How Do We Know That the Name of the Trustee was Rented?

The practice of paying a fee to a “service provider” to conceal the real nature of a transaction and the real parties in interest has been at the center of all Wall Street schemes that are at variance from conventional loan products.

Virtually all parties who appear in the chain of title or possession in securitization schemes are parties who rent their name to lend credence to the illusion of the loan transaction, loan transfers and foreclosures.

The truth is simply that the debt is never purchased and sold in such circumstances. But paper is created to create the illusion that “the loan” has been purchased and sold. It wasn’t. This illusion is created by simply using the names of the biggest banks in the world.

See Rent-A-Name popular amongst banks

So Payday lenders, the bottom feeders of an already corrupt lending industry, are renting the names of Native American tribes in order to escape rules and laws that apply to lending in general and Payday lenders in particular. They do it because the tribes might be exempt from certain Federal laws and rules. This enables them to charge higher and higher “interest rates” that are in fact gouging American consumers. So the tribal name or jurisdiction is invoked and the lenders pretend that they are not the real parties in interest. More pretender lenders.

This is what happens when we don’t enforce the existing laws and rules in the first place for fear of angering or collapsing the major banks. The prevailing view is that collapsing the TBTF banks — i.e., putting them out of business — is a bad thing no matter how badly they behave.

In the case of REMIC Trusts, big name banks have a tacit and express agreement (which should be pursued in discovery) in which they each will allow their names to be used or rented for a fee. This cross pollination of names, makes it appear that the giant banks are in fact the injured parties in foreclosures. I can say with 100% certainty this is not the case where claims of securitization are involved.

Banks have been quick to point out when faced with judgments for costs, fees or sanctions that they are NOT the foreclosing party and that their name only appears as “Trustee” of a self-proclaimed REMIC Trust. The “party” is the REMIC Trust itself, they say. But when you peek under the hood, the named Trust is just that — only a name. There is no trust and there have been no transactions in which the nonexistent trust’s name has been involved wherein loans have been purchased — or in which anything has been purchased.

Logic dictates and data confirms that the reason for this lack of transactional data is that there were no such transactions. Logic further dictates that the only possible conclusion is that the “investor money” was never entrusted to the falsely named big bank, as trustee and therefore could not have been entrusted to the REMIC Trust. Hence a key element of any valid trust is missing — the active management by a named trustee of assets that were entrusted tot he trustee on behalf of beneficiaries.

So there is no trust and there is court jurisdiction to grant relief in the name of a nonexistent trust. Reading the so-called trust instrument (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) also reveals the absence of trustor/settlor. So not only is the putative trust empty, it also lacks a trustor and trustee. Further inquiry into the PSA and the indenture for the the fake RMBS certificates reveals that the investors are not beneficiaries of a trust because even if the trust existed, the indenture disclaim such an interest in compliance with the buried description in the PSA.

So there is no trust, no trustee, no trustor, and no beneficiary. The investors’ only interest is in the form of a constructive trust, shared with other investors who may or may not be in the same “pool”. The opportunity for commingling money from thousands of investors in multiple pools is just too good for the bank to pass up.

Thus the laws and rules governing the highly complex lending marketplace require only an illusion of compliance instead of the real thing. Court administrators justified their “rocket dockets” by judicial economy and expediency, requiring the courts to hire more judges and personnel. But that is only true if the foreclosure were real. Some courts have required that the original note must be filed with the court upon suit and others require an affidavit describing possession and ownership of the so-called loan documents. Some affidavits must be executed by the lawyers seeking foreclosure on behalf of their clients.

My question is if the trust does not exist except in the minds of certain financiers and there are no trust assets and no active management of them (obviously) then how truthful is it for any lawyer  to execute documents for filing in court on behalf of a client that the lawyer knows or should know does not exist?


13 Responses

  1. StillFighting — well said!!!


    “My question is if the trust does not exist except in the minds of certain financiers and there are no trust assets and no active management of them (obviously) then how truthful is it for any lawyer to execute documents for filing in court on behalf of a client that the lawyer knows or should know does not exist?”

    Early on, in a mediation meeting, the Plaintiff’s attorney smirked and giggled when I asked why we didn’t know who the Lender was. Years later, in a deposition of the rep from the Servicer, the new Plaintiff’s attorney pruned her nails and cleaned her cell phone, while the rep stumbled and bumbled and lied through the questioning.

    For years, I have asked my attorney why we can’t sue the law firms for KNOWINGLY filing fraudulent fabricated documents in the Court. All of the law firms and lawyers have been knowing participants in these criminal acts.

    I am still fighting and still winning. I plan to pursue the half dozen lawyers and law firms in the end…

    Count it all Joy!

  3. if those judges jerks r thieves to the real innocent victims citizens in US can u imagine how US use politics in lie Fake corruption in all overseas?

  4. Much truth to this.

    1) The trustee is never represented individually in cases. It’s name is only attached to the trust name – as if the trustee name belongs as part of the trust name. A trustee is never part of the trust name.

    2) So, if the trustee is really a phantom, and, as often claimed by foreclosure mills, the “Trust” owns/holds the loan, then no money is ever passed to the Trust because money can only pass to SECURITY investors via the trustee.

    3) So, what we have is servicers acting for undisclosed debt buyers.

    4) But, the question is — HOW DID IT GET TO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?? It means the loans were already claimed default loans BEFORE they were ever falsely securitized. Meaning the loans were NEVER funded. Was just a transfer of already “claimed” default debt.

    (Mortgage/Deed of Trust) Contract not what it ever claimed to be.

  5. Sound my story I don’t understand how Gov. r not serious about victims client

  6. Roger…in many instances there is no abuse of discretion, because truth be told, the court lacks discretion. Mostly their actions are arbitrary and capricious.

    I’m doing ok. just got the bankster’s mtn for summ judg denied in one of my cases.

  7. Bob, the contortions here amount to abuse of discretion and outright corruption. How are ya, buddy?

  8. From a Zillow Listing:

    The lender has taken ownership of this property through a foreclosure auction for the amount of $0. The lender may list it for sale as a foreclosure property in the future.

    Zillow’s Foreclosure Estimate predicts this property will sell for $77,882.

  9. “Fascinating Captain ” As I have shared on this site before, our Deed is much the same – no beneficiary, no Trustee, and a dead lender… so, again , who is getting the money ( benefits therefrom ) we keep throwing down the black hole of Wells F. Servicing ? ? ?

  10. JUDGES must be held liable for aiding and abetting fraud and committing fraud upon the Court. In my case, at least 6 Judges got money from Wells Fargo bank lawyers; and even criminally concealed material evidence from my case records. The Appeal Court never saw a document based on which judicial con artist Robert E. Senechalle, Jr. crony with IL Attorney General family, brother-in-law with WFB lawyer, concealed from case records. And they never asked for this evidence when they allowed WFB to sell my property, in the most criminal manner. JUDGES are the real parties behind foreclosures fraud.

  11. Our residence foreclosed Fake modification betrayed to servicer BSI we’ve been cheated by all WFB Fake paperwork

  12. You have just obliterated my filling out form # TIMES and you reject my “submit” wasting over 3 hrs of this ptsd, Nam era 79 yr old disabled vets LIMITED time to live! IMPOSSIBLE to comply with all your requir3ments saying “correct errors, for which your website rejects any, all changes.  Thanks for taking hrs out of my limited life span to be on your MODIOU STRIP (googleit!) Wast someone elses life and time if you wishBruce R Nelson (current address last 4 yrs) 26 C Pinetop Cir, Banner Elk, NC 28604

  13. i agree with most of this post, but it is highly unlikely that a court will agree that there is no trustor or settlor. the court will look at the PSA and say that the depositor is the trustor or settlor. at least this has been my experience in foreclosure defense. remember, the court most likely is going to go through judicial contortions and acrobatics to make sure that the homeowner does not get a “free house.” just sayin’

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: