Livinglies's Weblog

We now have an opportunity to attack the most absurd of the decisions on 2 grounds, to wit: The first is that the decisions are wrong based upon existing judicial doctrine, statutory law, and court precedent. The second is that the decisions are wrong because the justification for bending the law is also wrong.

 

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

I know what I said and I meant it. But I have come under a lot of pressure particularly from one person in Hawaii whose financial contributions have been a substantial factor in keeping this effort alive. So I am drafting and filing an amicus brief for filing in Hawaii and I will do the same, assuming financial support is forthcoming, in other states. I still think it is a long shot but I am also convinced that the mere filing will bring more attention to the facts.

The Hawaii case has similarities to most other cases brought by people claiming ownership or authority resulting from the securitization of debt. But in one case, the court went far off the reservation to prevent the homeowner from winning the case despite clear law in Hawaii that the statute of limitations on the obligation, even if it existed, had long run out. That is not a contested issue in the case. Hawaii is not Florida and the Bartram case does not apply. The statute has run and that is the end of it.

So the foreclosure mill invented something out of thin air. It offered up the following theory: the statute of limitations for a claim based on adverse possession expires in 20 years — obviously longer than the actual law for collecting on claims for money in Hawaii. When first raised I told my client that she need not worry about it. The theory was patently absurd. No judge could possibly rule that way. I was wrong.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

This is an example of judicial overreach on a grand scale.

First of all, adverse possession is a claim brought by a landowner. It does not expire in 20 years. It starts in 20 years — after a landowner has been occupying land owned by someone else for 20 consecutive years without interruption. A party claiming to be a mortgagee is not a landowner and there is no allegation or any facts in this case that the named “mortgagee” ever occupied or owned any land.

All of this is traceable to one fact — the nearly universal consensus about the status and ownership of the loans is wrong — but is now institutionalized by those who think they understand loans but know absolutely nothing about investment banking — much less understand the intersection of investment banking and lending. This forms the background for ultra vires actions in the courts.

There was no loan. I know, I know. If it looks like a duck etc. That duck is a hologram with no substance in the real world. The reason it looks like a loan is because it was labeled as a loan.

In most cases, it was a securities deal that was concealed from the homeowner or prospective homeowner. In the end, nobody was holding a loan account receivable as an entry on their ledger therefore nobody could claim ownership of any loan account. And that’s why supposed transfers of the loan account had to be fabricated, forged, backdated, and filled with misinformation.

Viewed from that perspective, each homeowner or prospective homeowner should have been paid compensation for their role as an issuer in the securitization scheme. Because this game was concealed we have no way of knowing what the outcome of bargaining would have been had the homeowner known that they were being drafted into a concealed securitization scheme.

But we do know the value that the securitization players used for payment to the homeowner, to wit: The principal amount of the transaction paid to the homeowner. And we now know that “at the end of the day” nobody maintained ownership of any loan, so the transaction could not be considered a loan — i.e., there was no lender at the end of the day.

Viewed from that perspective, foreclosure is an attempt to get back the consideration that they paid to the homeowner for issuing the note and mortgage, without which securitization could not have occurred. Had they been less busy trying to avoid liability for violations of the Truth in Lending Act and other federal and state lending laws, they would’ve maintained the role of creditor and therefore they would have satisfied the factual foundation to allege the existence of a loan. But they didn’t.

From the point of view of legal analysis, the landing statutes never applied because it wasn’t a loan. This was a securitization scheme from start to finish. But it never was a scheme to securitize the debt, note, or mortgage (or payments) of any homeowner. Of all of the different types of securities and contracts that were issued sold and traded, none of them conveyed any interest in the debt, note, mortgage, or payments made by anyone.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

One of the biggest problems is that both homeowners and their attorneys have accepted the labeling promoted by Wall Street. When I first started writing about the scheme in 2006 I raised the alarm that this was nothing like what it seems to be. There were no loans and there were no debts nor any owners of debts. And that is what Wall Street intended.

So there are two labels that must be rejected out of hand at the very beginning. The first is the label of “loan”. The second is the label of “Foreclosure.”

The present situation in Hawaii is mirrored in hundreds of other decisions across the country. The absurdity of some of these decisions is clear to most legal analysts. But the justification for such decisions rests on a dissociative condition: the erroneous belief that lending and securitization intersected. They didn’t. We now have an opportunity to attack the most absurd of the decisions on 2 grounds, to wit: The first is that the decisions are wrong based upon existing judicial doctrine, statutory law, and court precedent. The second is that the decisions are wrong because the justification for bending the law is also wrong.

Join with me as we undertake the effort to alter the trajectory of these decisions which effectively ratify and even Institutionalize illegal and fraudulent behavior

Filed under: CORRUPTION, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: securitization |