There is no bank

Foreclosures are based on illusion. If the debt is subject to claims of securitization there is no bank — by definition. That’s not an opinion. It is a fact. As soon as you allow use of that word “Bank” you are adding to the illusion that you owe money to a bank. You don’t. Refer instead to “the claimant” or, if you must, to “the trust”.

You should object to the use of the word “bank” in describing the claimant and you should never use it yourself. Using the word “bank” is a tacit admission that you owe money to a bank which is what the foreclosure mills want the judge to think. If you win against “the bank” you are perceived as undermining our institutions.

But if you win against a trust because it doesn’t exist or at least does not own the debt, then you are perceived as just beating up some private group of investors even though none of them have any right, title or interest to collect, process, administer or enforce your debt.

Words matter. If you want the judge to see that you are victim to a fraudulent scheme, stop using the words employed by foreclosure mills — especially the ones that further their narrative.

“The bank” is a phrase that is often used interchangeably with “lender”. It is most often used in attempts to force the sale of residential homes when the debt is subject to claims of securitization. The foreclosure mills use it because it melds the “originator” with the name used as trustee of a trust, which always has a bank name in it. But that bank name has no right, title or interest in your loan and never receives any payments from borrowers, nor proceeds from foreclosures.

The bank name used as the lead descriptor in foreclosures is a ruse to have judges assume that the debt has gone through normal channels.  The judge then sees the case as Bank vs you.

The first rule in taking control of the narrative is to highlight your objections to the judge. For example:

“Objection your honor. Counsel is using the term bank when in fact the claimant, according to them, is a trust.”

The response will be that you are a fool etc. The bank is the trustee of the trust so what is wrong with naming it?

“That’s true your honor, assuming the trust exists and it owns the debt. But is not accurate to say that the bank is the claimant. Normally in litigation the trust is referred to by name not the trustee, even though the trustee is named as the entity representing the claimant.”

Full stop. Your point is made. It doesn’t matter how the judge rules. You have planted the seed of doubt. And you have pushed opposing counsel off balance.

THEN you keep referring to the trust and you refrain from using the word “bank.” Eventually when it comes to discovery and other  issues relating to the scope of duties of the trustee, your demands will more likely be sustained by the judge.

And of course the big question is when did my debt get entrusted to the named trustee? The answer is never. So it isn’t in the trust even if the trust existed. And that means the wrong claimant is making the claim.

Practice note: It will never be the right claimant unless the interests of the investors who bought certificates (value paid) are conjoined with the interests of the underwriter (value paid) and the originator (payee on note and mortgagee on mortgage). That will never happen because it puts the investment bank in the position of undisclosed lender violating TILA, FDCPA etc.

That was the whole point of using an originator — creating a vehicle for unregulated lending. The reason is simple: the one party (investor) who paid value never received ownership of the debt.  

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. IN FACT, STATISTICS SHOW THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FAIL TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE PROPERLY. EVEN THOSE THAT PRESENT THE DEFENSES PROPERLY LOSE, AT LEAST AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AT LEAST 1/3 OF THE TIME. IN ADDITION IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

4 Responses

  1. Never, ever, use the word “Trust”. 1) the trust did not comply with Regulation AB rules. 2) a trust cannot stand alone without a trustee 3) there are many types of trustee – but the only one relevant is the legal holder. If the trust is non compliant – there is no legal holder. But if you use the word “trust” – you will wind up with a judge accepting that without question. “Bank” trustee is no show. Force the bank’s – not the division trustee – to show. It is a trap to name the trust. Trust me. And Summer – agree with you 100%.

  2. Been there, seen it.

    Planted a field of doubts – Trust does not exist, Trustee – Deutsche Bank – filed form 15D (resigned) four years BEFORE foreclosure was filed, all documents are forged, all statements are lies, ect.

    Judge laughed in my face, criminally concealed the Note (purportedly “original”) from my case records; and Goldman Sachs (who was the real party behind “Servicer” Wells Fargo and “Trustee” DBNT – walked away with my property in their pockets while their agents continued to lie to me in every step.

    Plus Goldman Sachs resold my mortgage already foreclosed property to another fake Servicer – Specialized Loan Services, LLC

    In Illinois Courts belong to people (as Justice Jesse Reyse says)

    People are well-connected lawyers and financial institutions who pay generous $$$$ donations to Judges (including Reyse)

    So, money rule

    These criminals need to be locked next to Madoff and Weinstein

  3. Keep this coming, good stuff!

  4. This is BRILLIANT !

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: