Livinglies's Weblog

MAKE SOME NOISE

I am proposing that homeowners start petitions and complaints to government agencies and to US Senators US Representatives, State Senators, and State Representatives. With the election over, they have the time to do their job instead of focusing on getting elected or re-elected.

I have been corresponding with activists who are doing exactly that and I was drawn into the effort. So here is part of my correspondence with one of them:

“I have been injured by illegal activities conducted by the parties identified in this complaint. Upon information and belief, the damage I have suffered and continue to suffer also applies to thousands of other homeowners.”

*

Then specifically identify the way you have been damaged and how much damage you suffered and how you measure that damage. Then spell out with specificity the violations of statutory law and common law and exactly how those violations caused the damage you suffered.

*

And when you are writing to an agency (Federal or State) is a good idea to start out with the statement that (XYZ is an agency whose charter requires that it act in the following circumstances. Then you quote the statute. Then you say that the agency is not acting in compliance with this charter and that you have been injured as a result.

*

I have been thinking about this for a while. I think you need to say that the agency or law enforcement or whatever has been operating under false presumptions and that the agency’s failure is its failure or refusal to conduct evidentiary hearings on the facts currently presumed in homeowner transactions. It is operating on presumptions that have no foundation in fact. You might also cite the fact that the agency has not, upon information and belief, consulted any investment banker about its regulation, investigation or enforcement laws of transactions that are advertised as having been “securitized.”

*

In other words, maybe make it less about law than fact. You might also want to address the elephant in the living room by saying something like this: “the widely held presumption that prohibiting noncreditors and nonservicers from interfering with the homeowner transaction would produce a “free house” or “windfall” is constantly repeated without any hearing in any setting as to the foundation or truthfulness of that statement.

*

“It seems to be founded on the idea that since the homeowner was seeking a loan, they must have received a loan — thus categorizing the homeowner transaction without evidence. And it seems that this empty foundation is then used to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that homeowners will receive an unfair or inequitable distribution in the vent that illegal enforcement of implied loan accounts was stopped.”

*

Then maybe the statement that says something like this:

*

“For 10 years, I have been confronting the actors that were claimed to be servicers or creditors in my case, and I have learned that those actors are named but not functioning in any way relevant to my transaction or attempts to claim rights to administer, collect or enforce an unpaid loan account. All functions relating to my transaction are conducted by financial technology companies who are now categorized as servicers because they receive, process and account for payments received from homeowners — regardless of whether or not such payments are due.

*

“In consulting with experts in investment banking, accounting, and auditing, they assure me that no sale has occurred in connection with the allegation or implication of an unpaid loan account owned by any of the actors claiming those rights. By definition, this means that my transaction has NOT been securitized and that therefore no assignment of mortgage or endorsement of a note transferred any underlying obligation.

*

“The legal and common law requirements of transparency in such transactions have not only been ignored. They have been expressly evaded and voided, leaving homeowners like me without a lender, a successor lender, or even a loan account that I can access to determine whether it exists, who owns it, and the balance due. Instead, my inquiries have uniformly been met with stonewalling and distraction — presenting me with a third-party report or statement of “Payment History” that is NOT from or by the party who was designated or implied to be the owner of an unpaid loan account.

*

“If it was a loan, it was never securitized (assuming securitization means selling an asset in pro rata pieces to investors). By definition, this means that all claims and all rights claimed by actors who are relying upon the securitization of an unpaid loan account owed by me do not exist. But your agency has consistently taken the opposite position without questioning whether the foundation for its presumptions is true.

*

“Your agency has a duty to inquire about whether unpaid loan account exists in my case and in thousands of other cases that are similarly situated. Suppose the original homeowner transaction was a shield to conceal the true nature of what investment bankers were doing when they appeared to be entering the lending marketplace. In that case, the agency must discover the component parts of the transaction and the nature of the implied or alleged transaction. In that respect, the agency has failed.

*

“The result is that I have been paying actors who have no right to my money, and I am constantly under threat of foreclosure or other enforcement mechanisms to collect a “debt” that is nonexistent — at least to the actors making the claim. I am dealing with a ghost that fabricated by complex financial instruments in which virtual claims replace the legal requirement of actual claims.

*

“The end result is that the actors in the false “Securitization” game have generated revenues hundreds of times ordinary revenue for investment bank underwriting, homeowners have received no share of a scheme that requires their signature and reputation to launch, and homeowners have assumed a risk about which they had no idea existed — counterparty to an apparent “loan transaction” in which the “lender” has no risk of loss and no incentive to assess the viability of the transaction as required by the Federal Truth in Lending Act.”

*

Filed under: foreclosure |