Oops — Goldman Sachs Lets the Cat Out of the Bag — Naked Trades on Thin Air

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

General Information Only. Get a lawyer.


see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/u-s-probes-treasuries-niche-that-some-investors-claim-is-rigged

Traders at global banks colluded to artificially inflate the price of instruments that allow them to sell U.S. debt before they own it, and then bought the debt at auctions for an artificially suppressed price, unfairly profiting at investors’ expense, according to several lawsuits filed against the banks beginning in July. The banks haven’t responded to those allegations in court.

“Vapor Money” is what the banks are saying about the defenses to foreclosure actions. As usual they are accusing us of doing what they are doing. Their argument is that if we can’t prove the chain of money, then we are dealing in hypothetical or theory; obviously a fool’s errand by their accounts. What difference does it make where the money came from on a loan as long as the money landed on the closing table? The first answer is how is a court to know one way or the other without the facts? And how is the Court to get the facts unless it permits the use of discovery to get the information from the only place it can be retrieved — the players in the securitization fail market.

I have been writing for years about the lack of any entity that could be legally identified as a creditor and therefore that the foreclosures were wrongful, illegal and are the root cause of our stumbling economy. Through the use of “naked” trades in which the appearance of a (nonexistent) trade is created the banks have created a “currency” market that is some twenty times the size of the actual fiat currency from all the countries in the world. Goldman just tried to sneak in a “disclosure” on the currency markets and they have effectively admitted that they are creating those trades out of thin air.They are attempting to sneak into the regulatory process to preserve the “shadow banking system” and exercising powers that only the Federal government should be exercising.

Doesn’t make any difference? Ask the treasury department whose unissued debt instruments are being used to create the appearance of profits for the banks; the existence of these vapor instruments traded on the anticipated issuance of US Treasury instruments is not only improper and illegal but actually effects the value of the instruments themselves when they are issued and sold. Does it matter where the money comes from and from whom the money is taken? Yes.

And that is exactly what happened with most of the “mortgage loans” during the mortgage meltdown era which is now ramping up again with such idiotic things as new securitizations of nonperforming loans. Think about that.

Just as a trade on an unissued treasury bill is a trade on nothing, so too is the trading before a “Loan” is issued. All those trades are based upon illusion, smoke and mirrors. The commercial paper market is supposed to take care of things like that. So too are the ratings and the insurance agencies. And the legal system is also supposed to be the legal bastion to combat over-reaching by the banks who have virtually unchecked powers to create anything they want — including “loans” they design for failure, bet on the failure and then sell the loans multiple times. So yes it does matter where the money came from and under what pretenses the money was secured.

Legally it is important because of basic contract law — offer, acceptance and consideration BOTH WAYS in a two party contract. Otherwise it is not a contract that can be enforced. It might be a contract, but it cannot be enforced — a distinction that nearly all judges miss. If the signature on the contract was procured by false pretenses then it isn’t even a contract. And since public policy requires disclosures of who is the actual creditor giving the “loan”,  the writing of the name of an originator who is merely a paid servant of unknown principals creates neither a contract nor any other type of enforceable agreement or instrument. Enforcement is patently against the public policy contained in the law of the land — the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

State laws concerning property and recording also prohibit such actions. If the transaction relied upon by the person requesting recording is nonexistent (they didn’t give the loan) then the instrument should not have been released from the closing table, much less recorded. So there is no valid recorded instrument upon which one could seek foreclosure. And the reason is simple: the entire reason for the recording statutes is provide certainty in the real estate market. If the truth is that we don’t know who the lender is then we cannot be sure, without litigation, who to pay when we wish to satisfy such a loan nor can we be certain of who has the right to collect payments or enforce the loan. Judges who are so set on not giving homeowners a “free house” are sacrificing the entire marketplace to accomplish their sense of morality.

And speaking of the “closing table” it is just plain wrong to say that the loan contract, even if it was real, was consummated the moment the “borrower” signed the papers. The funding is not received by the closing agent until hours, days, weeks, or even months after the alleged closing. So there is no “closing table.” It is now custom and practice in the industry to allow for post-closing underwriting, which is to say that there is no closing, according to the banks, until they fund the loan; So the money DOES  matter to the banks when it comes to the creation of the loan contract. Why wouldn’t it mean anything when they seek to terminate the loan contract through foreclosure?

The vapor is not in our theories of foreclosure defense. The vapor is in the pre-closing trading that eventually produces money that goes to pay the borrower, a former “lender”, a seller etc. At some point in the food processor that chews up the paper (lost notes etc) and title chains and money chains before “closing” and before “foreclosure” money ends up on the table. All of it was done, as with the rigged treasury debt market, BEFORE the investor gave its investment money to the selling brokers, and BEFORE the borrower signed, sometimes BEFORE the borrower actually signs the loan application and WITHOUT disclosures that would have sent the bankers to jail. —

Imagine a disclosure like this: “Borrower acknowledges that the party described on the note as ‘Lender’ is not the lender. The actual party whose money is being used to fund the transaction is unknown and shall never be known.”

Or imagine a disclosure like this: “Investor acknowledges that he is purchasing the certificates of an entity that does not exist, where the proceeds will not be paid to that entity. The underwriter and related entities will use such proceeds as they see fit within their sole discretion and shall not report nor respond to requests for reports on the use of proceeds.”

QUESTION TO THE SEC: If the certificates were not mortgage backed, why do they qualify for deregulation for REMICs? Why have you not investigated the fact that the Trusts received no money, assets, business, payments, or even a bank account?

20 Responses

  1. posted on The Lou Bridges Show this evening….

    “a man” (american) can ‘state a claim’ (not complaint) on his own behalf (sui juris, not PRO SE) in court and can only BE THERE (as in English ‘first person’) and cannot “appear” – because he is real – (even though the judge ignores him)

    However, an ENTITY CORPUS must whine (complain) through an attorney and cannot BE or appear in court without one

    every american should learn how to separate the presumed joinder between themselves and their government appointed ENTITY CORPUS, so that they might proceed at law OR equity with firm footing on the land and not be treated like a CORPORATION…

    this causes all actions against “man” by ENTITIES CORPUS, to fail, because there is then no level playing field between the parties, which justice requires…


  2. Did we already know that

    1) NationStar Mtg (the reincarnation of Aurora Loan Services) is doing business as Champion Mtg (originating new loans apparently). If readers runs across them, they should look for the dba with the county imo – think CW and America’s Wholesale Lender bs). One may not file suit against a “dba”, have to sue the non-fictitious peeps: So and So v Jack and Susie Creamcheese dba Houdini’s Handcuffs, and the dba may not file suit in the dba name, either.
    This is info and belief from a lay person. Only mentioning it because I see a new storm brewing with “Champion Mortgage”.

    2) Not only are banksters/servicers coming up with POA’s from alleged trusts, law firms are coming up with them from alleged servicers and (the law firms are) using the credit bids of the alleged trusts to bid at sale.
    Then by the time the arguments are formulated about just what authority was actually available to be and was granted by what among the perps, the homeowners will be toast (as usual), just now by way of a more “cost-effective” toaster for use on the homeowner by the Banksters Regime, Mafia, Cartel, whatever, and their cartel lying-and perjury-as-first nature mercenaries.
    I’m now in line with anyone here who believes our legal system has in fact been hijacked, along with everything else, fwiw, which is prob jack except to me. I held out for a long time fwiw, but I’d say those of you who got there years ago were right. The streets are permeated with the stench.

  3. Iwantmynpv…

    Please respond to my npv question about the inclusion of derivatives claims and pmts by insurance companies and GSE’s etc.

    I am also interested in what you’ve indicated you understand about “credit bids” v cash bid at courthouse steps foreclosure sales.

    I’d prefer to see these answers here on NG’s blog. If you’d rather email the answers and you’ve not provided an email I can locate, please respond to mine: danscarborough@gmail.com


  4. Npv- ok i’ll email you personally. Now all i need is an email address. You know, before i hit send.

  5. SCRATCHED !!!
    How many cats are in that bag ?

    Keeps my Claws sharpened. 🐈

  6. A gentle reminder – please make an appointment for yourself to join us for Episode [8] on our 1 Hour follow-up Q&A call on Thursday evening at 6:45 PM Eastern – This is right after Neil’s weekly Thursday Night 30 Min call at 6 PM Eastern tomorrow night (Thursday).
    [Calls and Chat Board are recorded for review and sharing…]
    Details follow:

    1) Neil’s Living Lies Call at 6:00PM Eastern (347) 850-1260… on Blogtalk Radio

    2) Our interactive Q&A call, “Garfield’s Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe with your host, greg – begins every Thursday night at 6:45PM Eastern, 15 minutes after the conclusion of Neil’s show

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “0” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    Please use the phone line TO SPEAK; ASK QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE…
    computer access will ONLY allow you to hear and type into the blog (Not Speak)…

    all are welcome!

    if you would like to receive a weekly email reminder of the call…
    please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us]
    with the subject line: “please add me to the goose!”

  7. Thwy couldn’t sell a toaster w a real disclosure!

  8. MN u can’t prove a negative when the courts are all going along w the vapor. Preponderance of evidence and I’m pretty sure i saw a case recently from way back. Nothing new. Same scam as before jyst using high tech mirrors. Fraud is fraud.

  9. “an unrebutted affidavit in Commerce stands as fact”

  10. Have the plaintiff/lawyers prove that your Negative Averment by Affidavit stating that YOU are the original Creditor and Source of Funds and they used your funds/credit/instrument to achieve unjust enrichment and fraud by deception, and floated it on the open market for sale – is false! Don’t ask the judge to say it is true, demand the plaintiff prove your claims are untrue!

    remember this axiom and prove it to yourself through research, that since the suspension of currency based upon precious metals and other things of value…


    that is the real, fundamental dirty little secret.

  11. ian – email me personally on that one. That is one of the things that the alleged foreclosure defense attorneys always miss. The Court has not authority to allow the holder of a note to issue a credit bid, or for the loan service agent to accept title in its name versus the actual lender.

  12. My house and waterfront property was taken with fraudulent paperwork – that I kept pointing out for five years that fell on deaf judicial ears. In the end none of it mattered. The greedy asshole who saw my house and property while boating wanted it – and he got it. I admit we were struggling at the time but eventually recovered. We never stood a chance.

  13. Mn
    You know, we all know its not about a house its about the future of the United states, the point is what is next if this mess goes unchecked and consumer protections are not upheld, this is a consumer nation.

  14. En masse
    Neils question
    “QUESTION TO THE SEC: If the certificates were not mortgage backed, why do they qualify for deregulation for REMICs? Why have you not investigated the fact that the Trusts received no money, assets, business, payments, or even a bank account?”

  15. Sorry that read wrongi meant
    It cost NOT ONLY the individual borrower but also the US economy
    … So what is the end game what good will their greed do on the end

  16. The headline today on “stop foreclosure fraud”
    Is ” to borrow to borrow should not cause such sorrow” link below
    As above the cost of borrowing was not disclosed to homeowner who had a right to rely on their investment the biggest of a lifetime, that it was not a plan to destroy their hope of a financial future but that of the US economy,

    I thought I said that …..

    IAN! Satisfaction not worth the paper its written on…AMEN!!!
    Tender for Note!!!!!

  18. Wednesday 11 November 2015

    If anyone can point to a case where this kind of argument has carried the
    day for a borrower defendant, please post. I have yet to see one. The
    judiciary is not about to let it be widely known about the lack of proof on
    the money issue, on the one hand. On the other, there has been no
    credible argument whether a loan has ever been consummated, or not,
    based on this premise.

    The article may appear to have substance, and if it were true, as NG
    claims to have argued for several years, his argument remains theory
    as he has not presented substantive proof in all his years of complaining
    about it.

    Spinning wheels…

  19. Neil,
    Points well made. But while you are on a roll, how about “credit bids” at auction by non-creditors? Anything new on that front? This would seem to be a more easily disputed fact set than say securitization fail, as the judges don’t confront a steep learning curve.
    Only the creditor may make a credit bid at auction, and they aren’t the creditor. Period. What’s not to understand your honor? They cannot provide the wet ink note marked paid in full to whoever purchases the property. And the “satisfaction of mortgage doc isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
    Anything new in these areas? Thx

  20. Excellent Neil.
    This is precisely why the so called ‘Trustee’ gets their back into a corner…when you serve discovery, they cannot answer anything with regard to the so called ‘trust’. The only thing they can produce is knowingly fraudulent paperwork and perjure themselves in court. Perjury is a felony.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: