It Makes No Sense

For further information and consultations please call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867. We offer litigation support to attorneys throughout the country. Consultations outside of Florida require an attorney to be on the line with you.


We received so many calls from my post on Friday asking me to write more on the Burden of Proof that I decided to write a supplement. See The Burden of Proof Must be Changed: BofA Slammed Again


“Your Honor this is a simple foreclosure on an ordinary mortgage.” Those words, uttered by most foreclosure attorneys are very misleading. Because the attorneys don’t have the information I have, the attorney might actually think the words he or she is speaking are true. But they are not true in most cases.

  • If this was an ordinary loan with an ordinary loan closing why did the banks engage in fraudulent behavior in foreclosure cases — robo-signing, forgery, fabrication and even foreclosing on loans that were neither delinquent nor properly declared in default?
  • If it was so ordinary why are the trial and appellate courts dealing with the issue of jurisdictional standing — because the owner of the loan is in doubt, to say the least?

As for securitization they are right — if it was done right. If you start with the proposition that the intent was for the brokers on Wall Street to create residential loans and give their clients a slightly higher yield from a portfolio of loans than the other bonds the investors were buying, and that ordinary underwriting practices had been employed in approving loans, then

  • why are the Banks so reluctant to allege and prove the identity of the lender?
  • Why have so many studies concluded that the foreclosers are mostly “strangers” to the transaction (San Francisco and Baltimore Study) or that at least half the loan documents were destroyed or lost?
  • Why would a lender or purchaser of loans destroy cash equivalent notes unless they had something to hide?
  • Why do they employ professional “testifiers” instead of actual employees or officers of the creditors?
  • Why are so many foreclosures failing because they failed to prove their case (a rising number with each passing month)?

None of it makes sense. These banks have been dealing with paper instruments for hundreds of years. The plan is laid out in the PSA.

  • Why were the loan settlement documents not delivered to the Depository for the alleged REMIC trust? Why is there no evidence of the Trust actually buying the loan within the cutoff period in the PSA?
  • What were the brokers doing with the investors money while the investors thought the money had gone to the trust in exchange for the mortgage bonds issued and sold by the trust?
  • What were the brokers doing with the closing paperwork after using the investor’s money, without disclosure to anyone, to either buy or originate loans without specifically and expressly protecting the bond buyers in written instruments that were properly and timely recorded?

I submit that there are no GOOD reasons or GOOD answers to those questions. I submit that if you start with the premise that the brokers started with the intent to steal the money and steal the loans, then everything DOES make sense.

  • It makes sense that the loans were nearly all table-funded which is predatory per se according to Reg Z. But it doesn’t make sense if the brokers wanted clean loans with total transparency as required by law. It makes sense that they were concealing the actual source of funds (the investors directly instead of through the REMIC trust). And it makes sense that the Wall Street brokers and the web they spun of multiple layers of multiple companies were collecting and keeping undisclosed compensation that was largely an instant loss to the investors.
  • It makes sense that the money was not deposited into a Trust account where a real trustee would have control over the funds and make sure that the terms of the trust were followed. If they had given the money to the trust, then the brokers would not have been able to play with that money as if it were their own.
  • It makes sense that the investors’ money was used directly, instead of the coming from the trust because if it came directly from a trustee for the trust, then the trust would have had to get the settlement documents deposited with the depository and the required documents for instant ownership of the loan for which the investors’ money was used. By using the investors money under the illusion of a REMIC trust it makes it appear as though a trust is involved when in fact it is the broker who is controlling the transaction, not disclosing to the investors the real nature of the loans that were being approved, and leaving the buyers of those bogus mortgage bonds either without any disclosure to alert them that something was wrong or barred from finding out because of restrictions on inquiries contained in the PSA.
  • And if makes sense that they used multiple layers of nominees without the slightest actual interest or risk in the loan to divert ownership of the loan away from the investors to the broker’s trading desk. By diverting the transaction away from the Trust and the Trust Beneficiaries they were able to create the illusion of a sale of the actual loan with an interest rate of 9% as though it was a 5% loan. That makes sense because the brokers were able to claim a “profit” on that Sale” — a 5% loan sells at twenty times earnings. So the broker sold the loan on its proprietary trading desk for nearly twice the loan amount — bequeathing an instant 50%-70% loss to the investors who thought their money was going through a carefully monitored trustee process and scrutiny.
  • And it makes sense that they kept paying the investors even though the loan portfolio was collapsing, reporting loans as performing when the borrowers were not paying. If they didn’t do that — with a reserve created out of the investors money — then bond buyers would stop buying.
  • And it makes sense that they would seek foreclosure as their first goal because that is the only way to create the illusion of clearing title. If they don’t foreclose as many loans as possible, the whole plan blows up because in a workout of the loan terms the brokers would be required to account for the profits and compensation and losses attributable to their plan. They would be required to refund or repurchase all the crazy loans they made that were made to fail.
  • It makes sense that the brokers, controlling the servicers, would engage in a policy of luring the borrowers into “default” by stating that that the borrower would get a modification only if they are at least 3 months behind on their payments. If they didn’t engage in policies and practices designed to cause foreclosures to be filed, then their story about the crisis being related to loan defaults,falls apart. It would become obvious that the crisis occurred because the brokers took 20%-120% out the money flow created by investments from bond buyers.
  • It makes sense that they don’t have a designated person at trial or can actually testify to each step in each transaction and whether the trust exists and what actual figures are shown on the books of account for the real creditors — the bond purchasers — as to the existence of a default and the principal balance due.

I guess I could go on forever. But you get the point. Start with the premise that the brokers set out on an illegal enterprise and everything falls into place. Start with premise that they were just doing their job according to law, and everything falls apart and MAKES NO SENSE.

35 Responses

  1. I am still here. Still looking for a way to see a few S.O.Bs jailed. This includes a couple AG’s, At leass 3 Senatros and about 5 C.E.O.s

  2. Who is Authorized to change the trustee in a securitized loan. US Bank National Association was the Trustee before we went into the Bankruptcy Process. Once the Bankruptcy proceedings started, Wells Fargo’s (Servicer)’s Attorneys created documents to appoint individuals within thier lawfirm as trustees. Im no attorney, but something just does not seem right about that. James 443 677 2799

  3. It might be easier to hire a private investigator and find dirt on the public officials and go viral.

    I better stop drinking the scotch.So dont take my advise


  4. Elex, thanks so much for the heads up. I did look up the rules for judges about not ruling. They have to rule. It is part of the ethical rules. However, I did not know I could put in my own ruling. Will be working on that tomorrow. I will let everybody know what happens.

  5. Elex- spoken with great authoritative gusto. Don’t need a lawyer yet, but the single malts sound like a good idea.
    I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Wait- I feel like I need both after reading some of this stuff

  6. @Ian – when a judge makes up evidence, say by ruling a loan that isn’t listed in a schedule is there because it “should” be there, that is a violation of the ethics found in the canon of judges. As such it is a clear indication of denial of due process by the courts on the grounds of fairness and partiality. That you can take to the U.S. Supreme Court, and cause great embarrassment to state judges, provided you preserve the argument by objection(s) and inclusion in appeal.

    And as a pro se who is not a member of the state bar, you can raise the question whether there is a pattern shown by the judge that would raise the infraction to accessory after the fact under color of authority to whatever criminal references you put into your briefs. That is our one advantage over representation by counsel. Notice I did not bring up judicial immunity, because the judiciary is so elite there hasn’t been a case denying immunity to a judge for nearly a hundred years.

    That is what the judge in Louise’s case is flirting with by denying a ruling on a motion to compel evidence.. Her judge is betting that Louise won’t find the rules of court that allow her to supply the ruling after sufficient time has passed, followed by a motion to move the trial date out by the time taken by the non-response.

    IANAL, and I come off as authoritative only because I represent myself and need to adopt that demeanor. Likely I am more BS than authority, so you should take the above with a grain of salt, and have at least 2 scotches before consulting legal counsel.

  7. DwightNJ- you can always get a forensic document examiner (a legitimate one) to microscopically examine the print, the signatures, the paper etc. they can tell you where it came from and what copier it was sent from. What I can’t understand is if the loan wasn’t listed on trust’s list of loans, how can a judge great it as having been in the trust to begin with- preposterous.

  8. Conveyance or Bailment ? Proof of transfer … how many different options exist for a proper proof of transfer, and what are the differences? And since it’s a known fact that they fabricate and forge Notes and Assignments , why wouldn’t they fabricate the proofs of transfers and business records too? This is why everything they submit as proof must be challenged with timely objections, nothing they offer can be trusted or accepted on face value. The case will be won or lost on whether these crucial pieces of evidence are valid and legal documents , or just criminally fabricated frauds being presented in a court of law. Putting real people on the witness stand and placing them under oath doesn’t seem to be popular choice of Judges in these cases. They simply want to clear the docket and blame the family for missing the payments. Can you imagine the disdain that Judge feels when the homeowner starts questioning the authenticity of the banks documents, business records and transfer of Notes , etc .. he can’t wait to get you out of his courtroom. But in any other civil court or criminal court the evidence and discovery is taken seriously , just not in Foreclosure courtrooms … a different set of standards applies to the victims of the banking industry white-collar criminal Ponzi scheme. Even in light of the multi-settlements and consent orders , showing proof that criminal conduct has taken place and the borrowers are victims of the crimes … the Judges still continue to disregard the fact that the evidence being submitted by the plaintiffs in most cases are frauds, fabrications and forgeries. This is where the entire case is won and lost right at this intersection in my opinion. We know the Federal gov’t knows and got paid settlement money … but how do we as citizen/victims of these crimes force the fed Gov’t to share with the Judges the proofs of the crimes? The Gov’t works for us, if they found wrongdoing and criminal conduct, than we should be entitled to those findings and allowed to use them in a court of law in order to prevent a foreclosure. There are two separate realities going on. One outside the courtroom where everybody knows the banks utilized a Ponzi scheme , and a different reality inside the courtrooms where the Judges try and play a game like they are unaware of the reality taking place outside. True justice is not taking place inside of these courtrooms and we need to know what to do about it , how do we address this problem?

  9. I have asked for those business records in a motion to compel, and judge does not want to rule. Trial is scheduled for late September.

  10. Produce all common business documents depicting the purchase or sale of the subject loan among named and unnamed parties. Produce all common business records memorializing the transfer of possession of the original promissory note either by conveyance or bailment.

  11. @ukg – beware the ‘agent’ canard. CA Appellate is desperately trying to reinforce this ‘holder in due course’ work-around with case law, as they are attempting to do with my case. I pointed out the phrase ‘designated agent’, which for topics subject to the doctrine of statute of frauds, such as real estate, as a delimiting fact not found in my case. In other words, no work order evidence, no agency. The appellate panel had to lie about that fact’s existence to rationalize their decision.

    And yes, that is a violation of ethics found in the standard Canons for judges.

  12. Ukg- I didn’t know that. Thanks for the explanation, and showing the bank spin on their Statements.

  13. Ukg …. in your post you stated the following … “Forged assignments of mortgage ultra vires are not proof of equitable right to foreclose. Must be a holder in due course, a holder with rights to enforce, or a servicer pleading agency to enforce on behalf of the holder.” ….

    In my case I have Wells Fargo as the “servicer” who has produced a “note” with a blank endorsement from Washington Mutual (the prior servicer) .. and a blatantly forged Assignment of Mortgage. WF argues that they are in possession of the Note which is endorsed in blank which they claim gives them the right to enforce as a Holder.

    Going back to your quote above , can you give us a brief explanation of what we should be looking for in a “holder with rights to enforce” as far as weaknesses and points to attack? Delivery, acceptance and consideration need to all be proven for a servicer to foreclose? What would we ask for in order to see this proof? I thought a servicer only needed to be in possession of the note , and that being in possession was their proof of delivery. Are we to demand business records that show exact dates of delivery and persons who accepted delivery? Not sure how “consideration” fits into this. They are not claiming they purchased the debt. Thank you for any clarification.

  14. 2013AP221 Dow Family, LLC v. PHH Mortgage company
    find my email and send me yours. I have it in PDF if you can’t find it.
    The significance in Dow, while all the bank lawyers are doing the bull dance and patting themselves on the back saying, and I quote Aunt Shirley “Equitable assignment of mortgage is alive and well in Wisconsin.” What they didn’t tell you in the spin is that there MUST BE A LEGAL TRANSFER OF THE NOTE WITH CHAIN OF TITLE for the MORTGAGE TO BE “EQUITABLY ASSIGNED”.
    No endorsement, delivery, acceptance, and consideration,
    no equitable assignment..
    Forged assignments of mortgage ultra vires are not proof of equitable right to foreclose. Must be a holder in due course, a holder with rights to enforce, or a servicer pleading agency to enforce on behalf of the holder.

  15. Ukg- do you have a link to the WISC Supreme Court ruling PHH/Dow family trust? Thanks.

  16. Three Cheers for Wisconsin ! ! !

  17. Stop the Judicial Apartheid in America Now.


  18. Wisconsin Supreme Court just ruled against PHH (Dow Family Trust v. PHH Mortgage.

  19. Has anybody looked into DEALVECTOR?
    This site matches securities holders with each other so they can establish voting rights in their MBS holding. The company is run as a service, gratis, for EVERYONE INVOLVED to establish communication.
    Let’s say you were or are being foreclosed on by the following trusts. You can connect with those holders and advise them of the servicers maladministration of their assets.

    JPMAC 2006-WMC4 CL A5 RMBSNew QueryFollow

    JPMAC 2006-WMC4 CL A3 RMBSNew QueryFollow

    JPMAC 2006-WMC4 CL A2 RMBSNew QueryFollow

    JPMAC 2006-WMC4 CL A4 RMBS

    take a look.

  20. I want my title! I won’t be extorted, blackmailed or bullied! My Cookie Jars! Investor Taxpayer Homeowner

  21. The amount they were trying to collect from me was almost 2x his loan. A Good Reason for the Beating instead of payoff?

  22. Louise, I think the article said over 900,000 foreclosures in the works.

  23. UKG, in the state of Washington alone, a servicer called PHH “mortgage servicing” has more than 1,000 lawsuits against it. Would be fabulous if we could find out the number of lawsuits against servicers and/or banks related to real property matters and debt collection related to foreclosure. I imagine the number is over 50,000. How long can that go on?

  24. Obama the great Democratic Party Leader is allowing this to happen with the help of Eric Holder. But if you get too close he will call you a hater and a Eric Holder will pull out the race card.


  25. mers certifiying oFficer authorty hangs in thge balance. HERE WE gO

  26. The scheme keeps going because people’s livelihoods depend on it. But some of the whistleblowers are coming out, but the courts so far have been in on it. The State of SC pension plan for judges, clerks of courts, etc. have sued BofNewYorkMellon for selling them bad MBS. Once again, somebody’s future income and money is involved. The judges have a conflict of interest, but they go with it anyway. It is their retirement pension plan involved. I met a person who was a mortgage broker about 2 years ago, and all he could say was that it was the deadbeat homeowners. He knew who MERS was, but he did not tell the borrower who MERS was, and I can attest to that personally, because I was not told who MERS was at my closing. The atty who did my closing spent 3 years in the federal pen for “flipping houses with dual transactions.” do you think maybe that my closing transaction was all F%^&ed up? Later, it was found when I tried to refi that two satisfactions of mortgage had not been filed with the Reg. of deeds office and were filed retroactively. That means that the title company did not do its job either and was in on the scam.

  27. Don’t forget their funding arm(under MERScorp). . What a web thee wove. Peircing thee Corp Veil.

  28. After NCM BK closed. The asset co was subd in as plaintiffs with new attorny. Track the ownership of they players n their mergers with the BDs.

  29. It sounds like a Ponzi scheme from your description but there are too many brokers involved all over the country for it not to have fallen apart as a conspiracy. Where are the turn-coats? This many people would not remain silent. I have the same problem with blaming the servicer (as I have been willing to do so many times in the past). How could these many bad actors in the scheme ongoing for so many years keep their stories straight? Or even more precise, how could they keep from ratting out the bank servicers, the brokers or anyone else who has actually profited from this conspiracy? This theory needs too many complicit in its elaborate scheme.

  30. Please can you elaborate on this that you wrote cookie. I think I’m needing to connect the dots there
    You said
    “New plaintiffs are now the capital asset companies. Been saying it for 4yrs. The buttwipe broker dealer starts it and then slithers back in the end to finish the job.”

  31. Actually, all of this is a classic Ponzi scheme because the new buyers of MBS’s are propping up the illusion that the MBS’s are actually performing. When you are a crook, you might as well go all the way and steal money from every entity along the way. As Matt Taibbi said, “everything is rigged.”

  32. Its dag gone nearly impossible to raise that kind of cash without title or credit. They count on that! They Bet on it. And now they will eat crow, the turkeys in my case are still alive, and kicking n screaming. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the Kat Scratched them. Kat Scratch Fever is taking its toll on them.

  33. New plaintiffs are now the capital asset companies. Been saying it for 4yrs. The buttwipe broker dealer starts it and then slithers back in the end to finish the job.

  34. It makes perfect sence. Capital Mortage aka 1st Advantage Mortgage aka. Downstate Title aka Advantage Capital Asset. And those Turkey Attornies led me to believe I signed a mortgaga. That’s not the case at all. Because if it were they would have accepted the pAyoff.

Contribute to the discussion!