Investment banks are pushing technical agenda on “integrated records” that would deny homeowners’ due process.

When you lose your home in foreclosure, it is an involuntary gift to an investment bank that has already earned 12 times the amount of the transaction with you. The investment bank does NOT record the interest, principal or forced sale payment on any loan account receivable because there is no such account.

Once again investment banks are attempting to subvert judicial process by technnical arguments that will ahve sweeping affects if dopted by the courts. The argument for “integrated records” pending in the Hawaii Supreme Court is nothing more than a pitch to have a series of reports admitted into evidence as integrated records, thus avoiding hearsay, foundation and even relevance objections. 

The problem with foreclosure litigation from the beginning is the confusion by everyone between reports and records. Records refers to the loan account receivable and if it was shown (and if it existed) it would show the first payment to or on behalf of the homeowner, and all debits and credits to that loan account receivable, including payments to the creditor everyone is presuming to exist.

It would all be so clear — identity of the lender and identity of the current owner of the loan account receivable. Most homeowner defenses would melt away once that was produced — as it was ALWAYS produced before the era of securitization.

It is the same with the status of a holder in due coruse. Such status confers immunity to many homewoners defenses. But in the context of securitization nobody ever pelads that status becasue it woudl require them to prove payment, in addition to good faith and a lack of knowledge of the maker’s defenses as to the note.

*

The problem with the agenda of “integrated records” is that it lacks a foundation. Under their theory, it would not require anything more than a witness declaring that the “records” were integrated. Proper foundation requires that each part of the integrated record has sufficient foundation to be admitted on its own. That means that something more than a hearsay report is needed.

*
As dozens of cases have shown in depositions and trial testimony there is no servicing done by any of the known servicers. Thus their reports are not records of anything. All such servicers without exception are posing as servicers, just like REMIC trustees are posing as Trustees, and MERS is imposing as mortgagee.
*
They are paid for their service as actors portraying something that is not real. Lockbox contracts require all payments to be forwarded to a physical address or electronic financial account bearing the name of the “servicer” but which is completely outside the control of the servicer.
*
Those receipts are noted by automation on a server that is not owned, controlled or maintained by the “servicer.” See articles on Black Knight and CoreLogic. The control of the account and the money in it is vested solely in the Master Servicer who is always the bookrunner investment bank that started the securitization scheme. And the REMIC trustee is also the same bookrunner despite a different name being used. And the originator is just a placeholder for the same bookrunner as is MERS. None of the characters are real.
 *
This becomes more acute when a report becomes confused with a record. The report is hearsay about the record —- including the notion of whether the record exists at all. Those records would show the establishment of the loan account receivable and all credits and all debits from the account. They would show payments to investors. That is never shown in court or otherwise even to regulators. And the reason for that is that the REMIC trustee and servicer have absolutely no contact with investors or even knowledge of their identity, much less paying them.
*
So the attempt here is to allow a nonexistent loan account receivable to be presumed to exist because it is part of an integrated series of reports rather than legally admissible records. In plain language that means they want the court to proclaim that the investment banks succeeded at faking it until they made it. When homeowners make a payment no investor benefits. When they don’t make a payment, no investor or successor gets hurt.
*
When you lose your home in foreclosure, it is an involuntary gift to an investment bank that has already earned 12 times the amount of the transaction with you. The investment bank does NOT record the interest, principal or forced sale payment on any loan account receivable because there is no such account.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

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

Click

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.

One Response

  1. As long as the Government covers and Judges approve – Big Banks will continue to defraud us and steal all our money; labor and homes.

    We continue to con ourselves – because Wall Street Banks lies are covered and enabled by the Government and Courts.

    I am confident that they will try reverse the Constitution to make it banks-friendly. They already did a big part of it. Due Process and Standing to sue are eliminated, banks are not required to comply with it- as well as a huge part of Freedom of Speech was taken away.

    GSEs are SHILLS for Investment banks.They pretend to “purchase” some “loans” from someone – and people always think it is a Lender – while NONE of these “purchases” never happened because the SELLER /Lender is always missing.

    Freddie’s guides to “purchase” are the same as Big Banks Prospectuses – it is all about nonsense phrases and forward looking statements.

    Freddie WILL, SHALL or MAY purchase (equates – maybe sometimes)

    Freddie ACQUIRED (not the same as purchased) mortgages from ??

    Here is an example of a totally non-sense phrase by SHILLS to deceive general public about the CON.

    “In addition to selling Mortgages in exchange for UMBS or MBS with Coupons that are evenly divisible by 0.5%, a Seller may sell 15- and 30-year fixed-rate Mortgages in exchange for MBS with Coupons ”

    So, basically a Seller who is selling mortgages may also sell some other mortgages. Seller and LENDER or OWNER of mortgages are not the same thing. And to whom this Seller sells or may sell?

    People immediately PRESUME the rest: “in addition to selling mortgages TO FREDDIE, the Seller (who is the Lender, right, how else can it be?) MAY sell more mortgages to Freddie.

    But here is none about Seller’s ownership or loans or about selling them to Freddie. It is a generic, non-sense phrase. The Seller is selling and may sell. Nothing more.

    And so on.
    Example from Freddie 6201 Guide

    Under the fixed-rate Guarantor program, Freddie Mac will purchase fixed-rate Mortgages (we presume the rest – the Lender sold something

    but you never see something “Freddie PURCHASED from the Lender mortgages identified in the attached loan schedule”

    Under the MultiLender Swap program, Freddie Mac will purchase fixed-rate Mortgages

    Each UMBS or MBS Pool issued under the fixed-rate Guarantor program must consist of Mortgages acquired from a single Seller in exchange for a UMBS or MBS Pool representing an undivided interest in the same Mortgages.

    ACQUIRED from a single SELLER. Not purchased from a Lender.

    People must stop conning themselves with PRESUMPTIONS that something happened – while none of it happened

    WHO SOLD these loans to Freddie Fannie and Ginnie if these “loans” were funded by third parties who never appeared and these parties were repaid rights away; mortgages destroyed by Wall Street Banks and DATA (information about mortgages) is placed with Federal Reserve branches DTC and Cede.

    And which relationship has the Seller to these loans ?

    And if you ask any Freddie, Fannie or Ginnie’s representative who sold them you loan; that is the status of your loan ; and who administer your account receivable – they will never give an answer. Usually absurd runarounds because they don’t want to lie in your face directly like fake “Servicers”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: