The US Bank as Trustee sham-Live at 6 pm Eastern
New evidence demonstrates that US Bank is not a trustee even though it is named as Trustee in some trusts and otherwise “acquired the trust business” from Bank of America and others.
Livinglies founder Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles Marshall, and Investigator Bill Paatalo discuss the US Bank as Trustee scam:
- A Trustee without powers or duties is no trustee. Disclaimer of fiduciary duties denotes non acceptance of being the Trustee of the Trust.
- Acquiring the trust business is a euphemism for the continuation of the musical chair business that is well known in subservicers.
- Being the trustee is NOT a marketable commodity without amendment to the Trust document. Hence if a Trustee is named and has no power or duties, and which then “sells” its “trust business” to US Bank the “transfer” trust responsibility is void but damnum absque injuria.
- BOTTOM LINE: A trust without a trustee holding fiduciary duties and actual powers over trust assets is no trust at all. This signals corroboration for what is now well known in the public domain: the REMIC trustee has no powers or duties because there is no trust and there are no trust assets.
California attorney Charles Marshall will continue discussing one of his current cases entitled Naguiat v. Nationstar where the Judge ruled that the order was clear that absent a recording of same alleged assignment, the assignment is void:
As a result of same voidness, the following was found:
—- a previously executed loan mod did not legally re-ratify the loan, because the broken assignment at issue occurred after same loan mod–two years afterward in fact–thus voiding all of the foreclosure activity to follow, notwithstanding the previous loan mod;
—- referencing that BofA had previously admitted in a Govt settlement to servicing and loan mod fraud practices–these were part of the reason the Court here considered the previous loan mod void;
—– void status of foreclosure activity resets statute of limitations (SOL) violations alleged by Defendants; Court also accepted Plaintiffs arguments about when Defendants violations were discovered;
—- void status of post-broken-assignment foreclosure docs (NOD, NOTS, etc) nullifies requirement to tender here, as per Yvanova, the subject property was sold at auction.
Lowlights:
– Implication of ruling is that it would not apply to pre-foreclosure cases (that is, cases where the subject property has not yet been actually sold at auction);
– Court refused to consider illegitimate MERS role in finessing early assignments as creating a broken chain of assignments, typically ratifying same MERS role as if MERS is a party-in-interest, not a staged entity to get around recording statute requirements;
– Court ratifies Saterbak and Yhudai, holding that the late assignment of the subject loan into the original securitized trust only supports a claim that same assignment is voidable, not void.
Investigator Bill Paatalo can be reached at:
Office: 406-328-4075
email: bill.bpia@gmail.com
http://bpinvestigativeagency.com
California Attorney Charles Marshall:
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101
cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com
Phone 619.807.2628
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: blog talk radio neil garfield show, Livinglies Neil Garfield, US Bank as trustee, US Bank fraud |
Exectory Contracts without Consideration
Without Consideration ..No Trusts exist.
No Trustee duty exists
Unless you ….. ????
Bad Trustee
In an Exectory Contract without consideration leaves only..
Wanna bee’s…putative lender & putative borrower.
Implied Trusts
Land Trusts/Homestead Exemption & Redemption
Implied Contracts
KC knows nothing and demands proof of claim.
A self deemed lender is only enshrined by the confession of a putative borrower.
But without consideration …
KC just says….NO!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/02/02/the-trust-cant-be-trusted-the-us-bank-sham
It appears that the function of a REMIC/MBS Trustee is similar in character to the Trustee in an Illinois Land Trust.
In said trust, the Trustee is the Legal and Equitable Owner of the Trust res property (the home), but is void of authority to commence any independent action unless directed to do so by the Beneficiary(ies) or other person(s) named within the trust agreement with the power to direct the Trustee.
The Grantor ceases to have direct “technical legal ownership” to pledge, mortgage or do anything else with regard to the Trust res upon creation of the Trust and appointment of Trustee.
Similarly, the Beneficiaries of the Land Trust hold only a beneficial interest in the nature of “personal property” not “real property” and thus also cannot pledge, mortgage, or do anything else directly with regard to the Trust res “real property”.
Actions are brought in the name of the Land Trust, but it is the Beneficiary(ies) or other person(s) named within the trust agreement with the power to direct the Trustee who are the movers of the actions.
Failure to secure a mortgage naming the Land Trust Trustee as the borrower and securing authorized signature of same is a fatal error and renders the contract non-consummated and void, as “there remains something yet to do”.
Again, the Grantor and the Beneficiaries have no power or authority to pledge, mortgage, or do anything else directly in their own names or roles with regard to the Trust res “real property”.
Further, if a foreclosure action is not brought against the Trustee, or the plaintiffs in such foreclosure fail to serve the proper Trustee, there is no jurisdiction of the court and any judgments are void, not voidable.
see: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2012/4thDistrict/4110588_R23.pdf
greg
It appears that the function of a REMIC/MBS Trustee is similar in character to the Trustee in an Illinois Land Trust.
In said trust, the Trustee is the Legal and Equitable Owner of the Trust res property (the home), but is void of authority to commence any independent action unless directed to do so by the Beneficiary(ies) or other person(s) named within the trust agreement with the power to direct the Trustee.
The Grantor ceases to have direct “technical legal ownership” to pledge, mortgage or do anything else with regard to the Trust res upon creation of the Trust and appointment of Trustee.
Similarly, the Beneficiaries of the Land Trust hold only a beneficial interest in the nature of “personal property” not “real property” and thus also cannot pledge, mortgage, or do anything else directly with regard to the Trust res “real property”.
Actions are brought in the name of the Land Trust, but it is the Beneficiary(ies) or other person(s) named within the trust agreement with the power to direct the Trustee who are the movers of the actions.
Failure to secure a mortgage naming the Land Trust Trustee as the borrower is a fatal error and renders the contract non-consummated and void, as “there remains something yet to do”.
Again, the Grantor and the Beneficiaries have no power or authority to pledge, mortgage, or do anything else directly in their own names or roles with regard to the Trust res “real property”.
Further, if a foreclosure action is not brought against the Trustee, or the plaintiffs in such foreclosure fail to serve the proper Trustee, there is no jurisdiction of the court and any judgments are void, not voidable.
see: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2012/4thDistrict/4110588_R23.pdf
greg
lawman@gmx.us