Who Are the Creditors?

For litigation support (to attorneys only) and expert witness consultation, referrals to attorneys please call 954-495-9867 or 520 405-1688.

Since the distributions are made to the alleged trust beneficiaries by the alleged servicers, it is clear that both the conduct and the documents establish the investors as the creditors. The payments are not made into a trust account and the Trustee is neither the payor of the distributions nor is the Trustee in any way authorized or accountable for the distributions. The trust is merely a temporary conduit with no business purpose other than the purchase or origination of loans. In order to prevent the distributions of principal from being treated as ordinary income to the Trust, the REMIC statute allows the Trust to do its business for a period of 90 days after which business operations are effectively closed.

The business is supposed to be financed through the “IPO” sale of mortgage bonds that also convey an undivided interest in the “business” which is the trust. The business consists of purchasing or originating loans within the 90 day window. 90 days is not a lot of time to acquire $2 billion in loans. So it needs to be set up before the start date which is the filing of the required papers with the IRS and SEC and regulatory authorities. This business is not a licensed bank or lender. It has no source of funds other than the IPO issuance of the bonds. Thus the business consists simply of using the proceeds of the IPO for buying or originating loans. Since the Trust and the investors are protected from poor or illegal lending practices, the Trust never directly originates loans. Otherwise the Trust would appear on the original note and mortgage and disclosure documents.

Yet as I have discussed in recent weeks, the money from the “trust beneficiaries” (actually just investors) WAS used to originate loans despite documents and agreements to the contrary. In those documents the investor money was contractually intended to be used to buy mortgage bonds issued by the REMIC Trust. Since the Trusts are NOT claiming to be holders in due course or the owners of the debt, it may be presumed that the Trusts did NOT purchase the loans. And the only reason for them doing that would be that the Trusts did not have the money to buy loans which in turn means that the broker dealers who “sold” mortgage bonds misdirected the money from investors from the Trust to origination and acquisition of loans that ultimately ended up under the control of the broker dealer (investment bank) instead of the Trust.

The problem is that the banks that were originating or buying loans for the Trust didn’t want the risk of the loans and frankly didn’t have the money to fund the purchase or origination of what turned out to be more than 80 million loans. So they used the investor money directly instead of waiting for it to be processed through the trust.

The distribution payments came from the Servicer directly to the investors and not through the Trust, which is not allowed to conduct business after the 90 day cutoff. It was only a small leap to ignore the trust at the beginning — I.e. During the business period (90 days). On paper they pretended that the Trust was involved in the origination and acquisition of loans. But in fact the Trust entities were completely ignored. This is what Adam Levitin called “securitization fail.” Others call it fraud, pure and simple, and that any further action enforcing the documents that refer to fictitious transactions is an attempt at making the courts an instrument for furthering the fraud and protecting the perpetrator from liability, civil and criminal.

And that brings us to the subject of servicer advances. Several people  have commented that the “servicer” who advanced the funds has a right to recover the amounts advanced. If that is true, they ask, then isn’t the “recovery” of those advances a debit to the creditors (investors)? And doesn’t that mean that the claimed default exists? Why should the borrower get the benefit of those advances when the borrower stops paying?

These are great questions. Here is my explanation for why I keep insisting that the default does not exist.

First let’s look at the actual facts and logistics. The servicer is making distribution payments to the investors despite the fact that the borrower has stopped paying on the alleged loan. So on its face, the investors are not experiencing a default and they are not agreeing to pay back the servicer.

The servicer is empowered by vague wording in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to stop paying the advances when in its sole discretion it determines that the amounts are not recoverable. But it doesn’t say recoverable from whom. It is clear they have no right of action against the creditor/investors. And they have no right to foreclosure proceeds unless there is a foreclosure sale and liquidation of the property to a third party purchaser for value. This means that in the absence of a foreclosure the creditors are happy because they have been paid and the borrower is happy because he isn’t making payments, but the servicer is “loaning” the payments to the borrower without any contracts, agreements or any documents bearing the signature of the borrower. The upshot is that the foreclosure is then in substance an action by the servicer against the borrower claiming to be secured by a mortgage but which in fact is SUPPOSEDLY owned by the Trust or Trust beneficiaries (depending upon which appellate decision or trial court decision you look at).

But these questions are academic because the investors are not the owners of the loan documents. They are the owners of the debt because their money was used directly, not through the Trust, to acquire the debt, without benefit of acquiring the note and mortgage. This can be seen in the stone wall we all hit when we ask for the documents in discovery that would show that the transaction occurred as stated on the note and mortgage or assignment or endorsement.

Thus the amount received by the investors from the “servicers” was in fact not received under contract, because the parties all ignored the existence of the trust entity. It was a voluntary payment received from an inter-meddler who lacked any power or authorization to service or process the loan, the loan payments, or the distributions to investors except by conduct. Ignoring the Trust entity has its consequences. You cannot pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other.

So the claim of the “servicer” is in actuality an action in equity or at law for recovery AGAINST THE BORROWER WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION OF ANY KIND BEARING THE BORROWER’S SIGNATURE. That is because the loans were originated as table funded loans which are “predatory per se” according to Reg Z. Speaking with any mortgage originator they will eventually either refuse to answer or tell you outright that the purpose of the table funded loan was to conceal from the borrower the parties with whom the borrower was actually doing business.

The only reason the “servicer” is claiming and getting the proceeds from foreclosure sales is that the real creditors and the Trust that issued Bonds (but didn’t get paid for them) is that the investors and the Trust are not informed. And according to the contract (PSA, Prospectus etc.) that they don’t know has been ignored, neither the investors nor the Trust or Trustee is allowed to make inquiry. They basically must take what they get and shut up. But they didn’t shut up when they got an inkling of what happened. They sued for FRAUD, not just breach of contract. And they received huge payoffs in settlements (at least some of them did) which were NOT allocated against the amount due to those investors and therefore did not reduce the amount due from the borrower.

Thus the argument about recovery is wrong because there really is no such claim against the investors. There is the possibility of a claim against the borrower for unjust enrichment or similar action, but that is a separate action that arose when the payment was made and was not subject to any agreement that was signed by the borrower. It is a different claim that is not secured by the mortgage or note, even if the  loan documents were valid.

Lastly I should state why I have put the “servicer”in quotes. They are not the servicer if they derive their “authority” from the PSA. They could only be the “servicer” if the Trust acquired the loans. In that case they PSA would affect the servicing of the actual loan. But if the money did not come from the Trust in any manner, shape or form, then the Trust entity has been ignored. Accordingly they are neither the servicer nor do they have any powers, rights, claims or obligations under the PSA.

But the other reason comes from my sources on Wall Street. The service did not and could not have made the “servicer advances.” Another bit of smoke and mirrors from this whole false securitization scheme. The “servicer advances” were advances made by the broker dealer who “sold” (in a false sale) mortgage bonds. The brokers advanced money to an account in which the servicer had access to make distributions along with a distribution report. The distribution reports clearly disclaim any authenticity of the figures used, the status of the loans, the trust or the portfolio of loans (non-existent) as a whole. More smoke and mirrors. So contrary to popular belief the servicer advances were not made by the servicers except as a conduit.

Think about it. Why would you offer to keep the books on a thousand loans and agree to make payments even if the borrowers didn’t pay? There is no reasonable fee for loan processing or payment processing that would compensate the servicer for making those advances. There is no rational business reason for the advance. The reason they agreed to issue the distribution report along with money that was actually under the control of the broker dealer is that they were being given an opportunity, like sharks in a feeding frenzy, to participate in the liquidation proceeds after foreclosure — but only if the loan actually went into foreclosure, which is why most loan modifications are ignored or fail.

Who had a reason to advance money to the creditors even if there was no payment by the borrower? The broker dealer, who wanted to pacify the investors who thought they owned bonds issued by a REMIC Trust that they thought had paid for and owned the loans as holder in due course on their behalf. But it wasn’t just pacification. It was marketing and sales. As long as investors thought the investments were paying off as expected, they would buy more bonds. In the end that is what all this was about — selling more and more bonds, skimming a chunk out of the money advanced by investors — and then setting up loans that had to fail, and if by some reason they didn’t they made sure that the tranche that reportedly owned the loan also was liable for defaults in toxic waste mortgages “approved” for consumers who had no idea what they were signing.

So how do you prove this happened in one particular loan and one particular trust and one particular servicer etc.? You don’t. You announce your theory of the case and demand discovery in which you have wide latitude in what questions you can ask and what documents you can demand — much wider than what will be allowed as areas of inquiry in trial. It is obvious and compelling that asked for proof of the underlying authority, underlying transaction or anything else that is real, your opposition can’t come up with it. Their case falls apart because they don’t own or control the debt, the loan or any of the loan documents.

36 Responses

  1. Louise, I was just thinking that spell checking and reporting probably doesn’t pay well, does it? What about jumping to conclusions and hatefullnes, how well does that pay? If its not enough to hire an attorney, maybe you should look into a new line of work.

  2. Funny coming from a loser. Ha Ha. At least I hired an attorney. I didn’t default, I didn’t apply for a loan mod because there’s no hardship. Its folks like you n stripes who make it difficult to Wish Everyone the Best. You are just a greedy bitch who wants legal advice and everything else for free. Had you not lived beyond your means and saved for a rainy day and retirement maybe you wouldn’t be such a hateful hag. Just Sayin … Life is Good!

  3. So Cal7: Mycookiejars used to be Stripes and another name before that. She has been thrown off this blog before. Do not read her posts. It is a waste of time.

  4. mycookiejars is a troll. please do not engage, “its” interest is only to distort and make any string seem stupid or ridiculous, so that other well thinking and meaning people would stay away. how bout you go away, mcj?

  5. Deb, great article. The S&%t is going to hit the fan.

  6. From the link I had to emphasize

    Once it is broadly recognized that property rights in the post-bailout era truly are such an arbitrary exercise of political power, then a lot of things become possible. I believe in property rights; they are an important part of a just society and a mechanism to protect people from tyrannical public power (as long as they are enforced equally and with an understanding that they must also be balanced against other questions of justice, such as the threat of private monopolies to our freedoms). But because of these bailouts, no one can with a straight face claim we live in a culture that enforces property rights as a mechanism to protect individual liberties. And I’m not sure the bailout proponents are going to like where that leads.

  7. You know it’s the lack of regulation or rather the capture of the regulators thAt caused this. What they did with the asset – apart from hyper inflating it’s purported value is where the conflict of interest lies and as UKG states, the title was slandered to the homeowners detriment to never know who to negotiate with or what other contracts of “defeasance” his/ her name backed under the instrument deed of trust – how were we to know we were entering into our financial death. After five tears ( that’s was supposed to be “years” but “tears” is appropriate) it remains so complex to me – and I’ve dedicated a lot of time to the matter to understand where my particular- and I say particular claims lie and my particular best way forward. Can’t look back what’s done- is done.

  8. Sorry usedkarguy, the courts for over a quarter of a century have held that argument to be total nonsense!

  9. Rock: “It doesn’t matter where the money comes from”.
    Spoken like a true asshole.
    Of course it matters if it’s a secured borrowing using the homeowners’ title to the res to secure the banks’ indebtedness to their European counterparty. I’m rather biased because in Wisconsin banks cannot lend on their credit, it has to be on their assets.

  10. The note. The mortgage. The mortgage note.

  11. In CFDs, set up a trust at the bank. The buyer pays the trustee/servicer/bank and the bank forwards the payments to the seller. Trustee Deed n Trustee Agreement are recorded. Mortgage is an encumbrance, but there is no lien. WD is issued when buyer has complied with the terms of the contract.

  12. FYI, a Trustee Deed n Trustee Agreement are used in C.F.D.s and the bank acts as Trustee n Servicer.

  13. I’m not the brightest crayon in the box but it seems to me that would be impossible on a Purchase loan unless the loan for the purchase was unsecured.

  14. Rock, lien theory state. Sellers owned the home outright held in living revocable trust until they died. Beneficaries received cash at closing. No lien. Trustee Deed to my husband n seller attorney (not me) filed without Trustee Agreement. No WD. Contract dictates a reverse on a conventional. WD issued by us both as TIE wIith ROS . I discovered Escrow didn’t close and the sellers trust remained open when I tried to payoff the Loan.

  15. Great for you michael…too bad most people are not privy to that type of incriminating information. Go get them and have them arrested, they deserve exactly what they get, jumpsuits with Bubba as their keeper!

  16. Poppy who you pay or paid is not on trial if the “holder in due course” is not in court bring up this claim! Some pretender wanting to question payment history is not a party to the contract.

    I find it hard to believe that folks are having a hard time with the simple question is you name on the Note anywhere? How did you become a party to this transaction. If your representing another where is their name on the Note and how did they become a party?

    This is contract law and if Bank ABC is not on the Note they have no rights to any debt! It not a rabbit hole unless your in court not challenging the Note as to what it says. It says the lender or successors and if the lender endorse that Note in blank and is not in physical possession of the Note they are shit out of luck! Plus the possessor must be listed on the Note and have proof of purchase!

  17. On our primary residence the attorney that claimed to represent our interests at the closing died in 2011.

    I went shortly thereafter to collect his file on our property. The file is rank with fraud and it is now a matter of fact our own attorney conspired with the Sellers, the other law firm, the Lending bank, the Lien-Holding bank, two appraisers; a father and son and two title agencies.

    For example, the Sellers introduced us to their “personal banker friend”. He told us HE would provide us a loan on the subject property despite a fire that had gutted the inside. He manufactured a draft to the contract which explains, in bold and in caps: “THE PREMISES ARE SPECIFICALLY SOLD ‘AS IS’.”.

    It turns out: this “personal banker” was not the Lender.

    Instead, he was employed by the bank that held a $200,000.00 lien and insurance on the property.

    One month before closing, this same individual advanced $45,500.00 on his “personal” Platinum Plus Visa card.

    That credit statement is now in my possession as is the “HISTORY SUMMARY” to the $200,000.00 lien. Taken together they describe “page 1 and page 2” of what is now a proven conspiracy to defraud my family, both banks and the insurance company. The handwritten notes to the math and fraud is written along the margins of both documents.

    As I have described, we were told we could purchase the property ‘AS IS’.

    That didn’t happen.

    Instead, the Sellers and their “personal friends” waited until my wife and I had invested 42k in improvements (the restoration) and 36k on the down payment.

    At that point, the agents from both banks told us the promised 5% fixed mortgage was unavailable despite what they promised at the outset.

    They then employed a wholly fraudulent “Appraiser’s Certification” which is also now in my possession as unearthed from the NJDOBI.

    The bogus appraisal was then coupled with 2 loans, one at 6.2 %, the other at 10.2% which were each described as “FHA”. We were also coerced into signing a third loan at the closing. We were told a failure to do so would likely result in the loss of our investment up to that point, some $80,000.00.

    The loans were never entered into the REMIC until some years after they closed and they aren’t in F&F, VA or FHA either.

    The handwritten math along the margins of the “HISTORY SUMMARY” and credit card statement demonstrate the “personal banker friend” used his personal credit card to fund almost $43,000.00 of the bogus loans he visited upon the well-being of my family; a sum which he is then shown collecting as a reimbursement on line 507 of the HUD form.

    When I queried the CFPB through request for a CID, Civil Investigative Demand, as to why he is shown collecting that amount, the Lending bank told me he is the “Seller’s Agent”. As such, he is merely a “broker”.

    Because they misstated the condition of the house at the closing to others (ie lender, lienholder, insurance company), I have petitioned they be charged for a number of federal crimes which each enjoy a ten year statute of limitations.

    For example, 18 USC 215, “collecting gifts or commissions for procuring loans” carries a 30 year sentence and millions in fines and it is just one of roughly a dozen i feel I can prove.

    It has taken me almost three years to figure this stuff out; now that I “get-it”, I am beginning to enjoy myself. Can anyone say “Count of Monte Cristo”?

  18. “the contract dictates who you owe”

    I disagree with that. The contract says you made a promise to pay someone, Who that is, is generally hidden from the borrower and the investors.

    Further, Helen Galope v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C, et al, (Ocwen Loan) 9th circuit, CA. Won with Article III claim and defeated the bank, then again with an appeal by the bank to the ruling in that circuit, non-published, of course: when a Plaintiff purchases a product she/he would not have otherwise purchased if not for the alleged misconduct of the defendants…

    Payments not applied are a valid breach, appraisal inflation, authority can be challenged, particularly if a debt collector is chasing you…and SOL may apply!

    I do concede securitization is a rabbit hole and if you could find your lender or HIDC…you’d have to explain the reason payments were not made. It seems the best avenue is contractual angles…this is a non-lawyer opinion only AND as clumsy as I have been over time, I have been able to buy time to learn and seek solid advice. Hopefully, I am on track with this.

    However, all this manipulating by the banks, originators, debt collectors is bull shit and smoke and mirrors. They are stealing our property, but defenses are hard to come by, IMO non-legal opinion only.

    Go ahead, chew me up Charles…I may be off in la-la land!

  19. neidermeyer, that says it all. Masterservicer/Wells Fargo disclaims it because the records do not exist. If they do, they are fabricated. Mostly, however, in dealing with debt collectors (these aholes are all debt collectors) I have never seen them come up with the documents needed to show ownership, proper acct numbers, dates, receipts, accurate accounting or amounts owed which are correct. They just hope you are ignorant and stupid enough to pay them.

  20. @Rock the con started at the beginning and that MERS was winning was only because lawyers like you failed to argue because of lack of training. However homeowner not willing to simply drink the kool-aid have turned the table and now MERS as part of their own policy no longer had properties foreclosed in their name…why? Because they were wrong in the past.

    Courts did not understand what was coming in front of them and they did not question whether the correct party was bringing that claim, and now after years of bad rulings and 5 to 7 million that MERS had it hand in 90% of them, means there is quite a bit of re-litigation. Goldman Sachs housing division within the last week or so said the the foreclosure crisis was not over and he predicted 5 million more of them.

    What occurring is that local county are first wanting fees not paid by MERS creating this loophole, and the local county are not weighing in on the aspect of if the transfer were not legal, because they want the money for the fees first, which is smart, because the lender are not challenging that Notes were suppose to be transfer when ownership transfer. Once the local county have recovered monies next is the challenged to who was illegally able to transfer, which is a challenge by the homeowners as to chain of ownership.

    At this point the county does not know what it does not know and is claiming damages, so at the point these monies are accepted they must be recorded to complete the history. So now that the records are corrected the fraud is know to the public for the first time. I am not going to act if I know how this effects the statutes of limitations but I would time that it does! The day the recording are attached to the record should start the time as to when the crime is known in the public arena! Just saying!

  21. @ Rock

    anyone who knows anything about contracts knows that.
    How about me ,, I have a “lender” who never lent money OF THEIRS , and who actually did NONE of the origination work … (verified by AIG and the SEC in 2 lawsuits) ,, and when the “trust” blowed up real good (7% of loans didn’t make payment #1) ,, AIG paid off the actual source of funds and not my “lender” … and not the “trust” as they OWNED NOTHING .. and NEVER DID….

  22. Sorry mycookiejars, without more info I can’t answer that question; different scenarios would dictate different answers.

    Anyway you spin it, the contract dictates who you owe.

  23. Neil ,,

    The “servicer advances” were advances made by the broker dealer who “sold” (in a false sale) mortgage bonds. The brokers advanced money to an account in which the servicer had access to make distributions along with a distribution report. The distribution reports clearly disclaim any authenticity of the figures used, the status of the loans, the trust or the portfolio of loans (non-existent) as a whole.
    You mean a disclaimer something like this from a remittance report from WF as the “trustee” …
    This report has been compiled from information provided to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. by various third parties, which may include the Servicer, Master Servicer, Special Servicer and others.
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has not independently confirmed the accuracy of information received from these third parties and assumes no duty to do so. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. expressly
    disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of information furnished by third parties.

  24. Nice Micheal, you should post more often. Rock, can you explain why my husbands note lists the lender as a Mortgage Co. And the WD we granted was to their capital asset funding co. ?

  25. Sorry usedkarguy, there over 500 cases favorable to MERS, and less than a handful favorable to MERS, that the other courts make fun of.

    Moreover, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. The homeowner has a contract with the lender identified in the contract and or their assigns to whom they owe money; anyone who knows anything about contracts knows that.

  26. Here is where you nailed it, Michael…..

    “I feel the bankers took a “borrowed” (counterfeit) ownership interest in the “dematerialized” loans (now on disc, after “re-hypothecation”- a fancy word for copying) and then shorted those loans after transferring those loans any number of times between themselves after any number of derivatives bets placed against them.
    Some people feel we should protect the American Dollar by concealing this behavior; I feel we have no choice but to expose it for the same reason.”

    We pretty much need a forensic accountant to explain this to a jury.

  27. Thanks, Michael. Great explanation. And this is right on the money. The lack of consideration beyond a secured borrowing made by the named payee on the note is the illegal half of the transaction. Secured borrowing by a bank to fund loan with a third parties’ collateral is illegal.
    We used to have an anonymous mouthpiece on here named “anonymous” that preached all of these loans have been defaulted and paid off and the resultant foreclosures are unsecured debt collections with forged documents. We pretty much now know that is partially correct.

    How ’bout it, Rock? Tell me something we don’t already know: like the courts are split on MERS. They won in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, and they are being pleaded as part of the racketeering scheme in SLORP and others. You can’t hide the lack of consideration anymore. The multiple sale of homeowner notes that were really securities is being exposed.

    I’m sure some of you remember Mario Kenny……


  28. Mr. Reed, I feel like I’m reliving groundhog day over and over. You keep telling me I’m wrong, all I’m doing is providing what the courts have held, not some wishful thinking you scammers and legal incompetents keep misinforming homeowners with.

  29. Google “bucketeering”; a practice from the 18th century wherein the dregs of whiskey barrels were misappropriated as siphoned to be resold in back alley shops beyond the notice of the taxman.

    The pools of loans may best be understood as placed in “proprietary bucket trusts” beyond taxman, pass-through certificates, SEC, regulatory agencies, etc.

    The original barrel was paid for at point of sale, as was the “table-funded” loan; the dregs of the barrels were then joined together to fetch additional payments as were the hidden loans in hidden pools after attachment to higher interest rates.

    The back-alley bankers then rewarded themselves the difference between the investor-funded loan (say, 5 %) and what they then concocted to fill its place (12 % balloon after 7 years, -personal experience).

    They then took that difference, up-front as “wind-fall” to themselves upon closing.

    The loan, at a conservative interest rate, was paid at the closing table; the bucketeers then re-jiggered the loan with higher interest etc. and collected the difference up-front as profit. The loan was then withheld from the REMIC, F&F, VA and FHA (personal experience).

    While hidden from the original investor and the regulators, the bankers placed bets as derivatives leveled against the performance of the payments on the loan. (A best-known example may be Goldman Sachs betting against –short sales, aka “derivatives”- their own loan portfolios while encouraging their investors to buy the junk they were already betting against.

    In “The Big Short”, Michael Lewis explains the banks performed “remittance reports” to demonstrate percentages of subprime failures. He explains Mike Burry could not penetrate the facade to determine which individual loans were not performing…

    But, I don’t feel he had to.

    Read Neil Barofsky, “Bailout”. I think it is pgs 85-87 (maybe 95-7 lol) wherein servicers conspired to encourage current borrowers to go 3 months behind; thus violation of boilerplate language to PSAs which speaks to payoff after default of 90 days.

    Based on personal experience, regardless of the servicer practice of “dual-tracking”, I believe all loans were described as in default whether they were being paid or not; BOA put my family in foreclosure while the loan was current… twice.

    On another house, Wells Fargo “dual-tracked” us after we were encouraged to skip three payments in order to modify before a 12% balloon went up.

    Enter MERS as electronic boutique geared toward multiple transfers of the same debt which is essentially “borrowed” as now transferred to computer disc in the absence of “wet-ink” signature contract.

    Neil Garfield describes among his writings “Infinite re-hypothecation”; the multiple reproductions of the same debt beyond count, or, in the words of Ellen Hodgson Brown, from, “Web Of Debt” pgs 184-87, “counterfitting the debt” or, “naked short sales” to debts that are “borrowed”, “shorted” and then resold any number of times by people who never had an ownership interest in them in the first place.


    The banks shorted their own loans any number of times as they were concealed within “proprietary bucket trusts” whether performing or not; whether they were “dual-tacking” the borrowers or not.

    This is why “notional” derivatives describe the debt to this fraudulent behavior as in excess of 680 Trillion dollars.

    Participants to and within the MERS database paid $25.00 for a rubber stamp which then characterized them as a SVP to MERS; oftentimes as they doubled as the salesman or the broker to the deal in question.

    I personally destroyed thousands of mortgage documents and signed an affidavit in Monmouth County, NJ to that effect.

    As part of a family business, we “de-materialized” the paper, transferred the contract to computer disc and then destroyed those contracts through shredding, burning or tossing into the dumpster.

    In one batch, I left them under the porch, in the garage and groundhogs made a nest of boxes of loans we had already copied.

    I feel the bankers took a “borrowed” (counterfeit) ownership interest in the “dematerialized” loans (now on disc, after “re-hypothecation”- a fancy word for copying) and then shorted those loans after transferring those loans any number of times between themselves after any number of derivatives bets placed against them.

    Some people feel we should protect the American Dollar by concealing this behavior; I feel we have no choice but to expose it for the same reason.

  30. The fact that most of the so called “notes” being presented as evidence by the servicers are counterfeit color photocopies proves that the so called Notes were being sold multiple
    times to different investors.
    The originators for example would sell the same 100k note ten times and take in 1 million. It appears they would place about 20%
    with the servicer, which would then make payments to the investors out
    of this pool of funds deposited by the originator.
    As long as new investors were buying mortgage backed securities,
    there were always enough funds to replenish the servicer accounts so
    they could continue making payments to the investors.
    The “caca” hit the fan in Sept 2008 when the investors caught on
    to the scam and stopped buying MBS. With no new money coming in,
    the servicers quickly used up the pool of funds which had been deposit
    ed with them and the whole “ponzi” scheme began to collapse.
    The originators protected themselves from fraud charges by putting “phony names” on the loan documents so that the investors
    would have no recourse against the entity that defrauded them.
    The borrower’s defense is simple, he did not borrow any money
    from the entity falsely named on the Note and mortgage. He was used
    as a pawn in a massive scheme to defraud America’s pension funds,
    which were the major buyers of MBS.
    It is exactly like the case of bank robbers offering someone $100
    to drive them to the bank and drive them home. After they use the
    victims car to rob the bank, they tell the auto owner to drive them
    whereever and when they get there, they kick the driver to the curb
    and steal his car also.
    So there were two victims in this scenario, the pension funds
    and the borrowers whose homes were used in the robbery.

  31. @Rock it not non-sense and Neil fine tuning his argument. Who is the “Principal” ? It the “holder in due course” it is the entity that originated or purchase the loan, PERIOD!

    If your is not listed on the document as the owner of the loan, you must provide proof as to how you became to own the debt. This is not I take your word for it when your name not on the Note and you got no receipt.

    Finally Neil slowly getting it when he now admits that these investors are not lenders and cannot originate loans. As an investor not a lender it cannot purchase loan because it cannot act as a mortgage lender!

    Rock as it been said here that your advice is not trusted or welcome as it seem to be coming from the banks!

  32. Rock, provided that the entity acting for the real party in interest has appropriate documentation to show that they actually ARE acting for the real party in interest.

  33. More nonsense.

    A servicing agent has standing to prosecute a foreclosure case on behalf of the principal. Mortgage Electronic Registration Service v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (court held that a party who was not the beneficial owner of a mortgage had standing to foreclose upon the mortgage); Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.,
    44 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow an action to be prosecuted for someone acting for the real party in interest).

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: