Livinglies's Weblog

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Bill Paatalo will post on his Blog today details on what he and host Charles Marshall will cover on the Neil Garfield Show today: First, a revisit to the LSF9 Master Participation Trust, with the use of a Pennsylvania case to highlight how this ‘Trust’ is used to create legitimacy for a fake Bank of America merger.

Second, Bill exposes significant document and notary fraud re a New Jersey bankruptcy case, and via an Idaho notary whose commission was suspended a few years ago, and may have been revoked.

see https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/for-banks-its-just-business-for-arnoldo-ortiz-its-a-prison-sentence/

see https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/lsf9-master-participation-trust-falsely-claims-merger-in-pennsylvania-court/

Neil’s Remarks:  This is an important show because it drills down on the details of bank fraud at the highest levels, permeating down to ground level and emerging as false claims for restitution for a nonexistent unpaid debt.

The question in the front of every judge’s mind is “So what?” The only answer that will move them is a bold statement that currently nobody whole ever paid value in the securitization scheme ever suffers a loss from nonpayment by a homeowner and that foreclosures are therefore being conducted for profit. Any notion that investors are getting paid is wrong.

*

As complex as securitization appears to be, the proof is simple. Can the foreclosure mill identify anyone who maintains an accounting record showing the subject debt as an asset? the answer is no because that is the way securitization works when you don’t securitize the debt and instead securitize data about the debt. Somehow we must get the point across that the vast pornographic profits generated by this type of securitization paid off the debt several times and that is why nobody claims it as an asset.

*

I think that a potentially important point is the reason for the fabrication of documents containing false statements. I have come to the conclusion that the reason is that the debt does not exist on the records of any company. therefore, they needed to create the illusion that the debt exists in order to enforce it. I think that the appearance of fabricated documents on an unprecedented scale resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in settlements is evidence, even if it is not conclusive evidence, that the debt does not exist without Reformation.

*

Reformation is actually the net result of the behavior over the banks over the last two decades. They have managed to successfully convince judges to allow for a designated creditor in lieu of an actual creditor. there is no Doctrine under law that supports such allowance. but there could be a contract imposed on all stakeholders, given the events that have already occurred. That contract would impute acknowledgement and consent to the homeowner for the designation of a nominee to serve as creditor in actions for enforcement. It would also require the imposition of legal responsibility and liability on the designee and the designator to conform and comply with applicable statutes — except as otherwise provided by the reformed contract.

*

The contract would also require that the homeowner receive consideration for such consent, especially in view of the unknown risks that the homeowner is deemed to have accepted. Hence the immediate loss from an inflated appraisal should be offset by compensation to the homeowner for being inducted into a securitization scheme. The higher risks of dealing with a designated or nominee lender rather than a real lender, would also give rise to compensation. And the undisclosed compensation of the investment bank and related affiliates would also be measured and applied as a yardstick for determining the amount of compensation that should have been paid to the homeowner.

*

In such a contract, the homeowner would be deemed to have assumed the risk of an inflated appraisal and incentives of the “lender” do undermine the viability of the loan. This is all contrary to public policy and law as set forth in the federal truth in lending statute State statutes which specifically Place responsibility on the lender for the accuracy of the appraisal and the viability of the loan. but since rescission may be off the table because of the existence of multiple third-party contracts in the securitization infrastructure, the only potential alternative, in my view, is Reformation.

*

My analysis leads me to conclude that despite all appearances to the contrary, the substance of what happened inevitably leads to the conclusion that there were two contracts and not one. (1) Loan Contract and (2) Securitization Contract. Neither one is enforceable unless conjoined with the other in Reformation. and the reason goes back to my initial statement above.

*

If the debt was never sold then securitization of the debt never occurred. All documents to the contrary are false. and if the end result is that there is no creditor at the end of the day who maintains an entry on the books of account in which they record a transaction in which they are acquired legal ownership over the underlying debt, then the banks have created a transaction which is not recognized by law — a loan without a lender.

*

And if the initial loan documents designated a non lender as payee under the note and mortgagee under the mortgage, then the initial documents were void and should never have been recorded. Any instrument created after the apparent closing that was used to create the legal presumption that the ownership of the debt, note and mortgage had been transferred would therefore be equally void. You can’t transfer a debt that has been retired and possibly extinguished.

*

I think we must travel in this direction because I don’t believe any court or any legislature is going to willingly undermine the securitization infrastructure even if it is defective. And I don’t believe they will undermine the loan contract without providing for an alternative for enforcement.

Filed under: foreclosure |