Wall Street is gearing up to buy properties en masse from Fannie, Freddie and other holders (including the Federal Reserve. The question for these investors is what are they buying and what are they doing?

I think these sales represent an attempt to create a filler for an empty hole in the title chain. we already know that strangers to the transaction were submitting credit bids at rigged auctions of these properties. The auctions were based upon declarations of default and instructions from a “beneficiary” that popped up out of nowhere. The borrowers frequently contested the sale with a simple denial that they ever did business with the forecloser and that the chain of “assignments” were fabricated, forged, robo-signed, surrogate signed and executed by unauthroized people on behalf of unauthroized entities.

The reason the banks and servicers resorted to such illegal tactics was that they understood full well that the origination documents were fatally defective and they were papering over the defects that continually recited the validity of the preceding documents. That is putting lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig.

While apparently complex, the transaction in a mortgage loan is quite simple — money is loaned, a note is made payable to the lender and a separate agreement collateralizes the loan as guarantee for faithful performance of repayment in accordance with the terms of the note. An examination of the money trail shows that this procedure was not followed and that the practices followed and which have become institutionalized industry standards lead to grave moral hazard, fabrication, forgery and fraud. The entire matter can be easily resolved if the forecloser is required to produce original documentation and appropriate witnesses to lay the foundation of the introduction of documents starting with the funding of the loan through the present, including all receipts and disbursements relating to the loan.

Since the receipts and disbursements clearly involve third parties whose existence was not contemplated or known at the time of origination of the loan, it would probably be wise to appoint an independent receiver with subpoena powers to obtain full records from the subservicer, Master Servicer, trustee, other co-obligors or co-venturers including the investment bank that sold mortgage bonds and investors with the sole restriction that it relate to the accounting and correspondence, agreements and other media relating to the subject loan and the subject pool claiming to own the loan.

Starting from that point, (knowing all receipts and disbursements, sources and recipients, the rest is relatively uncomplicated. Either the documents follow the money trail or they don’t. If they do, then the foreclosure should proceed. If they don’t then there are discretionary decisions of the court as well as mandatory applications of law that are required to determine whether or not the discrepancies are material.

The chain of documents relied upon by the foreclosing party is neither supported by consideration nor do the origination documents recite the terms of the transaction authorized by the lender. Hence there was no meeting of the minds. At a minimum, the recorded lien is a wild deed or should otherwise be subject to invalidation or removal from county records, and the note should be excluded as evidence of the obligation. The actual obligation runs through a different chain the terms of which were never documented between the lenders and the borrower. Hence at common law, it is a demand loan, unsecured.

But the sale from a GSE or other entity creates yet another layer of paper giving the appearance that the origination documented were valid, even though the evidence strongly points in the opposite direction. The purchase of such loans or properties would thus lead to the inevitable wrongful foreclosure suits in which the property is sought to be returned to its rightful owner, and/or compensatory and punitive damages including damages for emotional distress in California.

So my answer is that these buyers did not buy property or loans. They bought themselves into lawsuits that they will lose once discovery is opened up on the underlying transactions, all of which were faked. Is the government colluding with these “buyers” to fix an fixable title problem?

21 Responses

  1. Neil thats a easy question to answer. May I? Example… house bought at a short sale in 2007. In 2009 while current on the mortgage, borrowers were told to default to get a loan mod with a lower intrest rate . Lis Pendens filed on Title and FC was initiated in court. Loan Mod Denied and Forberance Offered. Borrowers decline and Pay Current including all disputed fees. 2012 borrowers offered a refinance …. Guess what the new lender gets? (indemnity from the borrower) …. Guess what kind of Collateral the Invester is Getting? (TRASH). Guess what the Homeowner was getting besides the Shaft? (a not marketable title). The Homeowners and the Investors alike …round #2 of getting Screwed! Not under my Watch!

  2. Here is a good link to the latest on this ongoing scam of all of our wealth and freedoms..

  3. From johngaults 7:44 pm link…..all of these coverups, lies and fraud are clearly foreign espionage. This is a foreign takeover of America by traitors from within. This has been going on slowly and deceptively for decades. Repealling Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, 9/11, the patriot act, the QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN DERIVATIVES FRAUD, the fraudulently induced financial crisis, the ongoing bailouts, FED MONETARY POLICY, DO NOTHING CONGRESS, DO NOTHING PRESIDENT, ABUSE OF POWER, TARP, FEMA, HAARP, “UNAFFORDABLE” HEALTH CARE TO FRAUDULENTLY INDUCE OBAMACARE AND THE MICROCHIP, illnesses that come out of nowhere they say have “no cures,” food and vaccinations laced with toxins, chemtrails, ndaa, fraudclosures, no Wall Street Prosecutions, all part of their evil end game plan for complete control of US… Where is the military is the real question?

  4. Deborah Wynn…… When did I defend the MAIDEN LANE BUNCH…? I think they ALL BELONG IN PRISON…! When did I suggest anyone bow down or lay down for any of these crooks…..? I said they are POSING AS AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS HOWEVER…THEY ARE ALL IMPOSTERS…I STAND BY MY STATEMENTS.

  5. Non- judicial foreclosure has no place now that securitization is going on. The issues, including the path to standing, are too complex for those yeahoo sub trustees (the issues they are ignoring as if they don’t exist), if they aren’t for the original trustees, and I’d say they are.
    Heck, they’re too complex for the judiciary generally. Judges need some time off to learn some new FACTS.
    There should be a national moratorium on non-j foreclosures. The fact is, these days even if a court could find thru irrefutable evidence that a claimant is in poss of an orig bearer note, it does not mean it’s a holder by (legit) transfer, and any provision of the UCC, including the handy article 3, which finds in favor of enforcement of bearer status in regard to notes secured by reasl property is out-dated (post-the securitization business brand) and is accomodating and endorsing bad claims. Banksters should have to show up in court properly attired that they get the reception they deserve – in clown suits or how ’bout orange?

  6. @dcb – got it, and I will.

  7. jg
    yes the material im taking about arises if you give a dil or short sale –or sell your house for cash. whatever causes termination of the debt–any of the debt. im doing a petition on the matter—as to the specific instances and implicarions you noted–yes all that you said—al hangs on whether these people can sooner or later prove right to enforce—my point on that is the issue must be raised as standin substantive due process—–up front—its way too late to give a dil then they fail to deliver the original note–and you lose your home as well as remain on the hook—-worst of all worlds–but only one wy to test how far they have gone–just call me martyr-

  8. from ivent’s 7:10 a.m. link:

    “and TARP money was dispersed. But the moment aid was delivered the entire world changed and capitalism was sacrificed for economic stability. And given the prices the government got in exchange for aid and its ability to self fund, it’s my bet that this collosal shift is permanent.”

    Don’t know about that permanency, but clearly capitalism, if sacrificed, had failed (as demonstrated by its taking welfare, altho acc to some, some of the banksters didn’t want the money (but maybe that was before they knew Lehman was going down), and probably as a direct result of de-regulation and oversight. I’m too unknowledgeable to know what that author meant by “the prices the gov got in exchange”, but if it’s to infer that the gov got more than it gave (and I have a hard time thinking that could be true), that’s not really welfare, UNless the gov getting anything were contingent, aka might not have been gotten at all. Kind of like ‘I’ll give you 100k to run your business and if it succeeds, you pay me back 120k, but if it doesn’t, you owe me nothing”? Hybrid-welfare? A new (and permanent) hybrid-welfare? Hope that guy’s wrong about its permanence.

  9. @dcb – I agree with a lot of what you said, but…
    I have suggested a court-ordered indemnificaton myself, but even then ONLY in the instance when a homeowner has lost the court battle and does not intend to appeal. But I and everyone else here
    are not giving our homes to some jackal with no interest in our homes
    in exchange for some stinking indemnification.
    We need to stay the course, and relief to banksters should only be granted on the basis of demonstrated evidence, and ‘evidence’ is only evidence if it conforms to the rules of evidence.
    You may be right about the warranty deeds and the comparison to
    government patents. A warranty deed puts defending title on the grantor, though I can’t state the actual warranties; I’d have to look. I’ll venture this: the banksters have worked out an indemnification deal with the title companies as to their title policies, if the title companies are not just plain excepting everything. As to the false discharges of the collateral instruments, that goes right to the heart of who has a right to make a credit bid, and I believe this is overlooked by the AZ
    Hogan court. We need to be paying a lot more attention to those bids which are made and I’ve heard are then assigned these days.

  10. Quit Frankly DC … you’ve done good homework. Its not a Bluff, banks will not talk about this as part of any settlement. Trust Me! @Guest … Play Nice or Dont play @ All! You have a right to your opinion just as others here do. Bashing them is not called for unless you would like me to give you a little of your own medicine.

  11. Invent
    And Goldman and Jp and leiman and bear sterns are victims right
    And when the proverbial hits the fan we have what the people fighting amongst themselves
    We need leadership and peaceful stance
    Non resistance doesn’t mean roll over and take it.



  13. This article had me chuckling…. our glorious government IS WALL STREET people. They are as thickly intertwined as conjoined twins. Were they in collusion…. ha ha ha ha ha hahhhhaaaaa ~ OMG ~ ROF dying of sarcastic laughter. Give me a friggin break here.




  15. These arrogant crooks have seized OUR WEALTH..Because, they think they OWN OUR WEALTH…They won’t lend the American people their own money…however….they will lend OUR WEALTH VIA THE U.S. TREASURY TO INVESTMENT FIRMS TO SELL INVESTMENTS TO THEIR CRIMINAL FRIENDS….READ ABOUT IT HERE…
    Our Newest Investments (VIA THE U.S. TREASURY)

  16. DC: are you paid to write this kind of crap???

  17. Truth is…they owe too much debt…they can’t microchip, make you rent, pay for or tax what you can’t afford…when we can’t afford to support their ponzi scheme anymore…they are done. Because ….there is no fix for fraud. If we go down…so will they.

  18. They are keeping the ponzi scheme alive..while acheiving their dream come true…A NATION OF RENTERS….ALL COURTESY OF THE U.S. TAXPAYERS….! The banks are handing out suckers at the teller windows…

  19. @AUTHOR
    These properties are being sold by govt—thus the question of who to pursue if there is subsequently a challenge to tille because the person with right to enforce the note was uncertain. Thus that person coiuld not release the mortgage or act on the DOT.

    The underlying cause starts with origination but is actually caused by irregularities in securitization. For example: assume a note was originated by a private label like Option One etc. The note was then sold by the securitization sponsor to two different trusts 2004-4 and 2005-1. No loan schedules filed so the fraud could not be discovered by auditors who dont look for fraud. SARBOX was ignored–the auditors should be liable to investors.

    Fast forward 6 years. The servicer A for bank Z as trustee for 2004-4 attempts to sieze the collateral —but the servicer A cannot have the right to enforce the note even if in possession of bank Z’s POA. Why? Because Bank D as trustee for trust 2005-1 also has an interest–which one is superior? Whi knows. But Servicer B now has collection rights to the note sold also to 2005-1.

    Servicer A has a problem–it knows that the unfiled loan schedule it inherited is duplicated in places–particularly large dollar loans to good credits.–not subprime at all–thats not where the juice is in double collection strategies today.

    So servicer A uses a copy of note –claiming its an original so it can use the 3-501 person with right in possession. A sure does not want a surety looking at this situation A does not want to resort to 3-309–providing a lost note affidavit and surety. So a pulls off a bluff–creates a document and depends on breakdown in procedure aand evidence rules to blow the fake through.

    However a bluff will not achieve a release of the debt nor will it achieve release of the mortgage/DOT enforcement. In the ordinary situation , the homeowner believes she is free and clear–the new buyer of the property believes the mortgage is released —but the title insurer knows there is possibly a problem and will not touch the propertyy—the property is so damaged in title that it is not marketable by ordinary means. This govt action as author states “plugs the hole”

    the buyers have recourse back against the govt presumably if the title is screwed up–the govt can very simply cure the title defect by itself issuing the critical general warranty deed that nobody else can do safely. This is the guts of it: at the end of the day the securitization fraud–doubled sales —must be cured by the govt issuing gemeral warranty deeds–almost as good as the original govt land grants—title insurers can insure from thart general warrantee deed

    but people the non-bank private labels out there very definitely are attempting to bluff the homeowner into turning over properties in exchange for forged or otherwise unlaful notes—-leaving the borrowers on the hook for the note for years–and leaving the property in uncertain status—-is the mortgage truly released? —eventually servicer b will come along and attempt to collect on that note a 2nd time and may attack the title to the property–possibly–but its actually the personal liability that servicer B is after

    the homeowners in these sales–buyers and sellers—dischafalse discharges—this is the next crisisthat will not be aired until after election –thecollection agencies are laying in the weeds waiting

    it is easy to smoke the frauders out. Simply demand that the supposed big bank trustee indemnify you as homeowner in even another claimant should come forward on the note. The servicers apparently have power or at least act like it–to cause the bank as trustee–ie ato guarantee the performance—but as trustee the trust is the only party actually guaranteeing performance—-what the homeowner wants is an enforceable indeminty from the nominal trustee bank for itself–not “as trustee”

    if the trustee bank will not give this indemnity—then you know you have a frader servicer—who has no right to enforce the note and no right therefore to release either note or mortgage–call the bluff–then when they refuse to give the indemnity–contact your AG-fraud division and FBI

    the fraud may track all the way back to origination—the servicer attempting a false collection effort today using 1st false title docx—then false notes–probably had a hand in the initial actions which caused the problems–and is still ebgaged in a cover up

  20. “Wall Street is gearing up to buy properties en masse from Fannie, Freddie and other holders (including the Federal Reserve. The question for these investors is what are they buying and what are they doing?”
    The question, NG, is what do you mean by this? You say ‘buy properties’, but then you make the unfortunate choice of using the word “holder” which leaves the reader unclear as to whether you mean WS is buying properties or WS is buying loans, which reminds me, as to fha if not va, only approved entities may service those loans and that includes default servicers, or I wouldn’t know why not. If a non-approved entity turns in a claim to fha pursuant to the fha insurance, fha has been telling them to take a hike. I don’t know any path there for a homeowner. Can a homeowner say ‘hey, you’re not even supposed to be servicing my loan’? I don’t know. But if I had an fha (or maybe VA) loan and a servicer is in my face, I would ask them if they’re an approved fha lender / servicer or I would check
    with FHA (or VA) and if the entity is not approved, I would at least try to talk to FHA (or VA) about it, for what it might be worth.

    But let me guess, either way, whether this article is to say WS is buying real estate or loans from FNMA and FHLMC, WS is going to buy something probably at steep discounts, in which case, they are going to get the fruit of their own poisonous tree.
    Courts have some discretion, and I don’t know how broad it is, to make local rules. I have seen one court make a local rule about what a bankster has to show up with in that court. And courts may issue orders sua sponte which best serve justice. Courts could be issuing subpoenas duces tecum and if courts want to cut to the chase, maybe they should. Homeowners could be requesting subpoenas duces tecum*, which for those who don’t know means mol “bring what you’ve got”. *I don’t know how or when attorneys (or a homeowner even ) may get a subpoena duces tecum, though I believe they can.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: