Older Forensic Title Analyses Need Updating — Even Ours

 A recent request from an old client brought to mind the changes that have occurred, as in her case, since 2011 — more than 7 years ago.
A quick review indicates that the facts were correct but the conclusions need tweaking. And the title record should be updated. Many new laws and case decisions have occurred since that report was finished and many new facts have been revealed about these older transactions.

For example it now appears that our assumption about the flow of payments was incorrect.
  1. Your payments were being made to a subservicer who was forwarding money on a separate contract to a Master Servicer.
  2. The Master Servicer then authorized, in its sole discretion, third parties to make certain payments to investors who had purchased certificates issued in the name of a trust, which turns out to not exist.
  3. The trust name was being used as a fictitious name for the named underwriter of the certificate offering. But the actual transaction was not an underwriting; it was simply a sale by the party posing as underwriter (implying it was working for a third party, presumably the nonexistent trust).
  4. By contract, the investors purchased their right to receive money arising out of a promise to pay issued by the named underwriter (i.e., seller) that was unrelated to the terms of repayment on any note.
  5. And most importantly the investors waived any right, title or interest to the loans, debts, notes or mortgages.
  6. Thus you can see that actions undertaken in the name of the holders of certificates or a REMIC Trust or the Trustee of a REMIC trust are all fabricated, to hide the fact that the obligation of the borrower has been transformed into an unsecured obligation to pay intermediaries who converted the investors’ money and thus claim to be principals entitled to enforce a debt in which they had no investment.
  7. Most of the documents uploaded to SEC.gov, if at all, are either unsigned or incomplete (or both) lacking a mortgage loan schedule or any reference to a particular loan. Such documents are ONLY uploaded to SEC.GOV which has no power to charter or approve any entities nor their filings, as long as they have been granted access to upload documents. Their existence on SEC.GOV means nothing.
  8. An assignment without actual transfer of the debt is without effect. In virtually all cases involving false claims of securitization no payment of any kind was ever made by any party in the chain for the origination or purchase of the loan. Our Case Analysis examines the issues arising from transfer of a promissory note which can cause legal presumptions to arise concerning ownership of the debt and transfers thereof.
  9. Analysis of the fictitious “trust” documents reveals the absence of essential elements of a trust hence leading to the conclusion that no actual trust was intended notwithstanding the illusions and implications contained in the documents themselves and the representations of attorneys and representatives of “servicers” to the contrary. Upon case analysis (apart from title analysis contained in our TERA report) the following basic elements of a trust are usually absent.
    1. Complete signed trust instrument
    2. Trustee with powers to administer the affairs of the trust and the trust assets
    3. Trustor/settlor creating the trust.
    4. Beneficiaries of the trust
    5. RES: anything that has been entrusted to the named trustee to manage on behalf of the beneficiaries
My suggestion, if the issues are still pending, is that you order the current TERA and the PDR PLUS, which includes a recorded CONSULT.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not if you order PDR)
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR BASIC or more probably the PDR PLUS, in your case — includes CONSULT)

8 Responses

  1. The trust my loan was allegedly in is also listed in exhibit A of the settlement with DBNTC and the FDIC, WAMU and JPMorgan Chase as being a faulty trust.

  2. ANON, The alleged trust my loan is claimed to be in has been proven not to exist and JPMorgan Chase claims to be beneficiary by operation of law by successor in interest which has been proven to be false. The lawyers made false pleadings stating the trust and DBNTC is registered to be doing business in Deleware and I have a certified letter from SEC of Deleware this is a false pleading. DBNTC plead they had paid all the fees to Washington State for doing business and I have certified letters from the SEC of Washington proving this is a false pleading and the judge allowed SMJ. So now I am filing through attorneys a Fraud Upon The Court case. Even the judge claimed JPMorgan is successor in interest to WAMU. One of the lawyers for my pro se case claimed the trust governed the note. And the trust does not exist but if the trust governed the note it was not in WAMU nor JPMorgan Chase hands in 2008 when it was to be deposited into the trust in 2006. Judges either are complicit with the crime or they don not know how to reason or add up. The loan cannot be in both hands two asses in one chair as one judge claims.
    False pleadings by lawyers is fraud upon the court.

  3. Do you charge for an update when we already paid for the title report and secutitztion analysi reports already?

  4. Also remember that under the PSA, if you are 1 months and 1 day late onyour mortgage, you are in default. Not 60,or 90 days. The loan is then removed from the trust.
    …..if there ever was a Trust. …..

  5. ANON – let’s not forget that under bothNY trust law, and of course Internal Revenue Code, that a number of these legal transgressions render the REMIC void,(not voidable),meaning that they are of no legal merit. ( attempting to put a defaulted loan into the Trust after the cutoff date, failure to abide by state law where the mortgaged property is located, etc)
    Also don’t forget the 100% penalty as detailed in the IRC and I believe the PSA.

  6. Then the trust does not operate as a REMIC.

    All that is described here is that “someone” gets cash flows. REMICs are set up as a fiduciary trust, entrusted to the trustee, to pass through cash flows only. The Federal Reserve has confirmed this as an opinion to the changes to TILA by Dodd-Frank.

    WHO then holds the collateral, if anyone??? And, what collateral.

    Java is right again. This describes an unsecured debt process. But, if courts negate, how do you challenge that?

  7. Unsecured debt can be wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings.

  8. I agree with everything above. However, what does one do with the TERA and PDR when courts couldn’t care less. Seems like a waste of time and money if it can’t be used to win.
    The debt in UNSECURED. That’s my main concern.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: