Repackaging and Re-Remic: Who’s on First?

They were “aggregating” paper not debts or loans. And the courts are presuming that where there is paper there must be a transaction somewhere in there even if there isn’t.

Starting around 2007, the empty trusts were said to have been repackaged into new special purpose vehicles which also turned out to be mostly trusts. It’s the same game as creating multiple assignments to give the illusion that an original transaction took place, from which all future instruments derive their value. But if the “originator” did not actually loan any money to the alleged “borrower” none of the instruments have any value or utility. They are void.


No amount of assignments can create the asset and no amount of repackaging will bring the trusts alive.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
Deutsch Bank is bracing for a huge fine for selling bullcrap to managers of investments funds who were induced to purchase fraudulent mortgage backed securities. It was fraudulent because the securities they bought were issued by a trust whose only claim to existence was on paper. The trust was and remains empty.
The banks knew that they were selling a holographic image of an empty paper bag — which accounts for the fraud charge. But on the ground millions of homeowners were being forced out of their homes based upon assumptions arising from the same fraudulent paper and nonexistent transactions.
Banks compensated for the lack of anything real by pretending there was a reality and then producing evidence that dozens of entities participated in the chain of “ownership” of the “loans” when in fact the paper was as worthless as the securities issued by the empty trusts. Somehow, this double-blind fraud worked. The Banks got the money from investors and are settling for pennies on the dollar there while at the same time they are getting judgments that seal the doom of homeowners based upon fraudulent representations of who funded the loans and who bought them.
They cover it with assignments, endorsements, powers of attorney and servicing agreements etc. All of those documents require, as the premise for their validity, that the fraudulent trust entered into a transaction (not just an agreement) to purchase a pool of loans that includes the mortgage upon which they claim to be foreclosing.
Now that the sham nature of the trusts has been revealed for all to see, Banks like Deutsch are covering those up with more paper just like they covered up the sham loans with more paper. What is scaring government so much is that a huge edifice of nearly 1 quadrillion ($1,000,000,000,000,000) dollars has been built upon this fraudulent foundation. It is without precedent. Everyone knows that mot of the shadow banking market is stated in “nominal” dollars but nobody knows how much is real and what will happen if it collapses.
So to “save civilization” the Banks get away with relatively minor fines, no criminal prosecution anywhere, and the homeowners lose their homes in false foreclosures. The price of this policy is that around $18 Trillion in household wealth was sucked out of our economy thus slowing the purchase of goods and services — skewing our GDP to the point where they are measuring transferring paper on Wall Street as being nearly half of GDP. Economists seem to think that this makes up for the fact that fewer people with less money and less credit can buy real goods and real services.
The repackaging of old REMIC Trusts that only existed on paper is just the same s–t in new wrapping. It still is not worth anything because none of the parties under existing law could ever be called creditors or lenders. They were “aggregating” paper not debts or loans. And the courts are presuming that where there is paper there must be a transaction somewhere in there even if there isn’t.

6 Responses

  1. Need help, I am putting together some case documentation against Wells Fargo and US Bank as Trustee. Can someone tell me how I can find all of the illegal DOT’s that are in public records. Looking specifically for Securitized Trust DOT’s. You can reach me at 443-677-2799 or

  2. and gault, remember that all those obligations set forth in the MORTGAGE (inspection fees, legal fees, late fees, etc.) that affect the terms of repayment on the NOTE will make the note nontransferable.
    (Cully testimony)

  3. A short definition of without recourse:
    “An individual who endorses a check or promissory note using the phrase without recourse specifically declines to accept any responsibility for payment. By using this phrase, the endorser does not assume any responsibility by virtue of the endorsement alone…”
    aka you pay your money and take your chances on the maker only.

    As to notes secured by dots, let’s not forget Hilmon (et al),06-13055, dkt 19, p.6), Hilmon v MERS, 2007 WL 1218718 (E.D. Mich. 2007)).



    Promissory notes are not negotiable instruments under the UCC Article 4; rather they are security interests covered under Article 9….

    As stated above, a promissory note is not a negotiable instrument to which the Uniform Commercial Code’s holder in due course analysis applies….”

  4. I have wondered about the phrase ‘… without recourse’, as most transfers are endorsed. Does that mean no recourse against default insurance placed by ‘investor’, or no recourse against an unenforceable debt because the chain of title cannot be proven?

  5. Re-REMIC my ass….no such animal!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: