Same Old Story: Paper Trail vs, Money Trail (Freddie Mac)

Payment by third parties may not reduce the debt but it does increase the number of obligees (creditors). Hence in every one of these foreclosures, except for a minuscule portion, indispensable parties were left out and third parties were in reality getting the proceeds of liquidation from foreclosure sales.

The explanations of securitization contained on the websites of the government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) clearly demonstrate what I have been writing for 11 years and reveal a pattern of illusion and deception.

The most important thing about a financial transaction is the money. In every document filed in support of the illusion of securitization, it steadfastly holds firm to discussion of paper instruments and not a word about the actual location of the money or the actual identity of the obligee of that money debt.

Each explanation avoids the issue of where the money goes and how it was “processed” (i.e., stolen, according to me and hundreds of other scholars.)

It underscores the fact that the obligee (“debt owner” or “holder in due course” is never present in any legal proceeding or actual transaction or transfer of of the debt. This leaves us with only one  conclusion. The debt never moved, which is to say that the obligee was always the same, albeit unaware of their status.

Knowing this will help you get traction in the courtroom but alleging it creates a burden of proof for you to prove something that you know is true but can only be confirmed with access to the books, records an accounts of the parties claiming such transactions ands transfers occurred.


GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released.

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase audio seminar now — Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations.



For one such example see Freddie Mac Securitization Explanation

And the following diagram:

Freddie Mac Diagram of Securitization

What you won’t find anywhere in any diagram supposedly depicting securitization:

  1. Money going to an originator who then lends the money to the borrower.
  2. Money going to a named REMIC “Trust” for the purpose of purchasing loans or anything else.
  3. Money going to the alleged unnamed beneficiaries of a named REMIC “Trust.”
  4. Money going to the alleged unnamed investors who allegedly purchased “certificates” allegedly issued by or on behalf of a named REMIC “Trust.”
  5. Money going to the originator for sale of the debt, note and mortgage package.
  6. Money going to originator for endorsement of note to alleged transferee.
  7. Money going to originator for assignment of mortgage.
  8. Money going to the named foreclosing party upon liquidation of foreclosed property. 
  9. Money going to the homeowner as royalty for use of his/her/their identity forming the basis of value in issuance of derivatives, hedge products and contract, insurance products and synthetic derivatives.
  10. Money being credited to the obligee’s loan receivable account reducing the amount of indebtedness (yes, really). This is because the obligee has no idea where the money is coming from or why it is being paid. But one thing is sure — the obligee is receiving money in all circumstances.

Payment by third parties may not reduce the debt but it does increase the number of obligees (creditors). Hence in every one of these foreclosures, except for a minuscule portion, indispensable parties were left out and third parties were in reality getting the proceeds of liquidation from foreclosure sales.

18 Responses

  1. Deadly Clear — true — but, if the so called loans were never on anyone’s balance sheet — to remove for securitization, then there was never any valid securitization. On balance sheet to off balance sheet. If never on — can never be off.

  2. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    Without full disclosure that these are not true traditional mortgages – but rather securities transactions, this is still (after nearly 20 years) an unconscionable corrupt scheme. Time does not make it less corrupt.

  3. Ian — yes. As I understand, a public private investment program (PPIP) was set up to purchase from Maiden Lane. There were about 5 or 6 (debt buyer) firms who purchased – as they called it — the “toxic distressed debt.” (which included both loans and securities). This was a partnership between the government and the debt buyers as the government lent money to the debt buyers at low interest rates in order for the purchase. All sales were completed, I believe in 2014, with the government claiming a profit on the deals. I believe many of the tranches sold were higher risk tranches that AIG could not cover via insurance. These tranches were in most of the private label MBS trusts, and also included Freddie/Fannie REMICs – who invested in those private label MBS trusts. So,you don’t even see those MBS tranches as they were contained in the GSE REMICs.

    There is very little published about QE 1,2,3,4, or TALF. But, no doubt the government assisted in clearing the “toxic” securities — and, they wound up with debt buyers. But, those debt buyers are NEVER disclosed. I don’t understand how this is allowed to happen. My feeling is that you are correct – the courts don’t care and label the borrowers deadbeats. But, my bigger concern is that ALL the loans in these sales of debt are considered default debt — even if there was never any default by the borrower, or if the reported default was premature. Doesn’t make sense to me.

  4. ANON-
    There was a sealed bid sale for all the Maiden Lane “loans”.
    Maiden Lane I, II, and III i believe. Most of Lehman commercial
    Loans were in there, as I recall. I don’t remember who bought them
    What the bid was. What gets me is the QE 1,2,3, &4 purchases of “85-100 billion per
    Month” ( supposedly) of
    MBS, and I wasn’t able
    To find out which ones were being purchased by the FED. And then there was TALF, the Troubled Asset Loan Facility, whereby banks could borrow 95% of the face value of any securitizations, and I never read of any on these “loans”
    Being paid

  5. @ Greg

    Respectfully, your commentary assertions do not fall on deaf ears.

    However, compared to the depths and implications of your commentary the subject matter and issues of the LL posts are shallow, but must be confined to same.

    Just one opinion.

  6. why is it that you guys and gals just cannot fathom that you created all the money?

  7. Kalifornia – good case. Rogers — Maiden Lane sold off elsewhere – through public private investment program (PPIP) — we just don’t know WHO that is.

    Neil is correct, as he has been for a long time. The money trail is unknown.

  8. Can you resend? Thanks

    Sent from my iPhone


    @ ALL

    Certified for Publication 5/9/18 (order attached)

    Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. 4/10/18 CA2/1

    “…for claims arising from an allegedly void assignment of the deed of trust (DOT) on real property located at 1713-1717 Stearns Drive in Los Angeles, California (the property), and a failed short sale agreement. The trial court sustained the demurrer by Homeward, Deutsche Bank, Western Progressive, Ocwen, Wells Fargo, Power Default, Brandy Berns, and Vicki Pospisil to all causes of action; and the court sustained the demurrer by Sand Canyon to the third through eighth causes of action.

    The trial court also denied Hacker’s request for leave to amend. On appeal, he contends he can amend his pleading to allege causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, slander of title, declaratory relief, unfair business practices, and cancellation of instruments against Homeward, Deutsche Bank, Western Progressive, Ocwen, Wells Fargo, Power Default, Brandy Berns, Vicki Pospisil, and Sand Canyon.1

    We find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. We therefore reverse.”

    “Hacker’s factual allegations mirror those of the plaintiff in Sciarratta. Hacker contends Option One sold all beneficial interest in the property when it sold the mortgage to the Option One Trust pursuant to the PSA on June 1, 2006. Two years later, on August 21, 2008, AHMSI, as successor in interest to Option One, executed an assignment of the DOT to Soundview Trust, with Deutsche Bank as trustee. Hacker contends this assignment was void because AHMSI had no legal authority to convey an interest in property that it had already sold to the Option One Trust.”

    “We find that Hacker has successfully alleged facts supporting a claim that the August 21, 2008 assignment is void. As such, he has standing to pursue an action for wrongful foreclosure.”

    “Here, we conclude that Hacker has standing to pursue his claim for wrongful foreclosure. It follows that Hacker also has standing to pursue the remaining claims that derive from his action for wrongful foreclosure. (Glaski v. Bank of America, National Association (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1101.)”

  10. Paper trail and money trail are not getting anywhere these days as the banks come up with affidavits. There is one hell of a lot of corruption still going on with illegally foreclosing homes without notes and defective assignments. WE NEED NEW LAWS TO GET BACK THESE LOST HOMES.

  11. mn… thank you for your input… I will take that under consideration.

  12. Tuesday 15 May 2018


    Re your premise: It is entirely flawed.

    “I wish I could prove it.” You cannot prove that which has
    no provable facts.

    You do not address the fact that US Dollars do not exist and
    people were never their source, but that does not seem to be
    of any consequence for your belief system.

    Who are “We?” For certain I am not one, and most who I
    know would also disagree to their inclusion.

    What is money?

    To answer your your question, which I thought was apparent
    from my simple statement, no, I cannot agree with your
    premise, in any way.

    Do more research and you may learn why.

    I am done.

  13. mn – so as I asked Roger, do you agree or disagree with my premise… restated WE ARE THE MONEY… ?

  14. Tuesday 15 May 2018


    US Dollars do not exist.

  15. Roger – does that mean you agree or disagree with my premise?

  16. Boots, look at the TARP money in Maiden Lane I. The FED is collecting these obligations.

  17. P.S. Our only compensation is government services provided in exchange for the favor of loaning our value to the government for the creation of currency.

    Also see Clause 4 of the 14th Amendment…
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    If we argue or question the debt of the US, we become “insurrectionists”… and thus are alienated.

  18. I know a lot of folks disagree with this – but I have felt for a long time that the source of funds for the loans (real creditor) has been the homeowner (we the people) upon whom the source of all US Dollars has been based since apx 1913-1933 when the US government fully committed to establish a debt based currency system leveraged on the labor and lives of the people themselves.

    Ergo, I feel that the entire banking system is a way to launder our personal private credit into public money so it appears to be coming from somewhere else… and then charge us interest on our own personal value “for the favor” of monetizing us.

    I wish I could prove it.

    What do you think?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: