae that makes an explicit and crucial point. When Fannie and the bankers got together to draft their note and mortgage, they intended that the note and the mortgage be read together as an integrated document. As indicated in this post, read particularly the highlighted mortgage provided by Margery Golant…it makes the point very clearly. The provisions included between both the note and the mortgage are all bound together in one, integrated, unified document.

    What fraudcloure teaches us is we’re all just tottering along, making excuses and accommodations for the banking and financial services industry that set their mess loose upon this world, with no regard for the laws and no foresight for the consequences when it all came crashing down. Our nation’s courts, rather than forcing them to take the hard medicine and learn from their failures, plays the role of an abused spouse, apologizing for the brutal beatings she continues to take every single time a trashed foreclosure case comes before her.

    That black and blue eye, Oh I tripped and fell. That broken wrist, tripped on the sidewalk.

    Thank you sir, may I have another beating?

    Fannie Letter from Sims v New Falls

  67. Dream on dear editor

    The problems will all be fixed legislatively. As with the so called settlement, the country, fed and state, will legalize all your corrupted titles

    Why not If bankruptcy can erase your debts, legislation can make this monkey turn into a very tame rabbit. All it will take are the usual self interested legislators

  68. These homeowner lawsuits must challenge the constitutionality of an opaque foreclosure process under a uniform instrument that disengages the states autonomy over real property laws. At issue is the substantive fact the mortgagor AKA household received a mortgage that is converted into a bond. Not the same as a bond for deed by any means.

    The underlying bond liquidates the mortgages basis in asset. The basis is the cumulative cost to originate the subject loan.
    Lenders are held as a taxpayer corporation who formed a real estate investment trust. They used private funds from previous originations to reduce the demand on FDIC member bank borrowing requirements.

    The mortgage originates on lines of capital used to transfer assets into a not-for-profit corporation managed by the lender who forms an LLC.

    The origination and transfer of the mortgage was for two separate interests held by the same ownership. The first held by the tax payer corporation while the second is alleged held by the member bank funding the mortgage.

    The entire venture that went on for a six year run was designed to remove the major banks dependency on the Federal Reserve System.

    The nominee is to accomplish a variety of complicated tax shelter issues that would otherwise prohibit this cat and mouse game of “now you see the loan and now you don’t.” AkA “Substitute and Delete Trust Assets.” [discovery]

    It is also assumed to have avoided FIERRA legislation.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: