Banks Switching Tactics As “REMIC” Deficiencies Are Revealed

First the investment banks told the servicers to initiate foreclosure which they were more than happy to do since they were being paid ridiculous sums of money to do whatever they were told to do. Claims of securitization were routinely denied (2004-2009). The banks said there were no trusts (oddly enough they were actually telling the truth about that). Of course that didn’t work out because the claimant in a foreclosure must own the debt and there was no way for a servicer to claim ownership.

So the the investment banks told the servicers to hire lawyers to sue in the name of a Trustee for a REMIC Trust. The banks named as trustees rebelled ordering attorneys to cease and desist using their names in foreclosures. But then the investment banks upped the ante and increased the revenue from posing as a Trustee (without any powers) and indemnified the Trustees like Deutsch and US Bank from any and all claims of every nature.

So there it was. We had an investment bank who had funded the origination or acquisition of a loan using “remote vehicles” that didn’t exist in the name of “Trustees” who abhd no powers. Meanwhile papers were being fabricated, forged and transferred as though the originator was actually the lender the the successors were buying the loans.

None of that happened, but the facial validity of the paperwork enabled the investment bank, who remained in the shows, to raise presumptions about the authenticity of what were completely inauthentic documents.

So as a side venture many bank “originators” pretended to stay in the game, for a fee, in order to pretend that the loan was not subject to false claims of securitization. The object was to create the false impression that the named claimant in the foreclosure would actually be receiving the proceeds of the sale of the foreclosed home in order to pay down the debt. In fact, the proceeds go to the investment bank who shares it with none of the people who have the actual risk of loss.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
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 or check us out on Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
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.
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).
In one case presented to me BB&T was the originator and the loan was guaranteed by the VA. BB&T probably funded the loan but the loan was probably secretly sold to an investment bank who was using a “Trust” as the business name of the investment bank.
The foreclosure is never brought in the name of the investment bank. It is always initiated in the name of (a) a trust or (b) some bank who claims to have the right to enforce but steadfastly avoids claiming to be the owner of the loan.
Sometimes the bank is the originator who either funded the loan or pretended to fund the loan and sometimes the bank is a claimed “successor” based upon paper instruments and not based upon actual transactions in which value was paid for the mortgage.
Here is what I wrote:
The long and short of it is that I don’t think BB&T owns your loan. I suspect that it is not even servicing your loan even if it looks otherwise. I don’t think BB&T would engage in document fabrication, forgery and robosigning but they would allow someone else to do it. It’s called plausible deniability.
We would need to do more research and analysis, but I think the signature on the modification by Theresa Wyndham is bogus. I know she is neither an employee nor officer of MERS. That is a ruse. I don’t know if she works for BB&T but I doubt it. I think this loan is being administered remotely by a third party, probably out of Jacksonville Fl.
The notary identifies her as “Lender/noteholder” which we all know she is not. The witness signatures look to me to be fake and possibly even done by the same hand, but I am no forensic document examiner.
This all adds up to the probability that your loan is actually claimed to be an asset as part of a REMIC Trust that is being concealed. It would be under a “private label”. The reason is that the loan is guaranteed by VA. The claims of securitization that I think are being hidden here raise issues as to who is the party holding the guarantee.
BB&T would be used to pretend that it is still in the chain in order to preserve the appearance of the guarantee but it has no claim to receive that guarantee if I am right about it not having any risk of loss.
So this means that an investment bank bought the loan, using the name of a fictitious REMIC Trust as a fictitious name for the investment bank and then resold it (a) to investors who bought certificates entitling them to income from loans and (b) to investors who were betting on the value of the certificates that were issued. In all, the investment bank would have collected several times the principal amount of your loan. And the risk of loss on your loan would have again transferred out from the investment bank to the investors — who in most such contracts disclaim any right, title or interest to the debt or the right to enforce it.
This means that BB&T has no right to enforce — if I am correct. This can be revealed by asking for the original note to be produced, and demanding discovery on whether BB&T sold the loan or transferred the risk of loss on the loan to a third party. If they fight you on the answer then I am most likely correct in the above analysis.
The bottom line that gets traction in court is whether the claimant will actually receive and should receive the proceeds of the sale of the foreclosed property. If they are not the owner of the debt then the answer is no. If the answer is no then the claimant has no status as a claimant and no legal standing to claim the right to order the trustee to sell the property.
So you should demand to see the authority of BB&T to enforce the debt, note and mortgage — authority that would come from someone who either is the sole creditor or who has authority to represent the true creditors as a group.
You need to retain assistance from local counsel even if they don’t file an appearance for you. 

7 Responses

  1. davidnieckus, how is that new money created and at what rate of leverage is the banks balance sheet expanded.

  2. Jan van Eck- nice to see you back again, if only for a fleeting moment….

  3. Since the various bank entities that are being named on these foreclosure lawsuits are being set forth as “trustee of the XXX Trust,” suing the bank in their capacity as trustee puts no pain onto their wallets, as that gets shovelled off onto the income stream of the trust (or someone else). I suggest the way to bring pain to bear is to sue that Bank entity directly, as the Bank. Now you are putting their personal assets on the line, and if they lose in court – a real possibility – then that Bank itself has to foot the bill. One problem with suing the Trust (or trustee in its capacity as trustee of the trust) is that those so-called trusts likely either do not exist (the sham entity problem) or have no real assets to go attach. So if you sue the trust, you may even end up with a judgment, but nothing is there for enforcement of that judgment. If you sue the bank itself, then you can enforce against them (or more likely, force a nice settlement). Nothing like taking cash away from US Bank, they have it coming.

  4. Americans Against Foreclosures ( AAF ) keeps growing and has their eyes on KING vs LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST in the Montana District Court…”dual dipping” is a felony and perhaps we will finally see the FBI jump into action and arrest some Attorneys that forge the documents and record them on Title.

  5. @ incognito123

    Particularly because there was an explicit, as opposed to implicit, BROKER at inception of the origination event, please query and drill down on the following:

    “tila foreclosure rescission finance charge test”

  6. While many of the problems associated with most cases overlap, and I certainly have those issues as well, but I have one factor that is a less happening issue. The mortgage on public record states Wachovia Mortgage lent money, yet I have emails from the broker (who happened to work at the time for WM) indicating Wachovia Mortgage declined my application so it was going through Homecomings Financial (part of the GMAC entities that filed Bankruptcy in May 2012 – so it ceases to exist) and HF approved it. I spoke to the broker a couple of years ago and he basically admitted to table funding but not outright, then all the things you mention above are coming into play now as well after all these years!!

  7. As we all approach the bottom of the ‘RABBIT HOLE” we could/should find that the banks NEVER lent any money in the first place and everything they do is a cover up. Get that in your mind set and you CAN fight fight fight because you know YOU WILL HAVE TO WIN.

    We have been taught that banks lend money when IN FACT we are the creators of the NEW MONEY that is put into circulation.

    DavidSnieckus 203-518-1723 text with any questions!!!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: