Vulture Firms: The Last Step in a Chain of Illegal Paper, with the Debt Long Gone

The key element of the paper strategy has been to create the illusion of transfers of assets, thus supporting the erroneous narrative that with all those parties purchasing the loans, a lot of due diligence MUST have been done and therefore the screaming defense of homeowners (attacking ownership) is nothing but a dilatory stall tactic.

What is consistently missed, even by people who are completely fed up with the banks and regulatory agencies that have given a wink and nod at plainly fraudulent practices, is that the only “asset” is the paper, and that the debt itself has never moved. In a true securitization the debt would indeed be transferred. But all claims of securitization of debt that are based upon CLAIMS of ownership rather than the ownership itself are groundless. Thus neither Vulture Firms nor any of their predecessors ever owned the debt.

This is why we have lawyers go to law schools. Such convoluted schemes are not easily deciphered without experts and lawyers. Lawyers understand the distinction between the debt, the note and the mortgage. But lawyers forget and lay people never knew about the distinction. It isn’t technical. It is all about keeping transactions on paper honest.

And right now nearly all of the hundreds of millions of documents are being used around the world to foreclose, or support the sale of the paper note and mortgage and derivatives based upon the value of those millions of documents containing false recitations and inferences of fact.

So borrowers, whether their payments (to the wrong party) are “current” or not, like the one in the story found in the link below are stuck in the very place that legislators and regulators have said could never happen in a legal mortgage lending situation: no knowledge about the identity of the obligee of the debt. Foreclosure defense lawyers who win cases punch holes in the foreclosure case simply by knowing they are not dealing with anyone who owns the debt nor anyone who is representing the obligee in the underlying debt (i.e., the real world).

Let us help you plan your discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip Eric Mains and Bill Paatalo

see Vulture Firms Must Clean Up the Mess

So people ask me the obvious question, to wit: “If the paper didn’t transfer the debt because the seller, assignor or endorser never owned the debt, where is the debt now?”

The answer is simpler than you might imagine. The only two parties are the obligor (the person who took the money) and the obligee (the person who gave the money). The current obligee (owner of the debt) in most instances is a group of investors who are beneficiaries of multiple paper trusts that have never existed nor been active. THAT is why you never see any assertion that the debt has been purchased.

No money has exchanged hands in any of the transfers except in the case of vulture firms who pay fractions of a cent on the dollar for the paper. They don’t buy the debt because the seller of the paper doesn’t own the debt.

The one simple law school issue taught repeatedly in several classes — Contracts, Bills and Notes etc. — is that the debt arises no from paper but from action. There is no debt if there is no money exchanged between the parties claiming to be part of the transaction.

The debt arises by operation of law without  and even despite the existence or nonexistence of any written instruments — virtually all of which are subject to hearsay objections and lacking in factual foundation, to wit: an actual transaction in the real world in which reciprocal consideration was exchanged between the obligor and the obligee.

If the written instrument recites or assumes that the parties to the instrument are in fact identical to the parties to the real world transaction, then the parties to the debt would be identical to the parties on the written instrument. So keep this in your bonnet while you are planning defense strategy: at some point, usually at origination, a debt was created, separate and distinct from the recitals on the note and mortgage.

If the written instrument recites or assumes that the parties to the instrument are in fact identical to the parties to the debt, but the recital or assumption is untrue. Assumptions and presumptions are based upon one singular doctrine — they are used for judicial economy only where the the presumption clearly is true and where no contest to the presumption is introduced by the defense.

If the defense asserts and gives some argument or evidence that is inconsistent with the presumed “fact,” then the burden shifts back to the party who claimed the benefit of the presumption — i.e. they must prove the real world transaction that was being presumed. There is no prejudice to forcing such a party to prove the fact that they wished to be presumed — unless they were lying to begin with.

 

8 Responses

  1. Thanks neidermeyer. The thing too is in my case they will be able to collect on the pmi insurance. If the judges would just rule on the law a lot of these abuses and the great ponzu scheme would be revealed. The let these servicers/ bankers treat their court like an ole whorehouse and they think we the people are stupid and deadbeats.

  2. @ Anon ,

    “SPECIAL” warranty deed is a liability limiting device ,, only the time period during which the selling entity/current owner owns the property is guaranteed accurate.. it has some legitimate uses in real estate but in most cases it is used when the seller is aware of criminality in the form of fake/fraud or invalid documents in the chain that they want to be protected from in the future but don’t want to admit to.

  3. After illegal foreclosure of our home the bank sold the house to a third party and gave Special Warranty Deed. Why is it special one? Is it because there is a possible breakage of chain of title?

  4. @ Michael ,

    Anything is possible with OCWEN ,, I had them issue an illegal 1099 for “loan forgiveness” 2 years ago… the truth doesn’t matter to them… contractually the forgiveness was 3 years in the future and hadn’t happened yet… OCWEN must have wanted the immediate tax loss to offset profits.. I fought it through the IRS and won and reported to that worthless CFPB … The criminality runs deep ..

  5. So Deutsche Bank as trustee for certificate holders gsr loan trust 2007oa1 forecloses, gets the sheriff deed and Ocwen sends a 1099 as the lender for a principle that was more than the original refinance. How is this possible. IMO it should be deutsche. Any thoughts?

  6. Enclosed are 2 copies both presumably of my mortgage note page 6, one without endorsement in blank submitted by BANA to BKR on 1/24/2018 with their objection to confirmation, and one with endorsement in blank submitted to BKR by BANA 19 days later, on 2/12/2018, with their so called ‘proof of claim’. The endorsement is also illegal on its face because BANA admitted not owning the note!

    You be the judge,

    Thanks,

    Leo Blas

    On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Livinglies’s Weblog wrote:

    > Neil Garfield posted: “The key element of the paper strategy has been to > create the illusion of transfers of assets, thus supporting the erroneous > narrative that with all those parties purchasing the loans, a lot of due > diligence MUST have been done and therefore the screaming ” >

  7. If your ordeal involves vulture funder D. Andrew Beal of Beal Bank SSB and Beal Bank USA, you can rest assured you more than probably have gross fraud at origination of which they on Wall street had to rid quickly to be eligible for TARP help. No bad paper allowed with governmental oversight. Beals LNV Corporation (vulture fund) is not located in these United States but is in Brussels Belgium. Beals bogus subservicer Dovenmuehle (not Dovenmuehle Mortgage but often confused with this entity) is truly called MTG Operations which came into existence in year 2007. Beals stuff is tied up with the Jenkens & Gilchrist tax shelters. Is a vulture funder and investor on the foreign market of which the fund abroad is known as another entity. His Wells Fargo cronies will lie, cheat, steal, fabricate, and do any and all to win. NealMikeLance corporation of Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership involves Michael L. Brown who was the treasurer of MGC Mortgage Inc. in Nevada (not Texas) in year 2014 but was suddenly removed when I preached this in court records. I was actually sued by the vulture fund for breach of contract, and then they sealed the note. I know exactly why it is sealed. Beal and GMAC had a special agreement as Beal provided GMAC (parent company of GMAC) with debtor in possession loans (DIP) to put him in at a junior position.. Then when company goes bust the bond holder Beal moves to a senior position. Surprise surprise one cannot push non-negotiable paper to be negotiableespecially when something else occurred years earlier extinguishing the debt. .

  8. Psalm 35:20 (For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.) 35:25 (Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: