“FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS” IS A DEAD GIVE-AWAY THAT THERE IS NO CREDITOR

Here is the example:

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWABS, INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-11.

FACT CHECK 1. BONY IS NOT A TRUSTEE FOR ANY CERTIFICATE HOLDERS BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE HODLERS ARE NOT BENEIFICAIRIES OF ANY TRUST.

FACT CHECK 2: NO TRUST IS IDENTIFIED EVEN BY NAME.

CONCLUSION: THE HOMEOWNER IS FIGHTING WITH A GHOST. THE INVESTMENT BANK IS HIDING BEHIND IT AND EVERYONE IS MAKING MONEY EXCEPT THE HOMEOWNER WHO UNKOWINGLY ALLOWED THE SECURTITIZATION SCHEME TO PROCEED WITHOUT ANY SALE OF THE DEBT.

In every modern foreclosure there is a complete absence of anyone who did not get paid money that was owed to them. 

There is no trust bearing any of the names shown above. No trust has been organized or existing under the laws of any US jurisdiction.

There is no trustee-beneficiary relationship between Bank of New York Mellon and any investor who purchased a certificate from any investment bank or securities broker. In fact, when the investors sued, Bank of New York Mellon emphatically defended on the basis that no fiduciary duty was owed to any purchaser of any certificate. And they won.

There is never any assertion, allegation or exhibit identifying the source of authority of the bank of New York Mellon to represent anyone in connection with any underlying obligation, legal debt, note or mortgage. It is up to the homeowner to bring that to the attention of a judge. Failure to do so may constitute a waiver and acceptance of a designated virtual creditor in lieu of an actual creditor.

CWABS, INC., for practical purposes, does not exist. It performed no function. It is merely a label being used by the securitization infrastructure controlled by an investment banker book runner. The name indicates that the data came from countrywide home loans end it relates to “alternative” lending. In the context of securitization, “alternative lending” is understood within the industry as meaning that there is no actual lending activity. However, the labels are used for the purposes of making false claims of authority to administer, collect and enforce alleged loan account receivables that do not exist.

The job of the homeowner, as the defendant in a judicial foreclosure action, is to test the illusion until the illusion fails.

Homeowners I have consistently lost cases simply because they attempted to prove the fraudulent nature of the claims. This created a burden of proof so high (clear and convincing evidence) that no homeowner could satisfy it without the cooperation of parties who are not even named as interested parties in the foreclosure — despite their absolute control over every aspect.

Homeowners need only chip away at all the assumptions and presumptions that every foreclosure mail needs the court to accept. Homeowners need to remember that when the assumptions and presumptions are tested aggressively and persistently, the case evolves from a perception of bank versus deadbeat homeowner, to a perception of Judge versus Lawyer for Foreclosure Mill. The court always wins that battle. And that means the homeowner wins as well.

NOTE: keep in mind that for a securitization structure that was created in 2007, and the entire structure has probably been erased and replaced. Also keep in mind that securitization does not mean what most people think it means.

Securitization of a debt or a loan only occurs if the debt or loan, or shares in it, are sold to investors. There’s not a single securitization of residential transactions in the last 25 years in which any such sale occurred. That means that the current claimant has neither paid value for the loan nor any foundation or basis on which to actually assert that it is losing money as a result of the failure of the homeowner to make a scheduled payment. That is why you never find any allegation in any case, nor any exhibit, asserting any loss or showing an accounting ledger — a basic requirement for any case.

The only relevant loss that might be felt by anyone on the finance side, is the loss of profit in the event that the foreclosure is unsuccessful.

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 TO DONATE

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, accounting 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 TO 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.

 

4 Responses

  1. Jan — these are certificates to REINSTATED Debt. They are NOT certificates to pass-through of cash-flows for any valid mortgage or deed of trust. That is why all collapsed. There is NO Residential Mortgage Backed Securities — (note the words MORTGAGE BACKED). Thus, no valid securitization, and no valid certificate holders. Conned at origination. What you thought you signed – is NOT what is real.

  2. It is more than that — there is no representation for any trustee to any bogus trust. If you don’t question that from onset – doomed. The court THINKS – the trustee BANK is there. NOT!!!! They are not there!!!!!! This is fundamental from the beginning of any lawsuit. THEY ARE NOT THERE!!! NO trustee – NO BANK (Remember trustee is only a division of the bank- they do not stand alone).

  3. I would point out that the certificates are routinely bought and sold in the commercial marketplace, thus the actual holders of the certificates are continuously changing and cannot be ascertained at any specific point in time. Thus BONY cannot state that it represents entities or persons whom it cannot even identify by name.

  4. No trust is even mentioned by name on the paper labeled ‘deed of trust’

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: