Insider Lawsuit Summarizes the BIG LIE About “Securitization.”

This is an insider case filed in April 2018. The ironic aspect of this case is the probability that Nationstar probably does not have standing. But that aside, for those who remain skeptics about what I have been writing about, here is an unexpurgated recitation of all the ways that all the loans, debts, notes and mortgages were fabricated based upon pure lies, making foreclosure a legal impossibility.

This is a case where a servicer has sued various parties, some of whom are players in the securitization game. The allegation is that the documents and assertions made by the Defendants were completely false and that none of them, despite the documents, had any nexus, right, title or interest to any of the loans, debts, notes or mortgages.

Lawyers would be doing themselves and their clients a favor by using this case as a drafting guide. But they can only do so after they have a achieved a level of knowledge to make sense out of all the chaos. If they do study the issue, even for a little while, they will have that “AHAH” moment and realize that the entire playing field is low hanging fruit for various types of lawsuits for compensatory and punitive damages.

Hat Tip Bill Paatalo

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.


Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).



See Complaint – Nationstar v Soria

Since the perspective is that of a claimed servicer that sometimes claims to be more than a servicer, you should remember that this is not 100% on point. Also not all of the Defendants are what they appear to be, so  don’t leap to conclusions about the specific actors named but rather recognize the truth when you read it. But it is very close. The allegations against these Defendants could just as well be used against all the securitization players.

And the knowledge that the lawyers for Nationstar had when writing this complaint clearly shows that Mr. Cooper and its lawyers had actual knowledge of the fictitious documents, entities and assertions made by the investment banks every day in court starting with “Good Morning your Honor, my name is John Smith and I represent the Plaintiff [a trust that does not exist]. This is a standard foreclosure case.”

Here are some interesting quotes from the allegations by Nationstar (now Mr. Cooper).

Who formed [West H&AJ]?
A: I did… .
Q: Has West H&A ever originated a single loan? A: Funded loan? . . . No. . . .

Q: [Y[ou were a complete stranger to this loan; correct?

A: Yeah. Suree……..

Q: [‘T]he assignment, who drafted it?

A: The assignment deed of trust, I wrote thatt…….. Q: Were you authorized by anyone other than yourself to assign this deed of trust? A: No.

“Defendants, strangers to the subject loans and having never lent a penny to anyone, created a criminal enterprise by which they hijacked ““thousands”” of mortgages via void assignments all in the name of ““helping”” borrowers.”

Q: [YJ]ou didn’t fund a single loan; correct?

A: No. Didn’t fund a single loan.

Q: [Y[ou were a complete stranger to this loan; correct?

A: Yeah, sure …

Q: The assignment, who drafted it?
A: The assignment deed of trust, I wrote that. …. . .

Q: Were you authorized by anyone other than yourself to assign this deed of trust?
A: No.

Over the last four (4) years, for the purpose of executing the scheme to 13 defraud, Defendants, together with others known and unknown, transmitted, and caused the transmission of, by means of wire and radio communication in interstate and foreign commerce, the following writings, signs, signals, and sounds which 16 constitute no fewer than thirty-eight (38) instances: …

Defendants falsely designated themselves as nominees for entities or sometimes used an outright fraudulent designation of another entity in order to gain credibility and trust, thus, purposely confusing the
public. Further, Defendants falsely advertised that they owned the hijacked properties for purpose of defrauding those individuals and creating confusion in the 6 marketplace. Finally, Defendants used the false claims to engage in deceptive practices to further their fraudulent acts. The following are no fewer than fourteen 8 (14) instances of the false information and deceptive acts perpetuated by Defendants.


13 Responses

  1. Hi Ian,

    I am not an attorney, and maybe Neil can address this. Fraud upon the court – I think — must show an officer of the court did something wrong. Well — we know the law firms are all doing something very wrong.

    Maybe you should get an accounting in state court to see where your money really went. It is costly to do this. But, that could possibly help show there was fraud.

    The money trail is critical. And, we all know it is NOT as stated by the “officers” of the court to the judge.

    The problem in foreclosures is that all they use in court is who is entitled to “enforce” the note. Who enforces the note is not the same party who will benefit by the foreclosure, or payment. When you relied upon those false statements, and paid in good faith, and you don’t even know where your money went — that is a major issue. And, there are stronger words for this.

    The “lien” is separate from the debt. That is why sometimes one sees discharges affecting the lien only and not the debt!!! This is shocking to see. NYC recording system is very easy to use. It shows much. No other state has such an easy research tool. Too bad.

