OFAMA: Acronym for 2020

As you are no doubt aware on a daily basis I seek more information, research, and analysis about the residential loan market. In addition I spend a lot of my time trying to simplify the task of presentation in court in a competent, credible and convincing manner. Don’t think you are a lawyer because you read this. Get advice from local counsel before deciding or acting.
*
Toward that end I have currently landed on the acronym OFAMA meaning Ownership — Fabrication — Agency — Money — Authority.
*
OWNERSHIP: The plain fact is that the “loans” do not qualify as loans or gifts. That puts them in a legal purgatory because it is impossible under current law to own a debt without paying for it. And it is impossible to enforce a mortgage without owning the debt. So even the receipt of money for a “loan” does not create or even allow for a valid promissory note or mortgage if the named Payee  and Mortgagee did not pay for the loan. All “transfers” are a legal nullity if the transferee did not pay for the debt. Execution of the note creates a separate distinct liability from the debt created by receipt of money for the loan. Even if the loan was a genuine loan from the originator Payee or Mortgagee, the transfers of the note and mortgage are subject to the same problems. There is no consideration after the loan is subject to claims of securitization.
*
FABRICATION: In order to initiate foreclosure proceedings, companies are organized around the practice of fabricating, forging, backdating and robosigning documents that appear to be facially valid in order to raise certain legal presumptions of ownership, agency and authority. Those presumptions are easily rebutted if the homeowner is very aggressive in getting an order from the court commanding the opposition to produce proof of payment.
*
AGENCY: By inserting MERS and dozens of other intermediaries, the activity alone is meant to and does give rise to an judicial assumption that the documents are genuine and even if they are not the foreclosure will result in restitution of an unpaid debt. That belief is the reason why most judges bend over backwards in allowing foreclosures to proceed whereas in prior decades they would have thrown the case out even if the homeowner didn’t even show up. Your opposition will attempt to use sleight of hand by creating the illusion of agency. The agency they are supposedly promoting is both real — as to  parties who don’t own the debt — and unreal — as to parties who own debt.
*
MONEY: Your loan is solely about money. The documents are about money. The procedures are intended to be about money. Foreclosure is meant to and is assumed to be a remedy for restitution of an unpaid debt — not simple enforcement of a contract. If money is not involved then there is no foreclosure process that applies. If the claimant in your foreclosure is not the owner of the debt then the case is not about restitution of debt to the claimant by definition. But a problem emerges when judges presume that even if the claimant is not the owner of tehd ebt, the proceeds of the foreclosure sale will be paid to the parties who paid for the debt. Most judges have little or no experience with complex finance. So their ignorance is understandable. The truth is that almost every residential loan has been subject to claims of securitization and from the moment those claims arose, the parties who paid for the origination or acquisition were investors but they failed to become owners of the debt, leaving it to anyone who wanted to claim it. Current law does not allow for that. Changes in the law will be explored in the current year such that securitization is possible but that means comprehensive change in disclosure and practices.
*
AUTHORITY: Ultimately all of the cases boil down to a general belief that somehow all the parties are related and are on the same team. Nothing could be further from the truth. The parties who cooperate in each foreclosure are actually engaged in weaponizing the procedures for foreclosure into a scheme to generate revenue. We know that because in no case do the money  proceeds from a foreclosure sale or REO sale go to anyone whose money funded the origination or purchase of the debt. Those investors only received an unsecured promise to pay from a securities brokerage house (“Investment bank”) whose promise was conditioned on a variety of events and who never retained any risk of loss on any loan — thus changing the entire business dynamic of lending in which borrowers and regulators realistically presumed that lenders would be worried about lack of performance on the loan. Instead, under the new securitization dynamic, they were using their apparent authority and their relationships with sham conduit entities to profit from (a) steering borrowers into loans with interest rates higher than the return promised to investors (2d tier yield spread premium) and (b) “trading profits” arising from the issuance and trading in various contracts, hedge instruments, and other options and insurance that paid off when the loans or the certificates failed. In short the worse the loan the more money the securities brokerage firms made. Receiving the proceeds of foreclosure is just the cherry on top of a much larger scheme to generate revenue that averaged 12 times the amount of the loans.
*
Don’t try to educate the judge as to all of this. Just attack the basic premise of the foreclosure but in doing so attack the authority and agency of the parties claiming to be servicers, trustees or other administrators so that in the end it is apparent in court that (a) the claimant does not own the debt and (b) is seeking to enforce the debt on behalf of persons or entities that are not carrying the debt as an asset on their own books and records. Eliminate the presumptions and rest. There won’t be any real evidence to replace the destroyed presumptions. 

3 Responses

  1. CAROL MEIR…contact me at private email addy. bob1365@gmail.com.

  2. I agree wholeheartedly with Neil on this post. I can prove without a doubt that US Bank never owned the debt on my loan and neither does the US Bank as Trustee of the 2016 Truman Tile Trust who they sold it too. The obstacle that I need help in overcoming is the statute of limitations. US Bank bought only the servicing rights to my loan in 2008.
    My attorney says I’m to late. He also said that that statute passes on to the Truman Trust so I can’t go after them either. What can I do? How can I or any of us overcome the statute of limitations of these corrupted loans so we can win?

  3. Excellent Acronym Neil. Look – I had a friend attorney say to me a long time ago — “So who cares if the party foreclosing is not the real party — The borrower is in default. What does it matter? Get the real party in there.”

    One — The real party never surfaces.
    Two – The loan was not valid to begin with. ALL WERE DEFAULT REPORTED LOANS before anyone signed on dotted line.
    Three – Government knows it, and has covered up.
    Four – Judges don’t have a clue.
    FIve – THE MONEY TRAIL – THE MONEY TRAIL – THE MONEY TRAIL. It it NOT what it claims to be.

    I am paying. Going to fight this all the way. NO one can tell me where money is going. No one can tell me where past refinance “payoffs'” went – as they were internally recorded in default. Even though I have proof with cancelled checks – and I have never been in default.

    So, as I see it, unless the government steps up to the plate, this will remain the greatest fraud scam of all time. Will do all I can, as I know Neil does – to expose.

    2019 – year of stock market rally. Last ten years – years of stock market rally. Why? Because the government knows exactly what has gone on and continues to go on – so they hold interest rates low – to keep economy functioning – for a decade. All has caused simply a larger shift of wealth from victims to stock market investors – all promoted by the government and media pundits.

    Happy New Year to all.

    I, for one, will not accept being a victim. And, I know, neither will Neil.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: