What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it.
*
Without knowing it, you are probably doing business with a Wall Street securities brokerage firm calling itself an “investment bank.” You didn’t know because they were never disclosed. And the money they paid to you was not a loan — at least not for them it wasn’t. They didn’t treat it that way on their own records and neither should you. That means they are attempting to collect back the money they paid to you even though it wasn’t a loan.
*
So what did they pay you for? When you issued the promissory note what were you buying?
*
The plain truth is that without an extensive background in investment banking — and all the experience, training, and education that requires — you have no way of understanding the nature of the transaction. So I’m breaking it down into its simplest components here — useful for litigation but not a complete description.
*
You asked for and thought you received a loan. After all, you did get the money, didn’t you? When you applied for a loan, you thought you had identified the lender with whom you were doing business. After all, the money came after you signed the “closing documents”, right? So when the judge asked if you received the loan, you say “yes” believing there is no way you could deny the “obvious.
*
And that is how Wall Street has been winning for 20 years. What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it.
*
Here is what you didn’t know (in nearly all cases):
*
-
Yes, you asked for a loan, but the application you submitted was not to a lender.
-
Contrary to the laws governing loan transactions many things were not disclosed to you.
-
In most cases, the intake for the application for a “loan” is performed by a loan broker, who doesn’t care what the transaction is called as long as he/she gets the commission.
-
The loan broker gets paid if you sign the closing documents. By signing the promissory note you have created an obligation — but is it enforceable? The answer is yes if it really was a loan transaction.
-
The loan broker then forwards the information on the “loan” application to an IT platform that is controlled by a third party platform which in turn is acting for a securities firm preparing to issue and sell securities to investors. As far as they’re concerned they would prefer to pay you $1 rather than $200,000. But then how could they get you to sign a note for $200,000?
-
The securities that are issued and sold are not a conveyance of any interest in your transaction. They are bets based upon reports issued by the securities firm. The prices of those securities are unrelated to the total amount of your transaction or any part of your transaction. So they can sell these securities indefinitely until the market is saturated (no more demand).
-
On average, the dollar volume of revenue generated by the securities firm selling the securities is $12 for each $1 of your transaction.
-
The amount they paid you was, therefore, on average, around 8.5% of the total revenue. It was a commission, not a loan. But you didn’t know that.
-
You received a payment that was dressed up as a loan. You never thought to bargain for reasonable compensation for entering into a transaction that was the keystone of all the sales of all of the securities. And you never thought about whether you wanted to be part of a business venture whose purpose was to sell betting rights based upon reports about your transaction and whether you were making scheduled payments.
-
Collection and enforcement of the obligation you created when you executed the promissory note is the act of taking back the commission they paid to you. And because they want all of it back plus interest that leaves you with negative compensation for initiating a huge business venture and allowing the use of your name and reputation. (They get all the benefits, you get the shaft).
-
And even at the point of collection and enforcement you still don’t know that you are actually dealing with a securities firm that has no financial interest in your transaction. You don’t know because nobody is telling you that. They insist on calling it a loan and since it looks like a loan, everyone (including you) thinks it is a loan.
-
When they get money from you or from the sale of your property they have no place to put it. They can’t debit an account receivable that reflects ownership of your obligation because there is no account receivable on the ledger of any company. Your payments constitute a return of the commission they paid to you — an amount that they deemed reasonable. That means that their payment is evidence of the amount of commission to the homeowner that the securities firm deemed reasonable. Ask any lawyer what that could mean.
-
In court, they seek to increase their profits by forcing the sale of your house. But that can only be done legally if the forced sale is granted by a court because the action is a foreclosure. But it isn’t a foreclosure if the claimant is not the owner of your obligation. And they can’t be the owner of your obligation unless they paid value for it — which is why there would be an entry on the accounting ledgers of some company if anyone paid for your obligation and received a conveyance of ownership of your obligation.
-
In every loan, there is the lender and a borrower. You intended to be a borrower but you never made the journey. The biggest problem in foreclosure defense is the fact that homeowners and their lawyers (and the judges before whom they appear) believe that you did make the journey.
-
That is because your counterpart was not a lender, had no means or intention of being a lender, and was seeking to avoid being called a lender at all costs — because they didn’t want to be held responsible for violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and other federal and state law governing lending, collections, and enforcement.
-
The borrower has every legal right and legal expectation that the party representing itself as a lender is doing the underwriting of a loan with due diligence. That means they have a stake in the outcome of the transaction. It if its a loan, their revenue, profit, and assets are dependent upon repayment of the ”loan.”
-
In most cases, your transaction was conducted by the securities firm acting through sham conduit intermediaries. The sole purpose was to start the sale of securities. Some of those securities were bets against the performance data of your loan.
-
So they had an incentive and a vested interest in seeing your “obligation” fail. That is why they inflated appraisals, granted no doc loans, granted NINJA loans, and offered “teaser” terms that were guaranteed to fail when the scheduled payments were reset. The securities brokerage firm was betting on a sure thing.
-
In addition, the riskier the loan the higher the interest they could charge. That’s because everyone (except the Wall Street firm) thought it was a loan. And the higher the interest the less they had to pay out from the fund of capital generated by selling securities to investors. So if you had a $200,000 transaction where the securities brokerage firm set a price of 10% “interest,” they were receiving around $400,000 from investors to cover that “loan” (which was actually a commission). That is why there is no loan account receivable on the books of anyone — not even the securities brokerage firm that funded it out of investor capital.
- Everyone on the “securitization” team got paid without exception. There is no debt.
So here is the message to homeowners, lawyers, regulators, law enforcement, and lawmakers:
Don’t allow the Wall Street “investment banks” to steal back money that was earned by homeowners.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!
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 ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS, AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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.
-
But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
-
Yes you DO need a lawyer.
-
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.
Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Investor, Mortgage, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS |
Legi — it is not about “lending.” There was no money lent – unless one took cash out. This applies to the financial crisis loans. Money is borrowed only for a purpose. In the case of a (crisis) refinance – if the money claimed borrowed does not pay off the prior loan by the borrower as it was supposed to do — then no money was lent. Payoff by the borrower DID NOT occur on the prior loan. This applies to purchases during the crisis too. Not every mortgage loan is this way – but the crisis loans were simply an assumption of collection rights — nothing more occurred. Problem is — no one was told. Do not confuse crisis loans with valid mortgage. The crisis loans were all smoke and mirrors.
Total nonsense! There’s an old saying you you can judge a tree by the fruit it bears.
You can claim all day long its not a loan, but if a lender contractually agrees to lend you money to buy a car, a boat, a house, or anything else under the sun, and you accept it; you were lent money–PERIOD!!!
As Javagold said: “You will get laughed out of court.”
Frances Kenny Family Trust v. World Savings Bank, No. C04-03724 WHA, 2005 WL 106792 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 19, 2005) (sanctioning plaintiffs and rejecting their “vapor money” theory); Carrington v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, No. 05-cv-73429-DT, 2005 WL 3216226, at 3 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 29, 2005) (finding “fundamentally absurd and obviously frivolous” plaintiff’s claim that the lender unlawfully “created money” through its ledger entries); United States v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp. 877, 880-81 (D.S.D.1995) (rejecting arguments that there was insufficient consideration to secure the promissory note, and that lender had “created money” by means of a bookkeeping entry); * * * Rene v. Citibank, 32 F.Supp.2d 539, 544-45 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (rejecting claims that because lender did not have sufficient funds in its vault to make the loan, and merely “transferred some book entries,” the lender had created illegal tender).
In addition to rejecting arguments that creditors have created “vapor” money through bookkeeping entries, courts have further rejected the “legal tender” argument. See, e.g., Thiel v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. of Marion (N.D.Ind. 1986), 646 F.Supp. 592, 596 (“A check issued by a mortgagee need not be `legal tender’ for the loan to be valid. Far from suggesting any fraudulent conduct, the drafts issued by the Savings and Loan in this case accomplished the only conceivable purpose of the transaction: they allowed [plaintiff] to buy the properties at issue”); Rene v. Citibank (E.D.N.Y. 1999), 32 F.Supp.2d 539, 544 (“there is no requirement that a loan must be made with legal tender before a court will deem it valid”); Nixon v. Individual Head of the St. Joseph Mortgage Co. (N.D.Ind. 1985), 615 F.Supp. 898, 900 (“a bank or mortgage company check can be converted into legal tender. * * * It represents a liability of the company, so that the Mortgage Company has in fact given something of value — it’s promise to pay the face amount of the check”).
Perhaps everything you said is correct. Perhaps Not. But You will get laughed out of court. And That’s all that matters. The only solution. EVERY single homeowner needs to stick together and refuse to leave THEIR houses forever.. if not willing to do this , then The People will continue to get picked off , one by one.