    The major problem in courts remain – borrowers have no right to challenge assignments – bogus or not. And, that is whether you pay or not. I do not believe this issue ever went to SCOTUS.

    Never before has this country seen such a cover-up, and that the fraud is allowed to continue. .

  2. Here’s a question I just thought of:
    If the last 3 foreclosure attempts ( documents filed by servicers for nonexistent trust to begin fc proceedings) were paid up by me and dropped, do I have any cause of action for the last three foreclosures against the servicer? Fraud on the court or similar, and where might that lead?

  3. One word – “Collateral.” In the old days, when only Freddie/Fannie securitized loans, your stated lender remained your lender. No one cared whether the cash flows were sold to F/F. If there was a foreclosure, or loan mod, your stated Lender remained your Lender. .

    The private banks REMICs are NOT lenders. They do not fall under the TILA as the Lender/Creditor. We know that from the federal reserve. If the security investors now claim to be the “lender,” despite the federal reserve saying no — we have lost protection under the TILA. This should be an issue that goes to SCOTUS.

    We also know from Neil – that the REMICs were not funded. The claimed securities to the REMICs were derivatives derived from the claimed “loans.” Then there were CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations) that were derived from the MBS REMIC securities derivatives. Then there were Credit Default Swaps (CDS) that were derived from the MBS and CDOs. Then there were Re-REMICs that were derived from the CDS. None of these are Lenders to the borrower. Only the “Lender” can can discharge a satisfied mortgage – modified or not. . .

    When a loan is modified, it is the original contract that is modified. That is, the lender should remain the same – the contract is with the original stated Lender. Of course, most of those stated Lenders do not exist anymore. Thus, the end result of of who the “Lender” (or creditor) – is derived from the MBS, CDOs, CDS, and Re-Remics derivatives – and should be stated on the modified contract and recorded. Of course, the TILA is violated and non-existent because the process is not followed. How could this all happen? Because the loans were never valid to begin with. We are dealing with no more than a similar credit card debt — to which “title” does not have to recorded as a mortgage.

    So when the government pushed modifications – they knew these loans could never be recorded as a valid mortgage, because they were never one to begin with. And, they knew fake documents were recorded all across the county.

    The real question is — who is the collateral property owner? Not the servicer, not the trustee, not the trust, but the collateral property owner. And, that collateral property owner was in place when the “refinance,” and in some instances, new purchase, was originally executed. That collateral property owner exists today and remains concealed.

    These private REMICs were nothing more than transfer of already classified debt with a party that became the collateral property owner. And, again, neither the servicer, trustee, or trust is that party or your creditor.

    It is complex., Too complex for dopey Congress – either party. It does not matter who gets in tomorrow. I am not an attorney and this is not to be construed as legal advice.

  4. Yes, sounds familiar. About the same on mine. Afterwards, they breached the settlement agreement.

  5. For my mod, here’s what was changed from the original mortgage:
    1, amount due was changed
    2. Interest rate was changed
    3. Payment dates were changed
    4. Length of loan was changed
    5. Person to whom payments are madenwas changed
    6. Homeowners insurance payments now had to be remitted to servicer
    7. Balloon payment was added

    There was no resemblance to the original mortgage. It was
    Obviously a re-REMIC to resecuritize undermdifferent rules.

  6. The $300 mil relief for homeowners in CA still in dispute. Problem is those contesting r religious “social” groups pushing loan mods. They need to b educated as well.

  7. Hard to do a loan mod with an entity that does not own the debt, loan, mortgage or anything else.

  8. Loan mods – a catch 22 — people want them – they need them. But, the government never enforced that the party claiming to execute them — be disclosed.

    Loans mods just put a band aid on the the massive problem. And, may have done more harm than good in the long run.

  9. The case that is Nationstar v Soria

  10. Wow.. talk about the pot calling the kettle black…

  11. This has nothing to do with anything other than foreclosure defense schemers who did an excellent job of raking in millions filing fraudulent deeds. It appears they got away with it, as nobody is going to jail and they’ve got the money stashed. The homeowners lost their homes (that makes no difference to anybody) and the settlement amounts probably won’t be collected. Did I miss something?

  12. As long as these entities and attorneys get away with fraud on the court, forged documents, fraudulent documents and no standing, this will keep on keeping.

  13. Why would Wells Fargo NOT foreclose when answering all their motions to try to foreclosure and then send Servicing to Special Loan Servicing to try and foreclosure with even less standing than Wells Fargo???????

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: