Bailee Letter Shows LPS is Central to Data Records

A robo-witness from the servicer lacks capacity as a competent witness to give testimony that is the foundation for introducing “business records” from a third party. In short, the “summary” introduced in court derives from LPS records adn the summary itself is produced by LPS, who chose the party who would be the foreclosing entity in each case.

This letter demonstrates that (a) there is a cover letter with the transmittal of the so-called “original loan documents” and (b) that the electronic records are are kept by LPS. Thus the records produced in court as the records of the “servicer” are neither those of the servicer nor the Trust, if it is named in the foreclosure action as Plaintiff or beneficiary.

The bottom line is (a) ask for that bailee letter and (b) follow up with LPS as to their “desktop system.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

Based upon my analysis I concluded years ago that there were (a) no creditors and (b) virtually no actual servicers. The servicers and the Trusts and the so-called beneficiaries under a deed of trust are all manifestations of an illusion created by Wall Street. As I have previously said, we are dealing with multiple layers that appear to be impenetrable.

If you think about this part, you end up with a hub and spoke structure in which LPS (Black Knight) is the hub and the servicers are the spokes. The actual wheel is the group of Banks who sold themselves as underwriters to institutional investors who don’t appear anywhere on the diagram, because after they let go of the money for their “investment” they were shoved out of the way.

The investors’ position was usurped by the so-called underwriters who created Special Purpose Vehicles (REMIC Trusts etc.) and then issued bogus mortgage bonds from the SPV as though the SPV was an operating entity for ANY length of time when it clearly was never operating as a business entity. The SPV never even had a bank account. It is impossible for the SPV to have purchased anything without assets or credit.

The use of the SPV is the same as the use of the name of the named Trustee of a REMIC Trust or the named “servicer.” There is no operating SPV and so anyone claiming authority from the SPV is knowingly claiming authority from a non-existent or inchoate entity. Unless that entity actually purchased the debt, note and mortgage, neither the Trustee nor the servicer have any right to claim authority to collect (i.e., there is an action for  disgorgement) or foreclose.

The only party answering to the description of source of funds is the investor group whose money was diverted and converted from the contractual purpose into an illegal scheme to make investor money become the money of the “underwriting” banks.

Thus the Cabal of underwriting banks that created this criminal scheme control everything through the hub — LPS — using conduits, intermediaries and sham entities to exercise that control. Servicing and change of servicing is merely the change of access to LPS records. Hence the presentation of servicer records or a summary of the payment history from “servicer” records is a false presentation.

Those alleged original data records were created, fabricated and maintained by LPS with the servicer having access. The proper objection should be directed not to the printed summary but to the alleged original records from which the summary was taken.

The only witness that could testify as to the authenticity of the “business records” is thus LPS. Without that foundation, the summary is worthless because it comes from so-called original records that were massaged to fit a foreclosure rather than giving an accurate rendition of how force placed insurance was allocated and triggered thus creating the declaration of default and the ensuing foreclosure. In this case, we are on third try at foreclosure based upon the same alleged non-existent default.

Here is the language [and my comments] from the Bailee cover letter in one of the cases I am tracking. The letter is addressed to a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, is dated, and does not have the usual reference language (“RE:”) nor a salutation.

PennyMac Loan Number: xxxxxxx [note that no specific PennyMac entity is actually named]

Borrower Name: YYYYYYYY

Enclosed are the following documentations: [Whether they intended to avoid the actual word “documents” in unknown. “documentations” is not a word in the English language


All above collateral [improper use of the word “collateral”] is to be held by you [note that it does not specify who they mean by “you”] as bailee for the benefit of PennyMac Loan Servicing LLC and subject to PennyMac Loan Servicing exclusive direction and control. [No claim of ownership, no bailee agreement attached, no bailee agreement referenced — all potentially subject to discovery. No reference to “bailor”].

You are instructed not to deliver any above collateral [??] to any party without written consent from PennyMac Loan Servicing, LLC. [No statement of PM’s authority, control or ownership. It is all implied allowing for room to claim plausible deniability]

By Accepting the above Collateral, you consent to be the custodian, agent and bailee for PennyMac Loan Services, LLC. PennyMac Loan Services LLC requests that you acknowledge receipt of the enclosed documents and this letter by signing below. You are also required to upload an image of the signed bailee in the LPS desktop system and also to mail a copy to Deutsch Bank National Trust Company. [In this case the parties are claiming there is no trust. But right here the bailee “requires” the law firm to send the bailee letter to a trustee (i.e., there is knowledge of the law firm that a third party trustee is involved despite the protestations of Citi and PennyMac to the contrary.) (e.s.)

If you have any questions please contact:

Grace Hennings (866) 695-4122 x 8785

7 Responses

  1. I have a bit of a different issue going on regarding LPS…..

    When the so-called current servicer began contacting me, I replied with a QWR and requested to see the proper documentation. After several times of me asking and them providing excuses, I finally received a copy of a faked assignment of mortgage. When I say “faked”, they made this way too easy. On the reverse side of the same document, there was a printout page from LPS Desktop, which details the way that they fabricated the assignment out of nothing. It was drafted the day after my most recent request for them to send it to me—or rather, the day after they received my request. The LPS printout lists when it was created, when it was sent to the “client”, which is the servicer….then, it was executed(endorsed), sent back to LPS, and LPS then forwards a copy on to the foreclosing attorney….keep this in mind, everyone. LPS was the company responsible for DOCX….and they have made essentially only one change to their fraud scheme. With DOCX, they used to hire low-wage employees to do the signing. Now, they fake the document just like they used to, but instead of signing it in-house, they send it off to the servicers to sign, so that we can no longer say that the signer is not an employee of the servicer. The document is still as fake as a three dollar bill, but this is to give the appearance of legitimacy.

  2. You have to get to the point of discovery and request all documents relating to the transfer of any interest in your loan, and business records memorializing each sale and purchase of your loan; and records of bailment or transfer of the physical note. With luck you will get your ‘collateral file’ as a dump, and you sift thru it looking for “LPS”, which usually shows up as an interface for electronic records, and sometimes on the notice of default signed by an agent of an agent that is part of the LPS family of companies, e.g. LSI. see –

  3. Could someone tell me who is Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS) ?

  4. Also:
    For those of you who may be battling a private label REMIC from a few years ago or further back:

    The usual progression is that a PRETENDER LENDER (mortgage broker, shady characters, et al) gets your signature on the NOTE and the PRETENDER LENDER arranges for funds to arrive at escrow. The funds sent to escrow are by SOMEONE ELSE. Usually at closing, you will be informed that another entity (Countrywide, WAMU, Citi, et al.) will be the SERVICER of your loan and you never send the PRETENDER LENDER one payment.

    The ‘servicer’ that you are informed at the 11th hour who will collect your payments is almost ALWAYS the entity that provides or arranges for the funds to arrive in ESCROW. So, your NOTE says the PRETENDER LENDER is your creditor, but he never provided one dime. He made a point off you, and then (undisclosed to you) 1-3 points from the mystery REAL FUNDER. PRETENDER LENDER walks away happy and you never, ever hear from him again.

    [SideBar: Why wouldn’t the mysterious REAL FUNDER just make itself known and be on your Note as REAL LENDER? Good question. Because the REAL FUNDER dodges all compliance (TILA, RESPA, State Law) and the PRETENDER LENDER is able to realize 2-4x its normal commission. This was done for loan/deal volume reasons too. The point is that REAL FUNDER needs to remain a mystery, for a few reasons.]

    So then you make payments to SERVICER, who is almost always associated with (if not actually) the mysterious REAL FUNDER. You are paying on a note that reads a contract between you and PRETENDER LENDER, but REAL FUNDER always did and now has title (so they think) to your Note.

    It gets better.

    Mysterious REAL FUNDER was supposed to follow a number of steps to transfer your Note to the REMIC. REAL FUNDER and/or/both SERVICER neglect to do this. Why you might ask? Leave that for another day. The fact is, REAL FUNDER and SERVICER hang on to your Note (between you and PRETENDER LENDER).

    When, as does happen, you are unable to make payments, SERVICER initiates foreclosure in the name of the REMIC (usually US Bank as Trustee, there are others). The REMIC claims it owns your Note between you and PRETENDER LENDER. You go to court and…good luck.

    Here are the main issues:

    1. By almost any state law, there is NO contract between you and PRETENDER LENDER. He didn’t provide funds and entirely misrepresented the transaction – willingly (all pretender lenders have agreements – warehouse credit lines – with the REAL FUNDER or their representatives. Hence, TILA comes into play (consummation, contract), regardless whether its four years later or ten. Illegal contracts are unenforceable – in most cases and states.

    2. When the REMIC swoops in out of nowhere and tries to foreclose, they have a number of problems, but the main one is: The REAL FUNDER/ SERVICER never transferred/delivered the Note between you and PRETENDER LENDER (as per the REMIC agreements) to an “authorized” custodian/agent of the REMIC. (Perfection requires delivery.)

    3. SERVICER/REAL FUNDER (?) maintain possession of the Note between you and PRETENDER LENDER and then try to pass themselves off as an “authorized” custodian/agent of the REMIC. This doesn’t work. And the (California) case that exemplifies this (UCC based, find a case in your state) is:

    In Re Staff Mortgage is an excellent place to start to raise the questions of possession and propriety. I am sure other states have cases like it because the legal reasoning is universal. Go after the PRETENDER LENDER, depo them, RFA them, get them to talk, provide their contracts with SERVICERS/REAL FUNDERS.

    BOTTOM LINE: Attack the Note/contract. Attack possession by the REMIC. Most of all, get thee quickly to DISCOVERY any way you can. Your initial pleadings (with a fact set like this) are a good way to get there. CH 11 BK is a good way, too.

    Go get em.

  5. So then, how does MERS come into play?

  6. How timely. This will help me very soon. Do we know LPS/Black Knight is central to virtually all (but a few) of these? Are there markings on the Summary that indicate the source as LPS?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: