Partial Transcript of Neil Garfield Show on 5/16/19 -Chase WAMU Fraudulent Scheme

Listen to Show Click Here:
Hello, Neil Garfield here and this is Thursday April 25, 2019. Tonight, with the help of my guest Stephen Renfrow, we are going to take a closer look at the whole fraudulent scheme surrounding the false claims of Chase. I mean the claim that it somehow became the owner of loans that in some cases were not even originated by WAMU but in all cases were sold by WAMU contemporaneously with origination of all their loans.
*
The buyer was never Chase Bank. Yet Chase has escaped criminal penalties and still is allowed to foreclose on loans, pretending to be the creditor when in fact the owner of the debt has no knowledge of the foreclosure and never sees a dime from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale.
*
But first I want to give a preview of something I am working on. It is how mortgage loan debts go up in smoke, something that will be published initially tomorrow and then explored in further articles on my blog, www.livinglies.me. Remember that the old url for livinglies.wordpress.com is now redirected too www.livinglies.me.
*
When I first started publishing articles about foreclosure in 2006 and continuing every day since then I made the point that the foreclosures were not being initiated by or even on behalf of any creditor. That remains true today.
*
The main strategy I suggested was to follow the money.
*
The main tactics I recommended were discovery and cross examination together with properly made objections at trial.
Those who followed my advice won their cases regularly if not always — there are no guarantees when you go to court.
*
The ultimate strategy is to keep the burden on opposing counsel. If you are successful in doing that through the strategies and tactics I suggest for each case your chances of an outright win increase exponentially. And that is because opposing counsel has no case other than the thin veneer, often successful, raised by apparent facial validity of documents that are specially prepared for trial but presented as business records or through the misplaced use of judicial notice.
*
The point about knowing how securitization actually worked is not to prove it but to let that knowledge guide you to strategies and tactics that might appear risky but are not. By knowing that the money trail contradicts the paper trail you can ask increasingly probing questions that a robo0witness will not be able to answer.
*
If you actually accept the possibility that following the money would lead to a conclusion that is opposite from the paperwork relied upon by opposing counsel you will see every time that there are fatal gaps, inconsistencies and outright lies, fabrication and forgery of every document they proffer or present.
*
Here is the preview of debts going up in smoke. The investment bank funds the origination or acquisition of the loan. Then it sells all of the risk of loss many times over marketing the name, signature and reputation of each borrower without their knowledge or consent and creating pornographic profits.
*
Concurrently or within 30 days after funding the sales are complete. The income flow is sold to investors who think that they are getting shares of a trust. Concurrently with that and continuing thereafter the investment bank enters into various hedge contracts that remove all possibility of a risk of loss.
*
Each sale of such a contract represents another profit for the investment bank. When all is said and done, nobody owns the debt and the risk of loss has shifted from a default on a loan to a decrease in the value of the contract they are holding. The end result is that the many classes of investors are holding all the risk and are holding all rights to the income stream while the investment bank essentially controls but does not even hold the servicing rights.
*
It is completely walled off from any potential liability for violation of lending, disclosure or servicing laws. When the foreclosure is complete the investment bank who no longer owns the debt, is the one who collects the money and maintains the illusion that the contracts are all still valid even though the loan is gone.
*
 I am broadcasting live from Duval County Florida and this show is brought to you by the livinglies blog, GTC honors, Lendinglies, AMGAR, and the Garfield firm, and this show is specially brought to you because of donations to the livinglies blog from listeners like you. Thank you. And for those of you who are not contributors we ask that you HIT THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE THE BLOG OR call 954-451-1230 or
202-838-6345  and pledge whatever you think you can afford. If this show has value for you, if  our work on the blog and our radio shows, without payment or other support has value to you then chip in. Please make a contribution to help us continue helping you and all consumers.
*

Stephen R. Renfrow, born in 1957 in Louisiana, graduated with honors from Louisiana Business College, and Bakers Professional Real Estate College, has a varied background in multiple disciplines, including Management, Sales, EDP, in the fields of Banking, Insurance, Real Estate, Engineering and Telecom. Holds an honorary degree of Juris Doctor from American Justice Foundation.

2 Responses

  1. Each “entity” involved in the alleged loan transaction was insured against loss with separate ins. policies. (I’ve seen their “claims forms” for claiming these “losses” under various insurance policies) None of these insurance policies included “subrogation rights,” so, none was the wiser when AIG went belly-up for paying off bad loans with [multiple policies] for a single real property loan, before the “crisis” was even realized by the public-consumer!

    Question:

    So, how would you place the burden of proof on to the “investment banks” to prove that they are the legitimate creditor that’s owed money because [that] creditor was either the originating-lender which provided funding for the loan and still holds the original papers, or, [that] creditor actually bought the alleged debt (in its entirety, not as a debt-collector) from said originating lender or its secured-successor?!?

    Of course, there can’t be any ‘breaks’ in ownership of the lien securing the alleged debt, if said debt was sold (for full value), so, how would you go about getting [that] info, which is only privy to the alleged creditor?

  2. NG has been saying this for years, but i don’t see how a note can be sold 30 times to 30 different people. aren’t questions asked by 29 note buyers when the first payment of p&i to them is missed? and it sounds to me that the note buyers are not the trust or the certificateholders. neil has to give us concrete examples and proof of exactly how this happens, how it is possible. i can’t believe that investment banks would be that stupid to perpetrate such a massive fraud with clear documentary proof of the fraud. the logic here escapes me. it smacks of the same logic as the jesinoski argument, which totally ignores the 3 year statute of repose embedded in the statute.

    i confess that i must be a dimwit, because i must be missing something here, because all i see are unsupported allegations: no factual examples, no foundation, no nothing other than NG saying that this is what happened. if i went in to court with such an argument the judge would tossed me out faster than i could say “WTF.” And he would probably sanction me, to boot.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: