Since we know that most documents presented in foreclosure are inconsistent with other “securitization” documents it is only natural to suspect, assume and then corroborate that there are inconsistent sets of accounting records that are maintained to report different outcomes to the courts, the borrowers, the investors and the holders of contracts between the investment bank and the investors.
Lawyers and pro se litigants are probably overlooking this and should not simply notice the “Plaintiff” to produce a corporate representative at deposition. They should subpoena duces tecum all the documents, accounting records and correspondence relating to the subject loan. And they should subpoena duces tecum the servicer to produce the director, officer and employees with the most knowledge about each document.
As I have previously stated on these pages, this will reveal the “rest of the story.” The party claiming to be servicer is stating that they are a representative of the claimant in foreclosure. But is that who they pay after they receive borrower payments? Is that who they pay when they receive foreclosure proceeds? Is that who they pay then they do a short-sale or “modification”?
=====================================
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. 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.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
Lawyers know and understand the law. Unfortunately they are not so knowledgeable about finance, bookkeeping or accounting, nor of reporting requirements. The players in securitizations schemes are all reporting different data to different government entities and agencies that are inconsistent with each other. I have been saying for 13 years that this entire foreclosure problem is related to accounting and not just law. The absence of an accountant in these cases, at least as consultant for discovery, is in my opinion a mistake.
Simply understanding double entry bookkeeping may give you a much broader and better understanding enabling you to sink your teeth into the false and fraudulent case of foreclosure being presented.
- The receipt of payments from the borrower is one entry. In every bookkeeping system there is a required second entry.
- Lawyers should pursue the second entry.
- The first entry is posted to general ledger as an increase to cash on the balance sheet.
- It is not revenue.
- The second entry is posted to liabilities since the payment is being held, subject to withholding fees, for payment to third parties.
- This entry will tell you who gets the payment from the servicer — a vital clue as to who is really directing things (and thus who the client is for the foreclosure mill).
- It also rebuts the presumption that the holder of the note, as alleged by the foreclosure mill, is the party who will get paid by the foreclosure. Once that is exposed, there is no foreclosure case.
- The party(ies) getting paid are not the owners of the debt by reason of having paid value for the debt.
Comment posted on my blog:
Ocwen has been using defaulted loans to divert trust funds to its own master servicing fund. It maintains two sets of books: one reported to the trusts with paid down balance using servicer advances even though defaulted loans no longer in the trusts; other set of books with accrued interests billed to the to-be foreclosed on homeowners. The difference is to be realised at foreclosure. I have proof with my own mortgage. My loan was reported by Bloomberg had balance of $239K while they are trying to collect $450K from me. The difference is to be pocketed by Ocwen.
My only additional comment is that the writer was only partially right. The difference is distributed between Ocwen, the Master Servicer (Investment Bank) and other players.
PRACTICE HINT: The alleged “boarding process” (which does not really exist) is merely another fiction to create the illusion of confirmation of false data. You should ask for the accounting entries on the books of the alleged “successor” servicer. You might not find any entries because the new servicer only replaced the former party with a new login name and password and did not actually receive any money from the prior servicer.
Filed under: boarding process, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, legal standing, Pleading, Servicer, TRIAL OBJECTIONS |
These servicers have no clue what is in the previous books and records. They enter the information long after the origination of the loans. No one knows the lineage of these loans, except the seller, in my humble opinion. Some of these suits need to be directed at the buyer and seller of the loans after origination. They know exactly what they sold and to whom. Some of our loans were in default before they were in default…if you understand what I am saying. I have found ledgers with payoffs from what I am guessing is insurance and then they are transferred to the servicing entities for an additional collection, payment stream. This makes sense why all the “counterfeiting” is necessary. If they collected insurance, they would have had to produce the original note. Just saying…anyone else have another scenario, please jump in here. My paperwork looks like this is what happened. If you take a hard look at the servicers, like Ocwen, they have multiple avenues to move the asset. i.e. Altisource, PHH, Ocwen Financial, Ocwen Loan Servicing, Hubzu, etc…even when they buy the note at a foreclosure, with US Bank, it just goes in a circle. They are not affiliated in any way with US Bank. Most trustees are not initiating foreclosures.
YES – simulated parallel transactions