Understanding the Financial Industry Through Linguistics: How Applied Linguistics Can Prevent Financial Crisis
by Richard C. Robinson and John Doukas
I recommend the above book. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, I believe in first defining our terms before entering a discussion. I have consistently reported that so-called REMIC Trusts are neither REMICS nor trusts. The question has been posed to me then —“What do we call them.”
*
So the answer is to use a word that describes what is happening. The securities brokerage firm is calling itself an investment bank, an underwriter, a securities broker, a securities trader etc. In this case it is doing business under a business name (see “DBA”). I have been writing about the highly effective ways in which Wall Street creates the language that covers their illicit activities. The labels they use are false — but if everyone uses those labels and attaches an erroneous meaning, then it becomes fact — at least for that one case.
*
Generically speaking, the business name uses the word “trust.” But sometimes, it implies the existence of a trust merely by referring to a bank that is referred to as a trustee. The trustee is not allowed to act in any way in connection with the assets that are also referenced (i.e., the “loans’).
*
But in all cases, the reference is to a real National Association bank, thus evading state regulation. The Bank is not given any right to even inquire about the status of the assets referenced in the securitization documents. And it is given no right, title or interest to receive any money from the referenced assets (the “loans.” All such rights and powers are continually agreed to be owned by a Master servicer, servicer and/or subservicer.
*
But the agreement does not state its premise, much less conform to custom and practice, to wit: lacking in all securitization documents is the assertion, much less the required warranty, that anyone owns any right, title or interest in the money flowing from the referenced assets.
*
By merely referring to such documents as being a description of the securitization of debt, the presumption is made by lawyers, judges, accountants, and judges that the debt has been sold and split into parts, each representing a pro-rata share sold to investors. None of the documents state this conclusion. It is left to the imagination of the reader.
*
So to answer your question, “it” is a name used by a securities broker. It is not a trust nor any other legally recognized entity and could never be recognized as a trust if the court were apprised of its true nature. In the absence of such information being revealed, homeowners can still win simply by asking for acknowledgment of all that is presumed from the fabricated documents containing false information, forged signatures, and backdated to imply the existence of a transaction that occurred at some point in the past. But there was no transaction. The document is sometimes facially invalid but always substantively invalid.
*
The effect of a document purporting to transfer title to a mortgage to such an entity is legally zero unless the facts show that value was paid by either the investment bank doing business under the “trust” name either directly ( which never happens) or indirectly through the use of the dba “REMIC Trust” name.
*
And as always, I remind the reader that the actors all got paid upfront through the sale of securities, which is why nobody maintains an unpaid loan account receivable from the homeowner. Anyone who DID maintain such an account would be a fool. It would subject them to being charged with a myriad of criminal and civil offenses for failure to comply with Federal and state laws governing the transaction that they said was a loan — always originated by “someone else.”
Filed under: foreclosure |
So… if the trustee is fake and the title series name is fake, then who pays for the Plaintiff, when there is a confidential settlement? Do the law firms have direct access to a slush fund for the settlements? Is there someone who approves settlements and fund disbursements for the fake entities?
The reason these so-called REMICs crashed (financial crisis) is that none were organized as a “trust” with valid conveyance to a legal holder trustee. Reason for nonexistent fictitious names – or merging of a fake trustee into fake title series name – which was NOT a trust – is because all the entities that claimed to “fund” at origination did not fund anything. All they did was liquidate from a prior “Series name” claimed trust into a new series name claimed trust – which is only done if the loan is internally reported in default for debt collection PRIOR to signing on any dotted line at claimed origination. Now, the crisis occurred on this CAUSE only. There had to be victims and it was not going to be the banks. It was YOU. Sacrificial lambs remain.
What is the word consummated mean?
verb (used with object), to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill. to complete (an arrangement, agreement, or the like) by a pledge or the signing of a contract: The company consummated its deal to buy a smaller firm.
In so many of these cases a d/b/a (doing business as) were recited as ‘lender’ when they could not enter, bind or consummate a ‘contract’ – because they were mere nonexistent fictitious trade names only – so the question still remains: who was it the ‘borrower’ was supposed to legally ‘deal with’ that question remains on the table in every one of these cases.
What could Truman Trust SC-6 2016
be other than a complete and utter Fraud ??????
“No Recourse” says it all.