Foreclosure Defense: The problem with explaining securitization

Winston Chuchill was fond of saying that we should walk our dog three times per day regardless of whether or not we had a dog. Some readers will remember that pursuant to that sage advice there appeared leashes in the marketplace that were rigid so as to simulate the appearance of walking an invisible dog. The dog though was not invisible. It obviously did not exist.
*
The problem with explaining securitization of debt to anyone who does not already know how to do it, is that there is a serious risk of putting the listener Into a coma.
*
And when you get around to the mythological securitization of mortgage debt, it only gets worse.
*
At the moment, I have arrived at a possible analogy that might help some people. If you think about securitization as an animal that dies in the woods, you can probably understand at least some of what happens to the animal.
*
Every bit of that animal is consumed by other animals and insects and by chemical reaction to its environment which produces further byproducts. The ecosystem makes various parts and attributes of the dead animal carcass attractive in different ways to different animals, insects, and chemical processes.
*
In the process that is labeled “securitization of debt”, there is always someone out there who is referring to the animal as though it was alive and intact. They make money saying that the animal is alive and intact even though that is not true. But as long as people pay them to say it, they will keep saying it — regardless of whether or not the animal ever existed. It makes no difference to them, as long as they’re paid their speaking fee.
*
In foreclosures, the people misrepresenting the status of the animal consist mostly of lawyers and companies that are masquerading as “servicers”. The servicers are pretending to feed the animal and producing various reports in court to prove that they are feeding the animal even though it has been dead for years or even nonexistent.
*
But to the animals and insects that consumed the carcass, they make no bones about the fact that it is consumed; and they are perfectly willing to say that in every venue except foreclosure procedures, where they report implying that the animal is alive and well.
*
It is in foreclosure procedures that you find piles of fabricated documents that appear to be facially valid because they have printing on the paper. Besides the ink and the paper, these “documents” are completely worthless. They do not memorialize any transaction that ever happened in the real world. Therefore they are for legal purposes a legal nullity. Yet in court, they are presumed valid.
*
For any homeowner that wants to challenge the administration, collection, or enforcement of any alleged underlying obligation (the carcass), they need to attack the secondary corroborative evidence of the existence of the animal not as carcass but as a living breathing animal. And as we all know there is no secondary evidence that would corroborate the existence of the animal because it is — if you get to it soon enough — just a decayed carcass. If you wait long enough it disappears completely.
*
Or perhaps there never was any animal. That would mean that all the paper that had ink on them describing the animal was just telling a story for profit. Explaining any of that to a judge is virtually impossible even for someone who knows what he or she is talking about.
*
But there are ample procedures that may be used in court to force the claimant to either produce the animal or give up their claim. And that is what foreclosure defense is all about. It is not about proving a point or proving the evil intent and practices of others. It is about forcing them to give up their claim.
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, 74, 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.

3 Responses

  1. DON’T open my link — got bad things. It was just an image – from Beverly Hillbillies — saying “You stupid idiot” – meant for that professor. DON’T OPEN. Sorry.

  2. And, I am sorry Legi— I watched your video. To that professor — he does not account for his son’s income on any accounting balance sheet. Says right up front – originator owns the asset. What does he think he originated his sons – so that counts for his mental accounting for their income? He is talking about something else – venture capitalism — I know BIG people in this business. They take a share of business after they invest in them. Sort of like “Loan Shark.” It is NOT securitization. Originators owned nothing in financial crisis. I am surprised you posted this one. Not disputing your input — good input. But to that professor (and not to you):
    https://vlipsy.com/vlip/the-beverly-hillbillies-what-a-stupid-idiot-mFfu7Oj2

  3. Securitization is a simple process. It is the removable of on-balance asset receivables to off-balance sheet conduit. If the loan defaults – it is taken back onto balance sheet. The problem with the crisis loans is that they were never on anyone’s balance sheet, and, therefore, could not be moved to off-balance sheet conduit. The process was bad to begin with. And, the government could not force anyone to take back the loans because there was no one to take them back. So, they disposed of the invalid securities instead. No one should have any assignment to a trustee to a trust. The trustee never held the asset, never held the note, never held the mortgage, and could not assign anything. Nor, can the trustee give authority to anyone to hold the note – because they never had it begin with.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: