Wait! Somebody must have paid something right?

How do you know what was paid by whom and when and what terms applied? The whole point here is that money was paid by investors who did not receive ownership to the debt, note or mortgage. Nor did they assign any equitable right to the debt, note or mortgage. Since the value was paid by a party who never received ownership, no “successor” would have any reason to pay value for ownership nor did they do so.
And before you decide to shift gears, the investment bank took in money from investors as a commercial deposit — i.e. a  third party loan — as part of purchase of promissory note (certificate) to make payments to the buyers. While that COULD have resulted in the vinestment bank becoming the owner of the debt, note and mortgage on loans granted to borrowers, it didn’t. Like the investors who bought certificates, they paid for it but not in exchange for ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
Not one note or mortgage was made payable to the investment bank and not one “Loan” transaction was funded directly by the investment bank who channeled funds through several existing legal business entities. This was done to evade liability for lending law violations and as Chase found out you can’t have it both ways. You either were the lender or you were not. You either “succeeded” to the position of the predecessor or you didn’t.
The media gets it wrong because they cannot conceive of a scheme that simply isn’t allowed under existing law and if it was allowed there would be changes in all affiliated laws as well — this giving investors the real scoop on what was being done with their money and the borrowers the real scoop on how much revenue was being generated from the origination or acquisition of their loan. In the current custom and practice of securitization of residential debt, the certificates and possibly the promissory notes would be regulated as securities.
The key change in the law that is needed for securitization to be allowed as practiced and for title to be cleared is the designation of a non-owner who didn’t pay value for the debt to be the creditor. This is a massive paradigm shift, but one which is probably needed. But right now the ONLY way we can acquire a debt is through payment of value for it in exchange for rights of ownership of the debt.
That is precisely where the media, attempting to report on the facts, gets it wrong. they simply cannot conceive of a scenario where all this paperwork would be flying around and that such instruments would be meaningless, without value and legal nullities — except for erroneous legal presumptions arising from the erroneous conclusions that the instruments have facial validity. So you see court decisions and article referring to sales that never occurred. They also report loans that never occurred.
And so we have a huge body of law allowing foreclosure rewarding people and business entities who receive the proceeds of forced sale as revenue instead of payment on a debt they never owned or paid for. And that is required change in the law that is needed. Upon revision of all relevant statutes, once a business entity is “designated” as creditor all efforts by anyone else must stop as to collection, processing, administering, or enforcement of any debt, note or mortgage. The game of musical chairs played by investments banks, servicers, “trustees” etc. must stop if we are to make sense out of any of this.
In most cases loans were originated from non capitalized brokers or sellers of loan products, not lenders or were creditors. This information is withheld from borrowers contrary to the requirements of Federal and state disclosure requirements to consumer borrowers.
Also withheld from borrowers is the fact that their signature, name, reputation and home is being used as part of a securitization scheme in which the loan labeling is misleading because neither the originator nor even the “warehouse lender” has any risk of loss. The entire transaction is different from what the borrower thought and different from what the borrower had a right to think as per common law, Federal and state lending statutes.
Borrowers are not required to understand that the “loan” is no longer part of the system in which money supply increases (because that already happened when investors purchased certificates from investment banks).  But under current law lender s ARE required to know that and do know that and they further know that their incentive is to get the signature of a consumer for fees not interest income.
The entire burden of viability of any consumer loan is not on the borrower (Caveat emptor) but on the lender who knows better. That is the law. AND the law presumes that the risk of loss is a self-regulating market force that forces lenders to make good loans. But what happens when there is no such risk? The transaction is changed and the transaction is no longer within the boundaries of the existing lending laws.
In short, such transactions are either not legal or carry heavy penalties for violations. If banks avoid such liabilities by intentional concealment of the true facts and thus produce catastrophic anomalies in the marketplace (see 2008) displacing tens of millions of people from their homes, why should those homeowners bear the full burden of such a catastrophe? Both policy and law agree on this. They shouldn’t.
The counterpart in what was labeled as a loan agreement was in actuality a vendor to the investment banking industry who didn’t receive interest as revenue for making a loan and who had no risk of loss. It was a scheme where all participants received fees, commissions, bonuses trading profits and other compensation arising from the origination of the transaction intentionally mislabeled as a loan in which the mislabeled “lender” was seen as seeking interest income on principal when in fact the interest payments and even the payments on principal were completely irrelevant to the originators and the “warehouse” lenders.
“Successors” under current law are merely designees not successors because they have not contributed any money toward payment of value for the debt — a basic black letter requirement under current law.
All of this is very counterintuitive and it is meant to be. The more complicated the banks make it the more everyone relies on the banks to tell them what these paper instruments mean and what events are memorialized in those paper instruments. But the plain fact is that there are no events memorialized in the paper instruments. There were no transactions. Why would anyone pay value for a debt that is not owned by the “seller?”

7 Responses

  1. ANON- I’m still trying to formulate a response, sorry to leave you stranded here w no feedback! At times I’m overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information I’m receiving.

  2. Response anyone??? Trying hard. Need feedback.

  3. Have to fix sound button JohnR — no time to figure out how to do.

    Here is the one step that is skipped — as to financial crisis loans:

    Nothing was paid off by the borrower at refinance. Why? The loan was already reported in default to the GSEs. So all you got at refinance was a transfer of reported “default debt.” — whether you defaulted before THAT refinance or not.

    Investors paid for NO MORTGAGE OR NOTE — all they invested in was a stream of cash flows generated by default debt collection on reported default debt to GSEs (Oh – those investment bankers were once known as servicers to GSEs – that is – THEY reported). No borrower was ever informed. And that is why you have your (non) friendly “debt collector servicer.” This also spilled over to some home purchases – through the prior owner.

    I once went to one attorney (have been to many) many years ago, and asked: “How can a reported default loan to GSEs be refinanced?”. The answer was: “It is done all the time.”

    I wish I was more adept in computer literacy. I have become better, but years ago – I was an idiot. I found information from the CEO at the savings bank who claimed to refinance our loan – many years ago. He wrote: “Contact me – to find out how to turn non-performing GSE loans into performing loans.” I never saved it. Didn’t know how.

    Here is the problem with my own loan — I have proof of every single payment and refinance payoff over past decades (there were not many refinances). I have all cancelled checks and proof of payment for every single month. So — who reported our loan in default to GSEs and then claimed to refinance? I have proof this happened. Who took that loan and securitized into their own “TRUST” and sold back tranches to GSEs? I have proof of that. Who then liquidated the loan before our last refinance? I have proof of that. Who took our first early payment on last refinance and never recorded it as paid? I have proof of that. Who put us on a permanent distressed debt path that can never be cleared for title? I have proof of that. Who keeps our payments? I have no proof of that.

    Does all this matter in a Court? No.

    Investors never knew what they were truly investing in, and when it finally came to fruition – we had what is now called – The Great Financial Crisis. Only problem is – the truth was never told. It was — as it always is — all about money and profit. However that profit may be made. The government justified by claiming a total collapse of the financial system would occur if they did not act as they did. They gave up the victims. We were the “boat” travelers who would not survive. Old economic story that I have told here before: Five in a boat, it is collapsing, and only one person can be saved. Who do you save? The answer was – the one who can save the most “other” people. The other four boat people — do not survive.

    Look — I can accept “BAD” title and move on with my life. No foreclosure. I will not. I will not let the truth remain buried. There were too many boats. Too many people drowned. We are here for a short while. Make it worthwhile. Stand your principle. Unite.

  4. Summer,
    You may be interested in Pennymac and Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital, 3rd Amended Loan and Security Agreement. You can view it on LawInsider. To a layman, it appears as though Credit Suisse has tightened up their loan covenants to include everything that Pennymac has that isn’t nailed down. May have some thing to do with your post.

  5. Yeap.

    And when you start to ask direct questions – these Dirty Rotten Scoundrels completely lose their grounds and start to lie relentlessly – while try to convince borrowers that EVERYTHING about their loans is “proprietory” information, ; all questions are “overly broad” or lack specifics and other junk they try to feed as.

    In my situation my purported “Lender” Perl Mortgage (now joined Cross Country Mortgage) never originated or funded any loans.

    Perl merely passed my information to Caliber Home Loan (fna Countrywide Financial, inc) in San Diego, who is managed by Chris Mozilo, a relative to Angelo Mozilo, CWF President

    Perl (aka Caliber) transferred my loan to themselves on my closing day – but lied that Perl “transferred” it to Caliber three weeks later.

    During this time my loan was assigned three different numbers, which I suspect allowed three different companies to trade on my identity at the same time, which is identity theft. .

    Caliber, purportedly Servicer of Ginnie Mae Trust (non-exist) which “holds” my security as a collateral for investors, in April 2019 passed my loan to PennyMac, formerly Countrywide Financial operated by Stanford Kurland, former CWF VP.

    On May 8, 2019 PennyMac issued their own securities for $198 million, , for their REIT Trust which has all information published.

    Ginnie Mae, a GSE which has purportedly “strict” control over their loan, required all information to me published and recorded.

    When I asked PennyMac how they accrued my loan, they started to lie relentlessly.

    First, PennyMac said they are Owners/Investors/Purchasers (!) of my performing loan.

    When I asked who sold them my loan -PennyMac lied that it is “prioprietory.

    Later PennyMac lied that they are Ginnie Mae’s Issuer of securities backed by my loan – about which Ginnie Mae has no knowledge.

    All my payments are collected by Bank of America (the real party) who said that my CURRENT servicer is Caliber (while PennyMac said they are Servicers)

    PennyMac “explained” that when I send them my payment, it is forwarded to Bank of New York (who has no idea that is going on) and remitted to Investors.

    But during May-August 2019 PennyMac insisted that they are Investors!

    So, first I send my payments to PennyMac-Issuer who deposits it with BOA who cash my checks.

    After that BONY comes to BOA, take my deposit and remit it to PennyMac-Investor?

    Sounds right.

    In reality, I think these criminals simply stole my loan to defraud their own investors from $198 million telling them that PennyMac “owns” loans they never had.

  6. If you’ve not yet seen it, I think you’d really enjoy watching this very pertinent interview between Joe Rogan and Matt Taibi (creator of the expression Vampire Squid (for Goldman Sachs)). Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0BHAD4tQwQ&t=6s

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: