PennyMac Laundromat: Is anything real there?

PennyMac appears to be a vehicle of “cleaning” fatal title deficiencies to the debt, note and/or mortgage on loans. It operates on behalf of CitiMortgage and multiple other entities on loans where the selection of a claimant is essentially random.

The basic playbook of the banks is to insert a real business entity with no actual connection or transaction involving payment of value for the debt, note or mortgage and fabricating documents to imply that such transactions exist. My investigation and that of others reveals that PennyMac is one such sham conduit, in order to create documents that give rise to the legal presumptions that are available when a document appears to be facially valid.


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 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) 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).
PennyMac is generally used as a vehicle to launder bad title and pursue foreclosures on behalf of entities that have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. Generally speaking all of the documents that purport to involve PennyMac and its predecessors are fabricated and false. They are false because they falsely imply the existence of financial transactions in which value was paid for the debt.
All residential home loans are about money and nothing else. The banks seek to distract you and the courts from looking at the money and instead, direct you into looking to documents. If I produced a document that looked facially valid, a judge might accept it as valid and true even though the matter asserted in the document is actually untrue. So for example if I were to produce a “facially valid” document saying I am your father, it wouldn’t be true but it would still be taken as true until you rebut the presumption arising from the “facially valid document.
So the first step is really examining a document to determine whether it is facially valid. There are times, strategies and tactics where it might be wise to direct the court’s attention to this issue by simply filing a motion that disputes the facial validity of a particular pleading oir document and asks for an evidentiary hearing on the subject. Some judges grant such motions because a ruling from such a proceeding might propel the case to an early end.
A facially valid means what is says. If the document recites all the elements required by statute and it is properly signed (and notarized if so required), the document is facially valid and the legal presumptions are available to the proponent of such a document or pleading.
So the court takes as true all assertions on the face of the document. A document is not facially valid if it is impossible to determine what is asserted as factually true.
A reference to an external document that is not attached or even identified frequently results in a dispute over the facial validity of the document which may require an evidentiary hearing on the validity and authenticity of the document. But if the opposing party fails to raise such an objection the document will be accepted as facially valid and then the factual assertions contained or implied by the document will generally be taken as true.
The debt lies at the root of the loan, the servicing, the collection, and the enforcement of the loan. Without the debt, there is no authority. Without the debt the action is not a foreclosure even though the lawyers label it as a foreclosure. The lawsuit or notice of sale is merely a device to generate revenue which is expressly void against public policy and law.
The problem is that the banks developed a scheme by which investors paid for the debt and never received ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. This means that third parties receive borrower payments, insurance payments, bailout payments and proceeds of foreclosure sales — something which is not allowed under current law, nor should it be allowed.
None of these third parties ever turn over such money to the investors who paid for value but did not pay value in exchange for ownership of the debt. As a result, any document implying the transfer of the debt through payment of value is substantively invalid because no such transaction ever occurred in the real world.
There is no reason for a “successor” to pay a “predecessor” if neither of them owned the debt. The only way you get to own a debt is by paying for it with real value which means money. When you ask for a description of such transactions you will be met with a variety of obscure objections whereas if they had it, they would gleefully reveal it. Neither the note nor the mortgage (or deed of trust) can be actually fully separated from the debt because the obligation to make payment on the debt is all that those documents are about.
I’m not saying the debt doesn’t exist. I’m saying based upon review and analysis of documents, there is nobody in the chain of title relied upon by your opposition who has ever participated in a transaction in which value was paid for the debt. Ownership of the debt can only be accomplished, based upon my research, by payment of value for the debt. See Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions including your own.
Payment of value for the debt is a condition precedent to enforcement of the debt. This is both common sense and statutory law. If “servicing”, administration, collection or enforcement of the debt is performed on behalf of a claimant that does not own the debt, then the condition precedent is not met. Such actions are illegal and any documents that are created to support such illegal actions are void.
If the “servicer” or holder of a limited power of attorney, as in many cases, is not the legally authorized representative of a party who possesses ownership of the debt (i.e., they paid for it) then their actions are illegal, unauthorized and probably fraudulent. In a foreclosure the court must know (not hope) that the proceeds of the foreclosure sale will go to a party or group of parties who paid value in exchange for ownership of the debt. If the court does not know that, it isn’t a foreclosure, which is a remedy exclusively designed to provide restitution of an unpaid debt. 
The issue confronting you is that the documents, at first blush, appear to be facially valid. But the reference to an unidentified unattached external document like a Power of Attorney in lieu of an actual servicing agreement reciting the authority of the parties, makes such documents facially invalid but still subject to proof. Upon proving authority as I have outlined above, the document could be deemed valid, if the proffering party proves the line of succession that starts with an owner of the debt. In virtually all “securitization” cases I don’t think any such line of succession exists.

7 Responses

  1. Update: A fake “servicer” PennyMac” hired a fake company to conduct property inspection for a Ginnie Mae’s loan

    PennyMac, (Countyrwide con men on Bank of America payroll) hired Arizona’s RSB Field Services who publicly poses as “LLC” but never was LLC or even a corporation. Merely a trademark for RSB Consulting LLC.

    So, RSB (Randy Balamut) Field Services, AZ trademark who was never registered in Michigan and whose Arizona registration expired in October 2019 conducted “inspection” on my property on December 1, 2019 as a Government’s contractor (my loan is VA loan) hired by a fake Servicer PennyMac under strict guidance from Ginnie Mae. .

    HUD/Ginnie Mae is a totally corrupt criminal mess.

    According to last audit of HUD (branch of Big Banks’ RICO enterprise) even OIG could not audit HUD since they considered a huge part of HUD’s finances not auditable,

    HUD’s top executives are sophisticated securities fraudsters. Drayne is a former CEO for Chevy Chase Bank who defrauded investors from 5 Billion;

    Another executive is a former CEO for GMAC

    Former Ditech, Cenlar CEO Anthony Renzi named CEO of Common Securitization Solutions. Ditech is another sham conduit for BOA who helped to launder broken Titles and defraud borrowers

    Eghbal “Eddie” Saffarinia, former assistant inspector general for IT, allegedly steered contracts to a friend’s company and failed to disclose cash payments.

    Of course foreclosures fraud is blooming with total impunity because criminals are sitting in the public offices and cover for their cronies

  2. My friends — does anyone read rules and regulations for “trial program” for Regulation AB??? Way back when – 2004/2005???. These trusts did not meet rules and regulations. Who knew it? Everyone but investors and borrowers. But it continues to go on — money is being diverted – endlessly. Does it continue today? Absolutely – Yes,.

    Neil is right – the money trail. It ain’t was it says it is. And, friends, I am still paying – like an idiot dope. At every level — judges avoid me with a ten foot pole – for many, many years. . Judges send to mediation, etc., for years – with no results. No decisions on merits. Just Keep going until we die. And I will get to Neil shortly what has gone on with me. Money? Past payoffs – decades ago – Vanished. No record. Past payments? Vanished – No record. Everywhere I paid. MONEY GONE. But I have proof and no court wants to touch it. Tosses it off elsewhere. Over and Over for way more than a decade. I need public access – to help all. But no one can give me. I don’t care about money – I don’t care about home – I have personal issues that trump. But I have a mission – and no one can help. No one can help to get public. Would help many if I could get.. Not happening. .

    Bob G – you are correct. But more. You ask the right questions – but need to know WHY. The question is always first – WHY???? You write – “the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed;” Correct. There was no performance. Nothing was paid as promised – by the borrower at refinance. NOTHING. NOTHING ever recorded as paid by the borrower at refinance. I am telling you this — it is what it is.

    So the stock market continues to climb – given quantitative easing – that has “eased” corporate borrowing for over ten years. Eased for corporations. Not the people. The victims remain in place. We are in battle with stock market against we – the people. But even the democrats who challenge – do not understand. They voted for it when they had the opportunity to expose it. Trump wants back to those “good ole times.” Not going to work.

    What goes “up” must come down – and down it will. Matter of time. .

    Thank you all – and Happy New Year. We will get there. Use Neil – I have no affiliation. But Neil knows what is going on. He can handle it.
    That is what we need — good case law. Use Bob G – use whatever you can., This is not now just about the “home” but about dignity and truth. We will get there. We do not want silent settlements – want case law. Please. Case law. You know it – use it. .For the people. NOW is our time. We can do it. Any access to press – let me know.

    BEST to all.

  3. @Summer similar experience every doc from PM wrong but forced thru sale, eviction after Chase couldn’t for 6 yrs. Many issues im looking at w property violations non compliance w city ordinance and city going along. Raising policy, enforcement t issues at city to state level.

  4. Added bonus PMac a non bank thinks it’s above the law.

  5. PennyMac is a renamed Countyrwide Financial who is working for Bank of America and other RICO organizations to launder dark money for shady “investors” and help to steal properties from borrowers, particularly HUD loans which were never pooled in any HUD or Ginnie Mae’s Trusts.

    They are EMPTY Trusts, solely to defraud taxpayerns who guarantee these loans to make them more marketable for investors who are also defrauded.

    HUD uses PennyMac, Caliber Home Loan, Bayview Servicing, ect – to cover the biggest fraud committed – by HUD and Big Banks who own HUD.

    Big Banks never place loans in HUD’s Trusts and the only way to cover for this is to “sell” HUD loans as “delinquent” to companies like Lone Star (owns Caliber); BlackRock (owns PennyMac) or BlackStone (owns Bayview), all controlled by Bank of America and other Stocvkbrokers.

    The loans HUD dumps pennies per dollar on these equity funds were never delivered to HUD, but guaranteed by US Taxpayers.

    My loan was purportedly “transferred” aka “sold” to PennyMac who started to lie relentlessly from day one about their “ownership” of my loan,

    The most recent stunt by “PennyMac” and Stanford Kurland and David Spector (who claim to be “Issuers” “Owners” “investors” “Servicers” of my loan at the same time)were two bogus “property inspections” by some shady company, who is not even registered in Michigan where my property is located.

    I keep investigating, but these criminals, particularly Kurland and Spector – must be in jail for 100-150 years each, next to Madoff

  6. How does this apply to WAMU? A great # of us are dealing with the urban myth that Chase got “everything” from the FDIC. We are also dealing with bad case here in CT that says that they got it all.

  7. U.C.C. 9-203 applies to payment for a security interest, not a negotiable instrument.

    However, U.C.C. § 3-303 is in my opinion a better card to play. U.C.C. § 3-303 (a) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if:

    (1) the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed;

    Although the national U.C.C. stated above is weaker than the NYUCC, in my opinion it is still a better statute to play than 9-203, for obvious reasons.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: