The Neil Garfield Show: Ocwen Issues? Bill Paatalo will share his latest investigative findings

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Bill Paatalo’s Handout: TX – Foreclosure Task Force Transcript 2007

First, an apology.  Over the past month we have experienced technical difficulties that have prevented host Neil Garfield from broadcasting live.  We hope these issues have been resolved and we apologize for any inconvenience.

Do you have an Ocwen Loan?  If so you are going to want to listen to this episode.  Investigator Bill Paatalo has some interesting information regarding Ocwen and its relationship to “Security Connections- Idaho”.  He will also discuss his most recent “Cease & Desist” from the SEC to the Wilmington/Christiana trust.  As for SEC Cease & Desists, if the Trustees can’t identify the certificate holders, how can borrowers join forces to combat these same issues?

Paatalo will address the conflict between servicers who try to create the illusion of transferring the note to a trust years after the trust closes.  In most cases the certificate holders in the trust have no idea a servicer is attempting to transfer defective loans into the trusts.  This action alone would create all sorts of IRS pass-through tax issues for the trusts not to mention issues for the Trustee who is in breach of its duties.  If the note is assigned years after the trust closed, the assignment should be considered void.

Most certificate holders have no desire to acquire non-performing loans years after the closing date and are not aware of ongoing litigation between consumer and servicer.  A homeowner may want to consider involving the certificate holders if a note was assigned to a trust outside of the closing date.


Attorney Charles Marshall or phone: 619-807-2628

Investigator Bill Paatalo or phone: 406- 328-4075

Neil Garfield or 202-838-6345

Visit the Livinglies blog at


6 Responses

  1. Trying to change format from PDF to copy and post here? Not very good at that! If I can get it, I will copy it for all to see.

  2. Chapter 11

    They are all dead and names have been substituted. On the Idaho and Iowa paperwork some of the pertinent information, like the loan number, ID#, original party are blacked out? Hmmmmm

  3. I have tried to push the transcript from the Texas foreclosure task force to be filed in my case but my attorney ignores this. Is it due to it won’t matter to the judges or count in the courts? Sure seems like it should be allowed to be used as evidence. When judges are stating 90 percent of the mortgages have no paperwork to foreclose.

  4. This was a very interesting podcast with some very smart commentary by Neil, particularly, comments regarding the transfer agent of the securities. Neil astutely states that banks kept themselves as transfer agent, and that the Fed purchased the securities from the banks – not the investors. The question is, though, why securities? If these were real mortgages they would be assets on the banks balance sheet, and the Fed would have purchased the “assets.’ But, of course if the loans were real assets, the Fed would not have had to purchase anything. . The loans were on no bank’s balance sheet – only securities were there, and these securities should never have been securities as they were never derived from any real assets – which real securities must be derived from.

    Neil is also correct that the security underwriters have the answers, but that is difficult in a court, because even if the Prospectus is presented, which will show that the security underwriters (stated on the Prospectus) purchased the “loans” either directly, or indirectly by the purchase of the securities through the fake security trusts, (method of distribution is shown) , the Court will likely state that the borrower is not a party to the contract (as the Court does with a Pooling and Servicing Agreement).

    All this goes to show that the loans were already recorded in a default status when the security underwriter purchased either the “loans” or the securities that were falsely derived from no asset (loan) on anyone’s balance sheet.

    We have to remember that after the Fed purchased these toxic securities from the banks – not the investor – the Fed developed a PPIP program (Public Private Investment Program) by which the toxic securities were sold to distressed debt investors through funding by the Fed. Distressed debt investment is deregulated, thus, no one can determine where the collection rights went, or if the servicer is passing through income to those distressed debt buyers. Knowing this information is critical to foreclosure, as standing is critical. Further, for anyone still paying, without disclosure of the real creditor, and recording of same, title is permanently destroyed.

    The big settlements were with the big banks, but the people had little help from them. Modification, which is important to people, was encouraged by the settlements. However, the abuse is rampant, and modification does not cure title issues unless the borrower demands the true chain of ownership.

    Bottom line is that before the ownership of the loans can be questioned, and resulting “bad” documents, the status of the loan, both currently and prior to the refinance in question, must be questioned. An asset??? OR just a debt by which collection rights are passed around? .

    Thanks, Neil, for a good show. Not much about Ocwen, but well worth the listen by all.

  5. I think it’s odd. I wonder if someone in New Jersey got Iowa and Idaho mixed up. have your figured out if the people who supposedly own the company exist?

  6. Just for a laugh, not really, but I have Ocwen and they have an assignment from a person in Idaho. The party in Iowa attested to the assignment, stating the party was in Iowa in person, witnessed by the Notary in Iowa, Hah? So the Person in Idaho went to Iowa to sign the paperwork, OKAY! Then I checked the address that Ocwen claims to be at: empty building, no Ocwen there. Let’s add to the mix the company that is affiliated with this is from the early 1900″s and the company owners names have been changed/altered through and into 2012-2017. Anyone here think this is odd, but me? Hey Neil, what’s your take here?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: