CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!
What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield
For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).
The question is simple. The answer should be on the table at the urging of those who purport to be enforcing a valid debt using a promissory note as evidence of that debt and foreclosing using the mortgage or deed of trust that supposedly secured the promises made in the note.
QUESTION: WHY WOULD A CREDITOR STONEWALL AND DELAY PROCEEDINGS WHEN IT IS THE PARTY SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF? ARE THEY PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT?
The witness or declarant or affiant should be someone who says that they manage the account for REMIC TRUST XYZ and that they have received payment on a particular loan on certain dates, after which they stopped. The witness should be able to show when the REMIC trust paid for the loan by producing the records of the account in which the REMIC funds (contributed by investors) were kept, distributed and received from subservicers or Master servicers.
All the banks that are currently taking the position that they can enforce the note and mortgage are doing so without proving the debt or loss or identifying the injured party. Under normal circumstances this would be easy to show — if the REMIC trusts actually had a Trustee that had the powers of a Trustee and if there was a trust with a trustor, beneficiary and terms of contribution and distribution.
As anyone knows who has established a revocable trust for estate planning purposes, the trust is useless unless you put something in it.
So if money is the asset that is being put in the trust, you are instructed by your attorney to go to the bank and open a new account in the name of the trust with you as trustee and providing for successor trustees. Then you deposit whatever money you want to be included in the trust and whatever property you want the trust to have is deeded or transferred into the trust name. It is fairly simple.
If you don’t deposit money into an account bearing the name of the trust and you don’t transfer property into the name of the trust the trust exists only in a theoretical sense. It has nothing in it and therefore the terms of the trust are irrelevant.
So now we come to Deutsch Bank, Mellon, U.S. Bank etc. who all call themselves trustees, but Reynaldo Reyes who is the head honcho at Deutsch dealing with these “trusts” is really VP of asset management and operates completely outside the trust department of Deutsch Bank. He says the structure is “counter-intuitive.”
It turns out that there is no account bearing the name of the trust anywhere, from what we have been told by several independent sources. There is no property or anything else titled in the name of the trust. So the terms of the “trust” are irrelevant there being neither funding of the trust nor any other assets which fall under the control of the “Trustee.” The trustee is actually just another nominee in a long line of nominees that lends there name to the pseudo securitization structure for a monthly fee.
When you read the PSA you see that the real party that holds the strings is the Master Servicer who arranges for subservicing, insurance, credit default swaps etc. So if there was a real funded trust, the real “trustee” as defined by statute and common law would be the Master Servicer. But that doesn’t change the fact that there was no trust account and no assets in the Trust pool. The fact that the named Trustee (Deutsch etc.) allows a third party to claim that the Trust claims an interest in the subject loan is pretty thin. No bank that I know would accept such a chain of authority if a borrower presented it that way.
The allocation of a loan to a Trust may have occurred years before on some database either internally at the Master Servicer, investment bank underwriter of the mortgage bonds or elsewhere, but that actual assignment called for under the PSA never occurred.
Instead, what the robo-signing scandal revealed, was that assignments, endorsements and other indicia of transfer were executed (1) long after the cutoff date causing tax problem to the bond holders or “beneficiaries” if we are calling them that and (2) after the loan became delinquent or was in de fault, which is specifically prohibited by the PSA.
Thus for both reasons the actual named Trustee could not and did not accept the assignment, and it was and is the Master Servicer who never shows up in Court and is rarely named as a party, that attempts through various powers of attorney and other documentation, all fabricated for the benefit of the litigation, who claims that the Trust owns the loan when the Trustee does not actually even assert such ownership. Since the named trustee is the only party that is identified as such, the affidavit or declaration or testimony must come from the said trustee.
By definition this would exclude the subservicer or foreclosure companies of the banks who are the nominees for banks who claim to be the nominee of the creditor which they vaguely define as the REMIC trust. The only person who could sign an affidavit accepting the assignment of a bad loan and out of sequence causing double taxation to the investors would be an officer of the named trustee.
The reason they don’t do that is for obvious liability reasons — the investors could sue the named trustee and say that the trustee violated the express terms of the PSA that require performing loans to be funded or assigned into the trust during the 90 day window provided for by the Internal Revenue Code. The less obvious reason is that there is no person at all working as an officer or employee of the named trustee with ANY knowledge of the subject loan. In fact, it is reported by insiders that none of the named Trustees even know their name is being used in litigation most of the time.
This sequence is corroboration of what I outlined in a few other articles — the point being that the funding and movement of money does not match up with the origination documentation nor any documentation used in assignment, endorsement or transfer of the loan.
The true “creditor” who can show proof of payment, proof of loss is a group of befuddled investors who thought they were buying bonds from a REMIC trust when in fact they were joining an ever-growing common law partnership or series of partnerships, changing from minute to minute as loans were funded.
The manager of that partnership is the Master Servicer — which is the party to whom most discovery requests should be directed since the subservicer can only provide a snapshot of a limited number of transaction types whereas the Master Servicer can provide an accounting for all transactions relating to the subject loan and the purported “REMIC Trust.”
The purpose of the convoluted arrangement claimed by the “pseudo securitizers” is clear. They needed the ownership to be unclear — muddled in fact, such that they could claim ownership long enough to buy insurance on guaranteed losses through contracts with AIG, AMBAC and counterparties on credit default swaps. As “owners” between the time of the transaction and the time of accounting, they get the money while the loss is sustained by the investors.
But that insurance and CDS money was received as agent for the investors and thus is allocable to the balance owed the only true creditors. By allocating those payments to the investors, and reducing the receivable on the books of the investor, the corresponding reduction would be from the mortgages that purportedly backed the bonds. Hence in nearly all cases, the receipt of insurance, CDS proceeds, bailouts and other hedges drives down the amount owed by the borrowers because the creditors are paid in whole or in part.
Allocated properly then the balance due in nearly all foreclosure cases is different than the amount demanded. And the party making the demand has no right, justification or excuse for doing so. This produces a logical result that the homeowners debt balance has been reduced between the homeowner and the investor. The amount of the reduction is not loan forgiveness it is simple arithmetic. Somebody might have a claim for contribution against the homeowner, but insofar as the debt, note and mortgage are concerned, they have been fabricated.
We are left with a stream of money from the investors to the closing agent in which everyone assumed the money came from the named loan originator — a mistaken sleight of hand trick played by Wall Street in order to divert money from the investors and documentation from both the investors and the borrowers. The actual monetary transaction is undocumented except for the wire transfer receipt and wire transfer instructions; and the documented transaction shown on the note and mortgage never occurred.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: Master Servicer, REMIC, REMIC trustee, subservicer, trust, trust account |
Re: shellys comment: This is former WAMU loam. Chase claims they have the rights to collect and foreclose. I requested to show me the note to be inspected by the forensics examinor. It’s going to be interesting to see if they show up with the real note. I have a another former wamu/ chase loan which is current in payments. The question is: How do we get rid of the collection rights Chase claims to have.? Request the note for the inspection or how? Anyone?
Thanks for the tip Shelly especially for the ” the note is gone” . I reserved a letter form chase on former WAMU loan stating your payments are voluntary but .. We have the right to collect and foreclose. The note is gone. Are the notes destroyed or canceled?
This does not work in Illinois especially in the Cook County.
I have been doing a lot of research and I am still confused about one thing. If you have a case that is like Wells Fargo NA as trustee for Pink Party Inc. Series blah blah, is the trust PPI also the depositor? Is the depositor the same as the SPV Special Purpose Vehicle or SPE Special Purpose Entity. I take it the sponsor is actually the bank Wells Fargo who ends up as the trustee. Or not? And the big question: If I took control of the shell corporation that is Pink Party Inc somehow or in some states, what could I do with it? I figure I could at least block foreclosures. And if the person who posted a message about not finding where the trust corporation is named in his mortgage action, please let me know what it is.
[…] christine, on January 15, 2013 at 5:17 pmsaid: […]
Amazing, Shelley—makes total sense.
Posted for a friend:
“…Securitization of credit goes back to the 80’s. For mortgages, the ONLY securitization was Freddie/Fannie. Then credit cards, auto loans, student loans—all started to be securitized by banks. But, it was not until the subprime fraud that the banks started to “securitize” Freddie/Fannie charge-offs. This started to occur about the year 1999/2000. As this happened, “mortgage” market share shifted from Freddie/Fannie to the banks. Anything that has a cash flow can be securitized. Securitization is the pass-through of cash flows. But, the key difference as to subprime is in the accounting (remember Enron scandal??). Valid securization must involve the removal of RECEIVABLES. You have to understand an accounting balance sheet for this. Receivables are the current assets that are owed to a corporation (the only one who files accounting financial statements). Thus, for “TRUE” securitization—the current asset (cash) receivables are removed from “ON” balance sheet to off-balance sheet conduit. But, for subprime, this was NOT the case. Any GSE charge-offs (the note) cannot be “refinanced” for current cash receivable to be reported by corporate financial statements. Charge-offs are—well, charge-offs. Note is GONE. So when the GSEs charge-off the note—only collection rights remain. These collection rights are SOLD by GSEs to third parties. Collection rights (because there no longer is a note)—can only be reported as “INCOME” by the acquirer. Therefore, all these REMICs that claimed to be removing receivables from on-balance sheet to off-balance sheet—for “security” pass-through—were fraudulent. This is what the securities fraud is really about. As to the borrower, big difference—because, one—the note is gone (and only collection rights survive)—and two, the “debt” is no longer secured. It is UNSECURED. Big issue in bankruptcy. And, of course, the subprime refinances were falsely (fraudulently) presented as a mortgage refinance—when, in fact, they were nothing more than COLLECTION RIGHTS MODIFICATION. Also, big IRS tax issues involved. This is why the financial crisis hit so heavy and hard when it did. Europe discovered it first. Of course, US regulators, Congress, and the Federal Reserve themselves—did not know what hit them. Totally unprepared. Why?? Because Deregulation (which occurred at the same time that subprime started to surface–around year 2000)—allowed involved financial institutions to get away with it. Who is to blame for Deregulation?? Senator Phil Gramm, and President Clinton (President Bush could have stopped but did not.)”
Here is a good link re. the deregulation timeline (Frontline):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
Think about the fact the FEDSTERS can print all the money they want. Their balance sheets are never audited, they account for nothing yet, they continue to rob all of us into fraudulently induced poverty. Now that’s sick power control freak b.s…..
49 states allow concealed carry and it is not the wild west yet, the State with the strictest gun laws, Illinois, has the City with the highest crime rate in the nation, Chicago, and they want even stricter gun laws.
None of it makes sense…..at all.
There are a lot of people questioning the Sandy Hill and Batman shootings. Millions are questioning the circumstances surrounding the official stories and are beginning to believe those same eliteist powers who are behind the manufactured financial crisis are behind those events. I am open minded and believe that there is always a lot more to the story than meets the eye. The immediate attack on our Second Amendment rights by the media and others makes me skeptical about the entire thing.
The worst thing about all of it, from 9/11 to the present day is, there are Americans who know the truth and refuse to speak it publicly. IMHO….that is more evil and despicable than the maniacs hiding behind the scenes. The hidden hand, the left hand path, the secret societies …… grow up you idiots. You are not free….the money and all of the creature comforts these greedy jerks guarantee you are not guaranteed. You are all witnessing the truth…..there is no honor among these thieves. It is way past time for those who know the truth, to come out publicly and speak the truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth, to unite the people against this evil before it gets any worse.
If they don’t, and they keep covering up for these crooks, what these morons are planning and what is coming EVERYONES way, will be worse than anything anyone could ever imagine.
The cover up for the J.FK. assassination is precisely why we are all here today and this is their evil endgame plan and it is no joking matter.
South Park, John Stewart and all the rest who are making all of this into a joke are aiding and abetting these crimes. None of this is funny, it is as serious as it gets. Our Constitutional Republic, our Freedom & Liberty as well as our National Security are under attack and in severe jeopardy and it is no laughing matter.
It is absolutely horrific how quickly we are being desecrated and desimated before our very eyes in this mans second term, and how incredibly bad this is getting.
This is way beyond abuse of power, this is totalitarianism and there is nothing funny or amusing about it.
HA HA HA …Obamas a dictator. NO…..It is no laughing matter…..not by a longshot. This man is incredibly evil.
John McCain told the crowd after he lost the election that, Obama is a good man. Well, if you believe that being a totalitarian dictator is being a good man than you are rather warped yourself Mr. McCain and you sir, are no hero.
Forget whatever I said about cc debt and write offs (write downs?) and
election of remedies. While i don’t understand why, from what I read online (not cases and not from attorneys who should know, but still)
cc debt can be written down and still collected. To get to the real
bottom of the cc issue would take a lot of research that I’m not up for.
Take whatever is heard about cc debt with one if not two grains of salt. .
I by no means, will give up the fight for my property rights in the biggest wealth land theft in U.S. history, by the richest sadomasochists on the planet. This is war on the WE THE PEOPLE by a small, centralized group of eliteists who believe they have a supreme right to own and control everything on the planet. That right belongs to no one. They believe our God given rights to be free and independent should be fought for by all of us while they hide behind the scenes, like cowards, and use all of their self imposed power to defeat all of us. It is a sick and demented ideology that goes against all of the creators plans for mankind to be free and independent. Obama is abusing his power to create a national totalitarian state while the media and the politicians argue apples and oranges and giggle like grade school children. Well its not funny, it’s deadly serious. We are on the precipice of manufactured hell on earth because of these appointed dictators and it is only the beginning of sorrows for mankind if these people aren’t stopped. The destruction of our Second Amendment rights should have caused everyone involved in this scam to be arrested. This is not a drill.
We are never going to get real answers from anyone. The reason…? This is the face of complete communism disguised as recklessness by the frauds on Wall Street. Just like all the other communist crap they are sneaking in, it is always packaged up and disguised as something else for some other bogus reason. From 9/11 to the destruction of the Second Amendment, there has not been a legitimate reason for one thing these politicians have done….. not one. It is simply totalitarianism wrapped up as Social Justice fixes for horriffic crimes against WE THE PEOPLE by the shareholders and investors at the FED. I was at the emergency room recently and when you see what is going on in the hospitals and with this economy, you will know for sure that the RFID chip is their next big move. They are preparing to fraudulently induce TOTALITARIANISM under the guise of manufactured debt and medical care. It will be under the guise of another manufactured financial crisis and that will not only be the end of the dollar, it will be the end of freedom for every American. Now they are going after the bank CEOs salaries and then it will be everyones salaries. No doubt Dimon is a crook and none of them deserve millions of dollars a year nor any bailouts but it was never about the money for the real masterminds of this scam..NO….this was always about creating TOTALITARIANISM ……a complete slave nation living under a dictatorship of the most evil bastards on the planet and when they are through with us, by the end of this criminal fraud Obamas term, America will be unreconizable. It will be Totalitarianism and it will be global. WE THE PEOPLE need to secede and go back to our Constitutional Republic.
We need our own currency and we need to get the hell out of their system now or, make no mistake, it will be complete manufactured hell on earth.
Tolle you betcha the bankster world is a con of cons in a fairytale world using other money to produce money out of thin air and to steal at all cost, It takes a con to con a con and to recongize a con. It also takes a very intellingent person to unweave the web of deciet and fraud. It litterally burns my brain and wenches my guts. To know this is happening to millions of families. And any and all should be looked at for battling this crime. There is more than one way to skin a cat and going outside the box can be successful. But only if the judges are not biased and block the rule of law by biased law. The judges seem to be in a little box. scowling at the homeowners whom have had financial harm and the worst emotional stress done by the banks, should pay all cost due to we borrowed the money so we need to pay it even if it is to a fraud. Why dont they just state we are having a moritorium on foredlosures, the funds will all go to the pension funds and investors whom can prove they were the money source and make the homes affordable. We just want justice and our roots our homes our incomes and our sanity back.
ANOTHER POST FOR A FRIEND. “…Simply put, just because someone produces a note, does not mean it is valid. The subprime fiasco was about fraud. This is not about predatory loans, although many of the debt “modifications” (falsely called “notes”) WERE predatory. This is about LOAN FRAUD itself. This is about converting a valid GSE loan into a fraudulent “default” loan. This is about fraudulent subprime refinances—falsely presented as “mortgage” refinances. A note is not a note if is was procured by fraud, and if the prior mortgage is not discharged. And, THIS is what occurred. ..”
To me this is also a reason for looking at the statutes of limitations for promissory notes in each state. the contract was breached at inception. the loans may be uncollectyable due to the statutes of limitations in your state.
When FNMA 1) honors its guarantee as a lump sum or 2) repurchases the note or right to pass-thru payment (so tweaked), WHO gets the money and how is this known?
I recommend you read Kevin Trudeaus book The government does not want you to read it so that is a good reason to read it. Due to the bank crimes several of my customers and friends have and used it and it has worked for them on credit cards and one with a loan that was past the statutes of limitations. I also believe due to LIBOR rigged rates the notes and deeds of trust are past the statutes of limitaiions to be collected. The state of WA is six years . My deed of trust is dated June of 2006. So last june became the date it was uncollectable and this statute is per notes and deeds of trust and all written contracts. LIBOR RIGGED RATES voids the contract at inception among other false claims and concealments during the signing. The statutes of limitations very in every state. They include promissory notes and all written contracts. I am surprized the lawyers do not use this also. The law is supose to be the law. I know judges dont see it that way. Biased opiinion is law now.
Tolle I know the government has tried to jail him over and over due to he causes a lot of people to find the truth. And yes cons seem to know the ropes. I consider most banksters to be cons. Just not jailed yet. and reading this book tells a lot. I dont understand how the debt collection practice can be legal.I do know if you let the court know the alleged debt is charged off and uncollectable the judge either throws it our or the debt collector drops it. I think it is an albatross the financial system set up to go after charged off debts A lot of money is made going after the borrower and bad checks. That the bank charges of and collects insurance and then the debt collectors try to con the borrower into believing the money is owed to them. They even pretend to be attoneys collecting debt. A lot about the scams on the web. I had a debt collector come aftet me for 35,0000.00 I paid off on a lease tanning bed and did the by out and owned outright. Five years afte I paid it off. I looked up the proof of the pay off and by out and that was it. But what a hassel. The sharks are out there. They must have purchased the alleged debts and my paid off debt was on the list. I had to dig for all the proof And was not happy about it.
But wait a second. I said if the note has been transferred after the borrower’s default, the holder is not a holder in due course. Right. But when any loan goes thru fnma, say, i took it from their (judicially noticeable) perspectuses that fnma guarantees at least four payments. What effect does a third party’s guarantee have on a note? What effect does it have when a third party has undertaken the liability on the obligation, has become a voluntary co-signor essentially? FNMA guarantees 4 payments and then to repurchase the obligation to end its obligation for payments. But can it? Is it actually a repurchase?
If you co-sign on a note for me and I agree (because I asked you to), are you entitled to the note to enforce against me when you’re a co-signor and got stuck paying?! I don’t think so. I think you just honored your voluntary guarantee and the note is toast. You might have an equitable claim against me, but not one on the note. I must be really confused, because it seems FNMA’s claim, if any, is an equitable one if anything, not a claim on the note. Anyone get a bead on this, even to say I’ve got it wrong?
FNMA didn’t technically co-sign (or did it) because its autograph isn’t on the note. But…..
FNMA guaranteed payments. stop. WHAT have we got here? FNMA, now a party voluntarily obligated. – stop – may never end its guarantee.
It can pay it monthly or it can pay it in one lump sum. When fnma gets its hands (allegedly) on the note, did fnma repurchase the note OR has fnma simply honored its guarantee? FNMA didn’t just sell the note and say if Louie doesn’t pay, I’ll buy it back. I think FNMA is honoring its guarantee by paying the amt due the investor (or at least the party with the rights to payments*) on the note. Is it a purchase, or in fact the payment of a guarantee – which retires the debt, making FNMA’s claim
against the borrower one in equity?
One way or another, I hasten to add that to the best of my knowledge, FNMA’s (or anyone’s) four payments are never accounted for when figures regarding the default amt are proferred to the borrower and courts, making those figures patently false.
*disregarding my own belief that the loans were not sold to trusts – they
only ended up with security interests, if that, for lack of endorsement and delivery.
Sorry it was the congressman from the state BOA is headquartered in.This slime ball is attempting to exempt the banks due to they are very worried about the FDCOA violations statures and are trying to strip the homeowners of all our rights. And protect the banks. We need to call our congress represenatives and demand they dont pass this bill The banks are subject to this law.
I tried to post two cases in Hawaii and one from Georgia and a copy of the senator from the state BOA is headquartered at , that submitted bill H.R. 6706 to exempt foreclosers from FDCPA law. WHY? If they are not subject to it and if they have not violated it. It is treble damages. The banks are subject to FDCPA law due to they are debt collectors just like card debt collectors. and this senator ran this bil in to protect the banks. Livinglies did not post it so if you want it email me at Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net.
Question: is a note a negotiable instrument if VOID by PSA law? and charged off.? VOiID IS VOID. I read somewhere that the notes are not negotialbe instruments. A check is a negotiable instrument but VOID if not cashed within a year or six months. It has a time limit. So does the note that was suppose to be transferred into the PSA. VOID, No matter who holds it. A negotialble instrument is cashable. A void instrument that was voided by PSA law should not be cashable and negotiable anymore. What do you think? The judges seem to feel no matter what the homeowners are not harmed. we have lost huge incomes jobs and then houses due to the financial crisis caused by the banks not nature. And we are not harmed?The worst mental stress hell for families to lose their home their roots. all taken away. The rule of law and the possibities like I just mentioned need to be investigated and the rule of law applied. Not biased opinoion by a judge. Which is unlawful.
okay, shelley, tho you moved about a tad (and if what you say about cc debt buyers and denials is accurate, sounds like good info), I tried to follow. Unfortunately, there may be – I would say IS – a rather large difference between cc debt and debt stemming from a negotiable instrument, a note – not to say these particular secured-by-real-property notes are negotiable instruments. The pi$$ing match has just begun on that, far as I know. A note is enforceable by its holder (holder status being relegated to “look I -allegedly – have possession”) in what is the biggest “note-grab” in history or just plain, unequivocal fraud by the assertion of a damn good copy as an original. When that holder is a hidc (see parameters in UCC law), many common law defenses are not available against that party which would be available against a mere holder. So I have encouraged (from my strictly lay perspective) people to demand a more definitive stmt from the claimant – is the claimant, the (alleged ) holder, claiming as a holder or as a hidc that a person might know his defenses to the note. The real goal is to put the current claimant-bankster to its proof as to the date of the endorsements/transfer/negotiation/possession, whatever the hey. If the note were transferred after its default by the borrower, as a matter of law, the holder is not a holder in due course and is subject to all
affirmative defenses, including imo that the note has been charged off by another party in its chain of ownership. I am totally befuddled by
the legal community’s abject failure to raise this issue – holder v
hidc. Even as a hidc, one must approach the court with clean hands
when seeking relief on a claim, which imo includes having zero
reason to suspect another party has exercized an election of remedies which would undermine enforcement of the obligation. whoa – major deja vu! As to holder v hidc, when pressed, banksters, of course, will slubmit – that’s a typo, but i actually like it better or how about fraudmit, or fraudmission? – some purely hearsay declaration from someone who couldn’t possibly testify and establish that date of the transfer, but surely brilliant attorneys can come up with some arguments in favor of e v i d e n c e . When the sec’n trust is the alleged rpii, as NG says,
shouldn’t that come from the secn trustee, who has to have been the party to accept the transfer?
But these issues aren’t relevant to cc debt, which is not based on
a negotiable instrument, such as these notes are alleged to be.
In my lay opinion, when a bankster writes off cc debt, it has made an
election of remedies and that’s the end of the line for the cc debt.
Law firms may be hired as the agents of the banksters on cc debt, and so when they’re after you in THAT circumstance, it’s the bankster after you. In that case, the debt imo has not yet been written off. Generally, wouldn’t that law firm identify itself as debt collector, even tho it is acting as the agent for the bankster who still owns the debt? Kind of confusing.
When it’s a collection company, that seems to me more indicative that the bankster has already made an ‘election of remedies” and written off the debt, so yeah, I can see that one is getting hustled because there’s no debt to collect. So imo, if one is talking to a collection co.one should ask what is their relationship, if any, with the bankster who had the claim originally (like a b of a cc). Is the company the bankster’s agent? If not, it’s logical to think they are ‘on their own’ after you.
But I am majorly pressed to see how this is legal. Do you know?
How can a co. which bought nothing because there was nothing to sell make it a business to pretend otherwise? And how do we know that a collection company hasn’t taken the job of collecting for say 50% of what’s recovered and the bankster hasn’t written if off? Whether or not the cc debt has been written off must have to do with accounting rules for the original creditor, so i suppose we can add that to what we need to know and that might depend on the structure of the orig creditor.
Further, as to shelley’s earlier comments about subprime, and about any home loan, it strikes me that in order for a bankster to enter a contract regarding “collection rights”, which I dont’ see as a right at all, the bankster had to have retained an interest in the loan in the first place. Otherwise it has zero connection to the deal.
@ Shelley, not to whiz on your parade, but Kevin Trudeau has a rap sheet longer than ivent’s posting record.
Not sure I’d want to read about debt cures from a guy who’s served time for larceny and fraud. On second thought, maybe he knows more about the inner workings than an honest person because of that? Hmmm.
Charged off items sold or assumed by a third party in FDCPA cases, As I understand it, are uncolectable debt. The debt collecto, has the challenge to con the discharged uncollectable alleged debt and when the borrower challenges the alleged debt is uncollectable and not owed the debt collector has to go away, even in a court case. If the borrower does not object and denie the debt and even admits to an alleged debt they did not owe, they then owe it. Even in a court of law, even if they did not owe it. If they denie it and claim it is charged off uncollectable alleged debt the judge tells the debt collector to go away. BASICALLY So charged off debt on a house loan or note is the same?I believe it is correct me if I am wrong. Purchase the Kevin Trudeau debt cure book. The fraudclosers always send the letter or notices with we are a debt collector not a creditor or lender or owner of the note notice. As the John Kemp and Michelle Sjolander and Lawrence Nardi deposiions state there were never any transfers of ownership from Countrywide and WAMU to anyone, they simply dont exhist. As Chase and Deutched case Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust V FDIC., Chase & WAMU, Chase claims they did not assume the loans only the servicing rtight, only the debt collector rights. YES? Deutsche blast the FDIC and Chase for not transferring the loans to the.m timely, which voids them, then the PSA charges them off by contract. The REMICKS PSA’s and MBA’s are all empty. YES? The foreclosers are all con debt collectors in my estimation. Due to their are no proof of laons there are not notes, except ghost notes photo copies are good frauds. Some not so good. YES? The reason for letters of objection before twenty days! I believe there would not be one foreclosure if the settlement was being complied to. One of my close friends has a new assignment listed on her county records, from Chase who does not own the loan and has never had a loan transferred to them, now transferring the loan to the FCIC, Hmmmmm! Chase has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar by the Lawrence Nardi depos and the Deutch V FDIC,Chase. WAMU case. So throw the hot potatoe back at FDIC, and additionally the assignment from Chase is witnessed by the Vice pres of Chase a robo signer that was deceased November of 2008, but came back from the dead on June 08. 2012 to witness the crime. and sign it. Her name is Pearl Burch. Her obituary is in the June. 2008 paper in her home town, n Louisianna.
Shelley said for well, you know, which is nice of you, Shelley:
“At removal, Master Servicer continues to service for derivative contract holders (derivatives not securities but, rather, a contract — a contract for purchase of collection rights to the default).”
“collection rights to the default”. Isn’t that incorrectly stated?
Collection rights describe what is made in a new contract (or by an
existing right to exercise an option) Maybe collection rights BASED ON the default?
Apparently I’m never going to really get this subprime stuff in any meaningful way. But this time, it looks to me llke there is a distinciton being made between securities and derivatives and that derivs are
rights derivative of default??. Some contract exists or is formed
giving party x collection rights based on a contract, but not the note per se (disregarding arguments no new money was ever advanced because the falsely defaulted loan was used in lieu of new funds).
Is it that often times when a loan is allegedly defaulted (no borrower payments) and the MS or someone discontinues payments on the securities (because the borrower quit making payments and no one is making any payments under any guarantee) these loans are removed from the trust (as if), taken from the usual sub-servicer and moved to a default servicer who from what I think I gather handles servicing of alleged collection rights v. handling servicing based on the note? So presenting the note for enforcement based on the note is wholley bogus because the note has been, well, 86’d? How is that so? If so, seems to me this would apply to many notes, not just subprime refi’s. I have often wondered and tried in a cursory manner to identify the function of “default servicers”. No, I don’t really follow this, but it looks to me like what is being said, since she said the secn trustee should be suing the banksters, is that the investors no longer have an interest in
the loan (if they ever did) yet enforcement of the notes is being sought
in their names, including the use of credit bids in a messed up deal
where the investors benefit zero?? But is that the bargain they made, never minding what happens after their (the investors) rights are
lost in what might have been a very bad bargain, disregarding the bs use of their names to enforce alleged some colllection rights of “derivatives”?
So I guess that’s two issues: are the investors rights to payment on the notes lost and so it’s garbage – fraud – to use their name and status to enforce?
FNMA has to make four payments before it may repurchase whatever was sold so that it may enforce the notes, so , oh,yeah, this wouldn’t apply to FNMA loans because at least theoretically FNMA didn’t buy subprime loans.
Hmmmm…so these loans, these sub-primes, were sold with no
guarantees and no path to salvation because rights are toast upon borrower default and someone else may then benefit?
One of the problems for me and maybe others is that we don’t understand these securities. Some of us know a little about stocks, like that we roll the dice and pay for them and their value fluctuates constantly, but are these securities more a contract for a predetermined pay out and for how long? But that’s distracting. I only mention it to indicate what at least I don’t get in the first place to try to apply certain facts to. What set of facts, for instance, allows the removal of the loan from the trust / securities and ends any obligation to the investors? I think what’s being said is that any loan sold without a guarantee may be removed, the party who had the right to the borrower’s payments on the note has lost his rights because he was only entitled to pass-thru of payments as made by the borrower, the note is unenforceable, and what is being enforced is something called collection rights / derivatives, which legitimate dynamic escapes me totally.
But it still doesn’t tell me why performing, non-subprime loans were targeted for false default and removed from pools when the refinance was going to be sub-prime. The only reason which now comes to mind is because as sub-prime loans, the refi’s would not go thru FNMA et al (again) so risk of exposure of the false default would be less. I would be very disheartened to find that title company’s responsible for the payoffs of the existing loan
collaborated in these efforts.(And I take it the existing collateral
instrument was released in public record?)
You may need a Bloomberg terminal to find it . La Marr Gunn in Delaware has one. I am paying him to investgate mine.
Jan Van Eck/Iwantmynpv,
I tried to locate the Bloomberg accounting to see if my alleged trust was paid off but I was unsuccessful. Can someone please post the link. I’d love to know if my trust was paid off.
They (Deutsche) on behalf of Trust ABC was one of the parties I sued. They still claimed an interest in my home but I’d love to try and vacate the judgment with this new info if possible. Please help!
Thank you,
SEE THE SECOND LINK FOR THE WIN FOR HOMEOWNER IN THIS SECURITIZATION-FORECLOSURE CASE
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120656049/JODI-MATT-V-HSBC-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-BOA-WELLS-FARGO-DEUTSCHE-HOME-EQUITY-et-al
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120655067/WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNER-HSBC-BANK-USA-V-JODI-B-MATT-JAN-14-2013
posting for a friend for information only,
1) Focus on subprime refinance – can extend from there. Almost all of these REMICs were subprime. And, almost all the subprime were refinances (new purchases came later but not to extent of refinances). Subprime refinances were NOT valid mortgage refinances. Neil uses the word “debt” — that is a correct word.
SUBPRIME REFINANCES WERE CHARGED OFF GSE LOANS TO WHICH COLLECTION RIGHTS WERE SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES.
They were loans removed from qualified GSE pass-throughs. These charged-off loans could NOT– by accounting or law — be “refinanced” — BUT, that is what a “subprime refinance” did. IT REFINANCED CHARGED OFF DEBT. Wrongly presented to borrower as a refinance, when in fact —- there can be no “refinance” on charged-off GSE debt. That is what subprime refinance was all about. Modification/restructuring of DEFAULT DEBT. No receivables involved — there are no receivables for collection rights. This is income — not receivables — a different part of accounting statements. This is why the subprime REMICs did not have to be funded. Neil always looking for the funding. No funding necessary on collection rights. NONE (except for any cash-out).
2) Correct to bring up the revocable trust. Someone OWNS the trust — for the benefit of pass-through recipients. But, ownership of trust itself — and any rights should they exist to legal documents are NOT passed through. Only CURRENT cash is passed through. The trust is/was owned by the Depositor — who is subsidiary of the bank that purchased the “loans” (actually collection rights). Sometimes this is not shown by a REMIC — but is evident in undisclosed “corridor” agreements.
3) Comment as to PSA and who “holds the strings” (claims Master Servicer) — is only partly correct. Remember, VALID securitization is a removable of receivables from balance sheet. As discussed above, there are no receivables in COLLECTION RIGHTS (subprime refinances). So PSA is bogus to begin with. But, assume the PSA is valid, for arguments sake. Then, in that case, receivables had to be removed from a balance sheet — someone’s balance sheet. Need to examine the Prospectus along with the PSA. PSA alone is not sufficient. This is because the Prospectus explains that “receivables” are converted to securities (the REMIC trust) — and who are the security tranches sold to by removal of so-called receivables to off-balance sheet REMIC?? The security underwriters. Thus, all receivables, if they are assumed to exist, are first sold to the security underwriter parent corporation (only one with a balance sheet), and then converted to securities sold to parent corporation’s security underwriter subsidiary (parent corp also owns the Depositor — who owns the trust). The strings?? Parent company of the security underwriter and Depositor. Master Servicer does hold the strings once default occurs. A default has no current cash pass-through unless the Servicer advances all payments to the trust. Thus, either Master Servicer advances, or default loan is removed from the trust. At removal, Master Servicer continues to service for derivative contract holders (derivatives not securities but, rather, a contract — a contract for purchase of collection rights to the default).
4) Who is servicer servicing for when default occurs? Of course, there was already default when the subprime “refinance” was originated. Except now there is no longer any current cash pass-through. So, what distressed debt buyer did the parent corporation (to security underwriter) sell the distressed debt collection rights to?? This is not a securities investor. 1) Derivatives are not securities 2) Collection rights are not securities. Is it an investor??? Yes , a distressed debt buyer investor. BIG difference between securities investor and distressed debt investor. Neil just never got this. VERY HARMFUL to not understand this. Master Servicer will not disclose distressed debt “investor” — they do not have to as by deregulation, there is no public disclosure. Have to make courts understand this. And, have to begin with the note is NOT a valid note. (also — government Private/Public Investment Program (PPIP) aided in disposal of collection rights to private entities in the program).
5) Agree — trustees do not even know their name is being used in litigation. OCC has warned trustees of this. Trustees should be suing Master Servicers.
6) We do not know who the creditor is — the distressed debt buyer is concealed by the Master Servicer. Some cases are now going forward with the distressed debt buyer disclosed. But, these cases claim the note is valid. Impossible to have a named distressed debt buyer with a valid note. Again, simple accounting – note is charged off — in fact, note was charged-off BEFORE the subprime refinance. All that transfers is assignment of collection rights. No different from credit card debt (footnote 35 to TARP Oversight Report).
7) NO RECEIVABLES. There were never any receivables for subprime refinance. NO FUNDING necessary — which is why the bogus REMICs were not funded. NO FUNDING.
This is all strictly related to subprime refinances. But, if you cannot understand what subprime refinances were — you cannot begin to understand the process.
You know, there never has been, to my knowledge, any research into or an intelligent analysis of the MERS’ Consent Order and why the heck not? What facts were found which undermined MERS foreclosing?
Was it their breath? I mean, that’s a pretty big deal (well, should have been) since they claim the coll instrument empowers MERS. WHAT facts were found which trumped the (bs) dot/mtg? Was it that the coll
instrument is signed only by the borrower, whom as we know, can’t
affix the rights of others? WHAT? Was MERS seen for what it is –
a clandestine club whose members have carte blanche? Is it that another document (the membership agreement) is necessarily relied on? Is it that altho the borrower was induced to sign a document which says MERS could do X, MERS would never do the X, and everyone but the borrower knew it? Is ti because MERS is nothing but a utility? What? I just don’t get investigative journalists not being all over this.
Course, it’s only 2013 when NG advances that it should be the
secn trustee who has to verify that a trust is claiming ownership or any rights. That’s not a jab, NG. It’s just that it blows my mind what basic law is overlooked routinely imo by homeowner’ attorneys. And before anyone gets in my face, I don’t purport to have answers or the ability to rattle off all the relevant law, but damn, Jim. Some of those guys still can’t fight their ways out of a wet paper bag.
One of the essential elements of a contract is a meeting of the minds.
Not news around here, right? What meeting of the minds was there when people were falsely induced to believe that this MERS was something it wasn’t and would never do what one was induced to agree it could? What meeting of the minds was there when the borrower was not told, tho everyone else knew, that some guy named Hultman would sell MERS officership to over 20,000 people for 20-25.00 a pop and those people could then with no oversight by anyone including the man in the moon execute anything they wanted in regard to our dot’s/mtgs and make claims against us based on those at-will
executions?
The ramifications of finding a material lack of meeting of the minds may
be huge, admittedly. Still, WS has gotten 5000 passes since the S hit the fan. They’ve had time to do whatever the hell. I just think it’s time to get real and that includes making this argument. In my lay opinion.
And I like NG’s, also.
The biggest fraud party in history on Wall Street…. 9 years of Wall Street debauchery, off the backs of U.S. TAXPAYERS, cost U.S. TAXPAYERS $60.4 TRILLION DOLLARS & counting, 20 million + properties, countless businesses, livelihoods, impoverished millions, blighted communities, private pensions, private healthcare, suicides, skyrocketing crime rates, inflation, debasing of the currency, broken families, illnesses, the destruction of our property, education system infrastructure and our Second Amendment rights…. Something seem wrong with this picture…? Damned right, it’s the traitor politicians …. lousy sellouts to Corporate Greed.
“Since the named trustee is the only party that is identified as such, the affidavit or declaration or testimony must come from the said trustee.” – good point. late, but good.
DW – unfortunately, I don’t think that’s true about inflated appraisals. It may fall under predatory lending. There may be some other charges one can pile up, also (false inducement comes to mind but not with any certainty). “Fraud does vitiate everything it touches”, but I’m not so sure that a fraudulent appraisal is enough to void a loan because the appraisal was not part of the contract. It’s true that one
detrimentally relied on a bad appraisal, but still, not sure that would
void the contract or otherwise find “no loan”. I think if arguments are framed properly, the bad appraisal leads to defenses to the contract, but void? I just don’t see it. I ‘m only mentioning this so that anyone who feels he was victimized with a false appraisal makes the right allegations. I can’t say what all they are, but I think it’d be a mistake
to say the contract is void because of a bogus appraisal.
The Origination Fraud is what I see as the main culprit. If they never had possession of the instruments, it “appeared” as though they were holding the loan files. That allowed them to overissue everything and make inumerable amounts of credit swaps, trades and money. CNBC reported Wall Street made $60 trillion dollars selling derivatives in 1999, the year Glass Steagall was repealled. It was a gazillion dollar mad hatters tea party. A real extravaganza with our signatures. A real counterfeiting and forgery orgy on Wall Street and the issuing banks, the GSEs and the FED investors were all in on it. The Politicians knew this was going on and the FED regulates itself so there is the recipe for disaster. These crooks ALL made a killing off of us that’s for sure, and the American people should be mad as hell that they are handing us their unsustainable GINORMOUS BILL for their big ass party on Wall Street and have the cahones to take our property too.
NG said:
“The allocation of a loan to a Trust may have occurred years before on some database either internally at the Master Servicer, investment bank underwriter of the mortgage bonds or elsewhere, but that actual assignment called for under the PSA never occurred.”
Now you’re talking. That’s exactly what happend at best, and ignored the UCC and the statute of frauds in addn to the PSA (not to mention trust law). imho. Ecommerce, and that not even done right. It’s possible the MS had the electronic books, but my bet is still on MERS, the database utility, as the alleged registry (think that’s the word – there goes my memory) for the electronic transfers. But suspecting this is to no avail until we get at e-discovery, looks like. And to do that we have to change the judiciary’s mind about possession being singularly dispositive.
We keep ignoring MERS 7 year contract with Genpact. What do we suppose those guys are doing that’s gonna take 7 years to “straighten out”? That’s probably optimistic on their part. And don’t forget it’s being done outside this country, out of sight. Why do we suppose MERS entered the Consent Order and stopped f/c’s in its name? ‘There was a reason, but in the final analysis (like there’s been a first one – not), nothing changed. Just do assgts of both the note and coll instrument in MERS’ name and off you go….a very hollow Consent
Order. What the heck was the point? It doesn’t even qualify as a dog and pony show.
Stripes, can you just disappear.
I agree with Deborah, the hyperinflated appraisals allowed the banks to strip all the equity out of our properties by masking the true value that never went up, and it kept their ponzi scheme going.
60 minutes on CNBC segment HOME WRECKERS lived up to its expectations ….Disgusting…the usual brainwashed people paying underwater mortgages …..60 minutes blaming it all on the banks for giving bad loans with no blame on the Wall Street gang or the FED default or the insider trading by the investors….The towns are demolishing some of the stolen homes the banks abandoned. 60 minutes questioning why the banks aren’t writing down principals…. as if they don’t know why. It’s all about the destruction of America. These crooks love to destroy what WE THE PEOPLE build and pay for. There is more money in that and they despise personal wealth or property ownership by us.. They destroyed the economy so bad because they want everyone renting. The homes they are demolishing are the cover up for their real plan….A NATION OF RENTER SLAVES. The traitor politicians are to blame for all of it.
These trusts are frauds because the trusts never existed in the first place…….the Origination Fraud… Attorney Max Gardner said if an attorney finds one of these (dirty) deals done properly, that attorney should frame it and hang it on the wall. The FED are liars always trying to make us believe lies.
CNBC airing a program on the mortgage mess entitled HOME WRECKERS…..the preview says people are walking away from their underwater homes. It’s sure to be a real chop buster.
and the hyperinflated appraisal – no appraisal- no loan
iwantmynpv
throw in the originator please
Can you tell me how to get to Bloomberg’s terminal. I want to look up my Trust which is SAIL 2003-BC8. I’ve been FOIA with the SEC. They sent me a huge binder with blue seal in which all the “agreements” for the Trust are included. What is amusing…not…is that each agreement has the Mortgage Schedule listed as an exhibit or attachment but ARE NOT THERE! I’m trying to confirm that my loan exists in this Trust. The Trust is now allegedly owned by U.S. Bank. BofA is the one who is attempting to foreclose on me.
Mark Stopa’s take on the “zombue title” posted by Garfield a few days ago echoes what i have been saying all along.
Until the sheriff has showed up to force you out, stay in your home. As long as you can. What do you have to lose at this juncture? Nothing! And you may get months or years of reprieve, allowing you to put money aside and buy something else later on.
Zombie Titles – The Moral of the Story
Posted on January 13th, 2013 by Mark Stopa
Have you seen the article about zombie titles that’s been making waves in foreclosure defense circles? The story is an all-too-common one, but everyone is misunderstanding the moral of the story.
A “zombie title” begins when a homeowner walks away from home, thinking he’s about to be foreclosed. Often, however, as the story explains, the bank doesn’t finalize the foreclosure, so title remains in the homeowner’s name. Unfortunately, by the time the homeowner realizes he’s still on title, the house is destroyed and the homeowner remains on the hook for thousands of dollars in expenses associated with home ownership.
Sounds bad, right? That’s the media’s angle, to feel bad for the poor homeowner who walked away and is still getting billed because the bank won’t finalize the foreclosure. The media also seems to be criticizing the banks for not finalizing the foreclosures.
I’m all for criticizing banks. But should we be criticizing here? Is this all bad, as the media suggests? Let’s stop and think about this.
As things unfolded for this homeowner, it’s bad that he retained title and has some expenses associated with a house in which he’s no longer living. But what if he made a different decision? What if, instead of moving out and giving up on the house, he kept living in the house until the foreclosure was over?
If he hadn’t given up, and hadn’t just walked away, then he would have realized the bank didn’t finish the foreclosure and could have kept living in the house. For free. For years. Eventually, he would have realized the bank decided not to finish the foreclosure. Do you think he would have been upset then? Hell no – he’d have had a free house (if not permanently, then for a long, long time).
Apparently, banks are doing this more and more – choosing to just walk away from their mortgages. So you tell me, who’s the crazy one – the banks, not finishing the foreclosures? Or the homeowners who walk out and give up when the foreclosure isn’t over?
In my experience, banks completely walking away from their mortgages is not terribly common. However, it does happen. It happened on a case of mine a few weeks ago. So who’s to say it won’t happen more in the future? Who’s to say it won’t happen on your house?
Even if the bank doesn’t simply walk away from your mortgage altogether, who’s to say it won’t fail to finalize your foreclosure for many months or years? I have a friend who was foreclosed over two years ago (he didn’t retain counsel), but is still living in the house as the bank refuses to set a foreclosure sale. Situations like that, in my experience, are far more common.
I’m not saying I’d plan on the bank walking away. However, if there’s a moral to the “zombie title” story, it’s this – don’t give up. Don’t give up on your house until the foreclosure is 100% finalized. That’s the moral of this story … if you keep fighting, maybe you’ll be one of the lucky ones.
Mark Stopa
http://www.stayinmyhome.com
Too many loose ends need to be resolved. Too many arguments can be used. REMIC is only one aspect of the fight. What it comes down to is simple: banks don’t have the proper documents. At every level, they cut corners. They haven’t followed the rules and it is closing in on them slowly. The only tangible thing is the house and their connection with it is getting blurrier by the day. Hold on to the tangible. Wait a little longer: the tide will turn.
Maine has been a very tough state for homeowners. Apparently, the tide is slowly turning.
Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD
First Franklin Fin. Corp. v. Gardner | Maine Supreme Court – Finding that First Franklin did not mediate in good faith and in granting Gardner’s motion for sanctions.
Posted on14 January 2013.
First Franklin Fin. Corp. v. Gardner | Maine Supreme Court – Finding that First Franklin did not mediate in good faith and in granting Gardner’s motion for sanctions.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2013 ME 3
Docket: Yor-12-115
Argued: December 12, 2012
Decided: January 8, 2013
Panel: ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
v.
JASON L. GARDNER
PER CURIAM
[¶1] First Franklin Financial Corporation appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Biddeford, Cantara, J.) granting Jason L. Gardner’s motion for sanctions and ordering First Franklin to pay monetary sanctions and enter into a loan modification with Gardner on the terms agreed upon by the parties at foreclosure mediation, as stated in the mediator’s November 4, 2010, report. See 14 M.R.S. § 6321-A (2012); M.R. Civ. P. 93.
[¶2] On appeal, First Franklin argues that (1) we should reach the merits of this interlocutory appeal pursuant to the death knell and judicial economy exceptions to the final judgment rule; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the parties had reached a binding agreement requiring First Franklin to offer a trial loan modification plan to Gardner because the terms of any such agreement were indefinite or conditional; and (3) because the parties had never entered into a binding agreement, the court erred in granting Gardner’s motion for sanctions against First Franklin.
[¶3] Gardner requests that we award him sanctions, including treble costs and attorney fees, for defending this appeal.
[¶7] Having found that First Franklin did not mediate in good faith, the
motion court acted within its discretion in granting Gardner’s motion for sanctions.2 See Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2007 ME 136, ¶ 8, 931 A.2d 1087 (reviewing a court’s decision to sanction a party for an abuse of discretion).
Doubt if enrichment has anything to do with the note holder whoever that fictional character is
Ahhh… John Van Eck has hit the nail right on the head. Prove the sub-servicer intends to illegally and unjustly enrich the N.A. (note holder) and a Judge may start to pay attention.
You should be able to locate the original incorporating trust documents, plus whatever quarterly Reports they should have filed, on the EDGAR section of the SEC web page. Also, Bloomberg has a terminal that records all manner of accounting and payments data on individual MBS “trusts.” You may be surprised to find that your “trust” is fully paid off. In that case, the question arises as to what claim any “servicer” has against you for more money, if someone else paid off your loan. Indeed, that is the real question. Unfortunately, some of the antique judges still in the courts that do not want to retire, and are shuffled off into property courts to avoid having them make serious mistakes in say criminal trials, are in a mental fog and unable to grasp any of this. So be prepared to end up in the Court of Appeals.
FHLMC LBAC 133……..
ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT TRUST ???
[…] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: Master Servicer, REMIC, REMIC trustee, subservicer, trust, trust account Livinglies’s Weblog […]
I asked the question of where I should file a law suit here in WA. state or NY where my trust was registered at one time but is no longer.Funny thing no one can locate the trust even though my paperwork says NY.At the end of the day when everything is said and done I find out that the trust never exsisted and the paper it is printed on has more value than the trust itself.Shut all the banks down thier abunch of freaks built solely on taking advantage of all of us.