The very idea of two huge Bank competitors naming each other as attorney in fact defies common sense — if they were dealing with anything real.
The use of “attorney in fact” is merely a ruse in order to bridge gaps in the facial validity of documents being used in foreclosure. It also is used to create the illusion that the grantor owned the asset over which the power of attorney was granted. In plain language it is simply a paper trail to cover up the fact that there is no money trail. People often forget that these cases are supposed to be about money.
And don’t forget that the entire purpose of using the names of large banks is to give a judge the impression that certain large banks are involved in the loan when in fact they are not.
=====================================
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.
========================
I recently received an email in which Deutsch was supposedly an attorney in fact for Chase and in which investigation revealed that Credit Suisse was in fact the person behind the curtain who was making gargantuan amounts of money off of derivative instruments based upon loans.
*
Typically the banks don’t actually execute the powers of attorney. The execution of the powers of attorney are by a robo signer who works for a servicer (or third party vendor) who poses as an attorney in fact for the bank named as attorney in fact for someone else, usually another bank. It’s what gives an false institutional flavor to the paper trail. The bank’s tolerate the use of their names on such instruments because they don’t actually own the assets and therefore they have no risk — unless somebody sues them for being a co-conspirator in a fraudulent scheme.
*
In discovery — the goal is to show that Deutsch did not have any administrative duties or authority over the active affairs of an existing trust that in fact owned your loan.
*
So it is a two-step process. First you eliminate all attributes of a “trustee” you argue that although it held the title of trustee it was not a trustee under the law and therefore had no right, title or interest in your loan. then you can ask for the actual Financial Arrangements between Deutsch and Credit Suisse (or whoever Credit Suisse was acting through)and you can ask why Deutsch was getting paid at all and what services do each provided in exchange for the payments.
*
But I don’t want to lead you down the rabbit hole. I don’t think you need to prove all that. All you need to prove is that neither Deutsch nor the supposed trust has any evidence of any transaction in which they acquired the debt by payment of value. If you are able to do that, you can then argue that since they did not own the debt, the attempt to foreclose cannot be an attempt to gain restitution for an unpaid debt.
*
If they argue that through securitization they are representing parties who paid value for the debt, you would have two responses.
*
The first is that Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state statutes does not permit a party to appear in a representative capacity for unknown owners of the debt. The second is that it is not enough for them to say that’s what they’re doing, they have to prove it. So you might ask in Discovery if they are appearing on behalf of an owner of the debt who paid value for it, and then ask for the identity of the owner of the debt and the details of any transaction in which the owner of the debt paid value for the debt.
*
The failure to prove the identity of the actual parties who paid value for the debt combined with the failure to prove representative authority to act on behalf of identified owners of the debt who paid value for the debt, can be argued as grounds for involuntary dismissal or judgment for the homeowner.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Attorney in fact, Chase, Credit Suisse, DEUTSCHE BANK, Power of Attorney |
People — you don’t get. If you proceed with all accuracy as to these “loans” — and you win –and you get others — we will have a financial collapse. A collapse that will be a disaster that will be worse than the 1930’s depression. THAT is why it is being prevented. It does not matter what you say — you simply don’t matter. All will collapse if any of you win and you set a “precedent.” .
Sorry – no other reason. But we cannot tolerate it. It will continue – unless we stop it. We are not to be scapegoats.
I have been to highest levels. This is the story. Remember – I am not in default – and can prove. Does not matter. Recorded records do no matter — all that matters is what is recorded internally — and not visible to you.
Scapegoat? Not us.
The power of attorney’s are also laughable, if not so destructive. POA’s go from no one to no one…ambiguous and specifically named to a “faux trustee or servicer…if I could post mine here, I would. the courts have absolutely no standard by which they hold the movants accountable. The rules of evidence are absolutely clear. The courts are making their own determinations…
Doesn’t a attorney-in-fact also need documentation proof with a POWER OF ATTORNEY ?????
“Attorney in Fact” (“AIF”) laughable. I have one in 2012 from Ocwen servicing, from New Century (“NCMC”) who was bankrupt and the assignment by the AIF to the REMIC, CSMC Trust was 5 years after the trust was closed and the unattached allonge is used, when there is ample room on the note for a signature. And, a stay was in place from the Federal Court for anything New Century, in 2012, yet they went to he state court (behind the Federal Court’s jurisdiction), while NCMC was in bankruptcy. The stay was in place and they were assigning property belonging to New Century, while converting the deed of trust to MERS, and the Delaware Federal Bankruptcy Court extinguished all MERS contracts in 2008….the judge ignores all of it. It is “evidence” of wrong doing.
If you do not have a legal holder “trustee” — you do not have a security trust. The “Trust” cannot stand without a legal holder trustee. Case law on this all over the country. In reality, the trustee is no where to be found in courts. Servicers act without them.
Agree – the Attorney-In- Fact is bogus.
Neil describes an unusual case in which another bank is disclosed. This is most often the case. Getting this information though is very difficult.
Sept 25, 2008, the World was made aware that WAMU stop existing as it was declared a “failed bank”! It was publicly know that the failing bank had all 1.3 million Fed Gov loans started being mortgage serviced by Well Fargo Bank on Jul 31, 2006.
After Sept 25, 2008 Wells non-judicially foreclosed on these loans providing the borrowers and courts with fraudulent Notice of Default and forged Assignment of Deeds of Trust when what is required by law is UCC9 providing proof of purchase!
Wells has admitted to not owning the debt as they were found at fault in the Holm v. Wells & Freddie Mac 2016, as the law firm Kozeny & McCubbin acting as MERS forged Assignment of Deed of Trust!
There are only two parties in a mortgage contract and that the lender and borrower, and the windfall from WAMU stop existing without having ownership of the Notes endorsed in blank and relinquish at the time of the development of Ginnie Mae MBS. Physical transfer of all the Note that had the UCC3 procedure performed is know to take place with the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing arrangement!
I have a fraudulent AOM from supposedly BOA to the lowlifes at Specialized Loan Servicing never signed by BOA but some firm Nationwide as ATTORNEY IN FACT.
Of course the fool in the robe , doesn’t even acknowledge it when bought to their attention in hearing and ignores all while signing the MSJ.
Are the servicers allowed to do Assignments/Transfers ? I believe when the investors/beneficiary changed these ones are the only ones who could perform the Assignments/Transfers, I noticed most servicers take that capacity to buy and sell. Which Federal Statue regulates who are the only ones who can perform the Assignments /Transfers also based in what statue we can challenge/dispute/validate those servicers are legit or having authority to service our mortgage accounts?