The banks employ a fairly large army of people whose job it is to discredit meritorious foreclosure defenses. Their job is to convince the public and lawyers and judges in general to accept the notion that the “loans” are real, that documentation alone is sufficient to win a foreclosure even if it is challenged, and that the specific facts reported on this blog and others are merely “conjecture” or “hypothetical.”
Such comments are meant to provoke a certain reaction and the banks have been successful at it — 96% of all homeowners served with foreclosure papers walk away from their biggest and maybe their only asset. Unlike myself, none of them worked on Wall Street in any capacity except writing for the investment banks. Unlike myself and the dozens of lawyers across the country that have defeated foreclosures, these “commentators” have no experience in law, trial work, forensic auditing or anything else. they serve only one master — the myth that are directed to propagate.
In effect, they are conveying the erroneous and false impression that lawyers like myself could not possibly have won cases in state and Federal courts because all we have is conjecture and no proof of our irrational “theories.” But our strategy is no theory. If someone is named as the claimant in a foreclosure case the law requires them to have paid value for the underlying obligation. If they haven’t paid value they fail (i.e., they don’t get the foreclosure order or sale) for two reasons — (1) non compliance with condition precedent in Article 9 §203 UCC and (2) noncompliance with constitutional requirement that only injured people can bring claim for relief.
These shills post comments on this blog and social media to drive consumers away from their only path to relief from illegal, wrong, immoral foreclosures.
Mostly I ignore them. Most of them, like Bob G below, have no credentials in finance, law, accounting or lending. I, on the other hand, have extensive (50 years) academic degrees with highest honors in securities, accounting and law along with licensing in securities trading and analysis. See my bio. I also am a real live licensed attorney (43+ years) who has won most of the foreclosure cases referred to me and I have extensive experience representing both lenders and borrowers since 1977.
The latest bit of pure silliness comes from Bob G, who, writing for the banks, says
The trustee doesn’t have to buy anything. [EDITOR’S NOTE: TRUE BUT THE TRUSTEE MUST RECEIVE SOMETHING THAT HAS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED VALUE FROM SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT THE ASSET, IN THIS CASE A LOAN]. Only needs to have the beneficiary convey property to the trustee that the conveyor had a legal interest in. [EDITOR’S NOTE: NONSENSE. BENEFICIARIES ARE THE RECIPIENT OF AN INTEREST IN THE ASSET THAT WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE TRUSTEE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND]. Now, I can also give you a quitclaim deed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. I may or may not have a real property interest in the White House. But that doesn’t matter. I can still convey the deed to the trustee. Whether it turns out to be a real asset is another matter to be determined by a court. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THAT DEED WOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE ACCEPTED AS FACIALLY VALID. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS, THE DEED IS VOID. NO PROPERTY INTEREST CAN BE CONVEYED EXCEPT BY SOMEONE WHO OWNS IT.
In the cases that interest folks here, there is a real owner of the mortgage note hiding behind the curtain. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. THE CASES OF INTEREST ARE THOSE THAT INVOLVE FALSE CLAIMS OF SECURITIZATION OF LOANS. IF THE LOANS HAD ACTUALLY BEENS SECURITIZED THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A SALE OF PRO RATA SHARES OF THE LOANS TO MULTIPLE INVESTORS. NO SUCH SALE OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS A REAL OWNER HIDING BEHIND THE SUGGESTED CURTAIN THE PROOF IN FORECLOSURES WOUDL COME FROM THAT PERSON, WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW. INSTEAD THE FORECLOSURE PLAYERS SKATE PAST THAT REQUIREMENT BY RAISING LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS FROM THE FAICAL VALIDITY OF FABRICATED, FALSE DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO OWNER BECAUSE TEHRE IS NO LOAN ACCOUNT HELD AS ASSET (I.E., OWNED BY) ANY COMPANY. THE LOAN ACCOUNT IS EXTINGUISHED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY IWTH ORIGINATION OR ACQUISITION OF THE DEBT.]
Original REMIC trusts are a different matter. There, there is a PSA or trust agreement. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THERE IS ALWAYS A TRUST AGREEMENT WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN BE NO TRUST. PROFFERING THE PSA AS TRUST AGREEMENT IS MISLEADING THE COURT. THE TRUST AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT THE TRUSTEE OWNS NOTHING OF LEGALLY RECOGNIZED VALUE AND THAT THE BENEFICIARIES ARE NOT THE INVESTORS BUT RATHER THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT STARTED THE SECURITIZATION SCHEME.] There is also a named seller and depositor. [EDITOR’S NOTE: COMPLETELY UNTRUE. COMPANIES ARE NAMED AS POTENTIAL SELLER OR POTENTIAL DEPOSITOR FOR FUTURE VENTS. NO SALE IS RECITED IN PSA]. If you try and use arguments propounded on this site to win your case, you are not going to have much success, in my opinion. [EDITOR’S NOTE; BOB G’S OPINION IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE HE LACKS ANY KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE TO OFFER AN OPINION. IT ALSO FLIES IN THE FACE THAT MANY LAWYERS, INCLUDING MYSELF HAVE WON THESE CASE FLAT OUT WITH SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE JDUGE THAT THE “TRUSTEE”, THE “TRUST” AND THE “SERVICER” WERE NOT AUTHORIZED WITH RIGHTS TOE FNORCE GRANTED BY ANYONE WHO OWNED THE UNDERLYING DEBT. JUDGMENT FOR HOMEOWNER].
Filed under: foreclosure |
Leggi — I do not state this as to Bob G. He is NOT a bank shill. You have proved nothing. Honestly, you are way behind the eight ball. You sound like a smart guy — how you can be so far OFF is astounding. Do the math – do the accounting. Whoops — you won’t find any. That is the truth.
Have a good night.
ANON, same garbage pulled on Bob G. that he works for the banks. Every time someone proves that most of what is posted is factually and legally incorrect and then back it up with the law; we’re bank shills. No, we’re just exposing B.S. and the “useful idiots” who regurgitate it.
legisman — precedent case law often ignored. And, sophisticated litigants who have the means to conceal will do so.
Well — Know you work for the banks. Biden in. Maybe things will change. Pay attention.
ANON, you need to pay attention. Everything in your post was utter nonsense; and case law is always relevant, no matter the circumstances!
Legisman – you have no idea what has been done. And, pay attention.
— I said -case law irrelevant when :
” the actual transactions PRIOR to your claimed refinance/purchase is not disclosed” This is because the WHOLE STORY is NOT THERE. ,.
ANON, again, what you posted is factually and legally a bunch of nonsense, and shows you have no idea how matters actually work. And, saying case law is “irrelevant” is one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever heard.
Been pre-occupied. Missed all this. Bottom line — if you have a debt collector “servicer” — you have no mortgage or note. You only have assignment of default debt – and that is before you ever defaulted. . How you figure out how to deal with that is up to you. But if you don’t understand that – you don’t understand. Case law irrelevant when the actual transactions PRIOR to your claimed refinance/purchase is not disclosed,. Period. Case law erroneously focuses on last transaction because NO ONE challenges what happened BEFORE that transaction. Big mistake.
Summer, the court cases I posted aren’t my “legal conclusions,” they’re the holdings of courts that find your arguments and regurgitation of scammer rhetoric to be nonsense. And please spare me the other scammer rhetoric, the courts are corrupt. That crap comes from the legally illiterate hacks who have no idea what they’re talking about.
I’m fully aware the vast majority of homeowners don’t have access to the legal search engines my firm does, but anyone can go to Google Scholar, put the name of these attys., who claim to win all of these foreclosure cases and see their results; the results—all losses!
Frankly, Bog G. and Legalman “legal conclusions” are absurd to the best.
So, Trustees do not have to buy anything. Sure, they don’t.
They need SOMEONE to ESTABLISH a Trust, which is a separate legal entity; and this SOMEONE must entrust SOMETHING to these Trustees – and pay them for handling these ASSETS (not imaginary assets) for the benefit of the BENEFICIARIES.
Try to find these assets or these Trusts.
The fairy tale story about giving a $200,000 worth Note (money purportedly belong to Bob G. and presumably are his honest savings, not some dark funds passed to Bog G. by a local mob for laundering) is another laughable example trying to excuse the biggest crime operated by Federal Reserve and their joint book running managers Big Banks (read ANY Propectus)
So, Bob saved $200,000 and lent them to legalman who wanted to buy a home. Legalman, who knows that Bob G. works as a pizza delivery boy, never asked where he got $200K savings.
Next, Bob G. made 184 copies of legalman’s Note, sold them to all possible Pension Funds as “mortgage backed” ; destroyed originals and then gifted the $200K worth copy of the Note to a local charity – without any receipts – and then went to IRS and asked to write it off from his taxes, apparently also without any questions about any receipts.
Legalmen, who presumably knew about this gift, never asked Bog G. to give him any releases of his lien and continues to pay “loan” to the Charity who never recorded Legalman’s Note on any of its accounting records because this Note was delivered to Depository Trust Corporation who never assigned anything to this Charity.
And when Legalman asked the Charity to provide him a copy of his original Note, proof that this Note was actually GIFTED to this Charity, thus must be recorded as an asset, and a release of lien by Bob G. – both swamped legalman with an avalanche of absurd runarounds and lies.
Sounds like a very legit transaction.
Maybe Bog G. would first look at IRS website re Charities obligations related to donated properties over $250.00 (two hundred fifty dollars, not thousands) ?
Here are TONS of IRS reporting requirements, not just like – I will give a $200,000.00 worth contribution, wrote it off my taxes and live happily ever after.
Charities that receive donated property may also have information reporting requirements, in addition to the requirement to file annual returns. Requirements depend on the type of property donated, the claimed value of the donated property, and the use to which the charity puts the property. Depending on these factors, the following information reporting requirements may apply:
Written acknowledgment: Required under Internal Revenue Code section 170(f) for a donor to substantiate a charitable contribution of $250 or more.
Written disclosure statement: Required under Code section 6115 when a donor makes a quid pro qo contribution (a payment exceeding $75 partly as a contribution and partly for goods and services provided by the organization). The same document may serve as both the written acknowledgment and the written disclosure statement.
Vehicle donations: Additional reporting requirements may apply when a charity receives a donation of a vehicle. See Publication 4302 PDF, A Charity’s Guide to Vehicle Donations, for more information.
Form 1098-C PDF, Contributions of Motor Vehicles, Boats, and Airplanes
Instructions for Form 1098-C PDF: Click here PDF for a downloadable version (Adobe Acrobat) of these instructions.
Form 8282 PDF, Donee Information Return: Form to be completed upon the sale, exchange or other disposition of certain donated property.
Form 8899 PDF, Notice of Income from Donated Intellectual Property: Required when donor has provided notice that donor intends to treat the contribution as a qualified intellectual property donation under Internal Revenue Code sections 170(m) and 6050L.
Calling Bob G and Bankster. Is worse than calling a white person who doesn’t agree with BLM a racist. Not Cool !!!
BANKS ARE STEPPING UP ATTACKS ON THIS SITE. Banks are also stepping up attacks on lawyers who defend homeowners and win. Gary Dubin from Hawaii for one. Kangaroo Court.
Jan van Eck- nice to hear from you once every 3 years. I miss your to-the-point commentary, try and chime in a bit more frequently.
I guess Garfield has banned Bob G from posting anymore, or he would have defended himself. Facts are Bob G. has actual real life experience dealing with banks, and is mostly correct about how things work. Conversely, most of what you claim to be facts is scammer rhetoric and nonsense the courts have laughed at repeatedly. Furthermore, Bob G has shown facts to support his legal conclusion, and I’ve posted case law backing them up. Now let’s see what Garfield’s facts are and case law that back up his legal conclusions.
Actually, “Bob G” is an interesting fellow who lives in the Albany, NY area (assuming I have the correct Bob G). Unfortunately, in this instance Bob is incorrect in his analysis and Neil has nailed it. That said, Bob G is emphatically not a shill or troll working for banks or any bank; merely that his apprehension of the facts and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous (as Neil points out).
Readers may note that Neil Has a good handle on the underlying facts, and yes, the banks are attempting to mislead the Courts by adroit inferences of “facts” that are not in evidence. It is a big problem.
The further problem is that Judges adopt a rather stark Calvinist approach: “Did you borrow the money?” [to which is typically replied, “I did,” even if tehre is no evidence of it.] “Did you pay it back?” [response: “No,” even though someone else likely did on your behalf, which the plaintiff is not telling the Court and which you don’t know about.] “Foreclosed!” And the Judge simply hands over title to some person or entity that is not a creditor and is not aggrieved, has no loss of funds nor any potential future loss, and books the revenue as fresh earnings, and not as a satisfaction of any debt.
Then the homeowner gets a Form 1099-A in which the Servicer abandons the entire principal value plus interest, in exchange for a tax credit against other earnings from the IRS, and the homeowner gets to pay income tax on the Abandonment, but without title to the Property in order to raise the funds to pay the IRS! And that forces the former homeowner into a Chapter 7 liquidation, as he is unable to pay a whopping tax bill.
On top of that outrage, the Note itself is not surrendered to the Court in exchange for the Judgment, nor is it marked “Obligation satisfied” and returned to the Obligor/issuer. The reason for that is that the so-called “Note” that the plaintiff attorney waves about the courtroom is factually a re-creation, manufactured on a special Ricoh gel-jet machine that can duplicate anything and is indistinguishable from the Original, except for the hidden watermark in the paper. If the servicer turned over the “note,” then a forensic examination would reveal the fraud, and it becomes a criminal matter. So the Note never gets surrendered.
Yet, case law requires the surrender of the Note. See: JAMES F. JOHNSTON and SANDRA JOHNSTON, Appellants, v. JEANNE HUDLETT, Appellee.
No. 4D08-4636
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT
32 So. 3d 700; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4211; 35 Fla. L. Weekly D 752
March 31, 2010, Decid
Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated. See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). [**6] The judgment cancels the note. The clerk cannot return these instruments to the parties.