AS LONG AS YOU FEEL GUILTY ABOUT WINNING, YOU WON’T

Posted on December 8, 2022 by Neil Garfield

People make a spectacular fatal error when they assume that anyone with whom they are corresponding, paying or calling is the slightest bit interested in preserving the integrity of a loan account. For the investment banks, this is not about loans. It is all about selling securities and then stealing homes. 

The successful outcome to them is the house because when they sell it, they keep the money and give it to nobody. “They” means that the investment bank is the one actually receiving and/or controlling the funds. The players are NOT interested in a workout that preserves the loan account for their portfolio. There is no loan account and there is no portfolio. They are only interested in getting paid by or on behalf of the investment bank. That payment is entirely contignent on convincing consumers that they have a payment due. 

When homeowners and their lawyers commit this error — which is ordinarily the case — they sign their own doom. Then they blame judges and the system for failing them. I agree that the system failed when the chartered agencies (FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, SEC, FTC) failed to interfere on behalf of the consumer/homeowners., But the alternative was to win in court which I have done repeatedly.

*

There are hundreds of iterations of smoke and mirrors. Some call it “musical chairs.” The idea is to keep moving the goalpost by renaming the claiming party and renaming a party as an agent so many times that you assume the agency exists and that the loan account exists.

*

One of the iterations involves Flagship Financial Services. As usual, this involves the name of a registered corporation which is a perfectly legal fiction. But the fact that this fictitious entity exists under the law does not mean there is anything in it or anyone employed by it. But there is a subset that applies to Flagship. Flagship did exist as a real business entity before it converted to being an intermediator — i.e., getting paid to facilitate the flow of money rather than being part of it.

*

You are almost certainly correct if you think this is all smoke and mirrors. Here is a copy of a filed complaint in which the names of these players were used. You are actually dealing with Ocwen Financial Corp.,  a company that has no financial interest in any payment, debt, obligation, note or lien ever issued by you. It is operating under contract for an investment bank.

*
Flagship Financial Group is an intermediator, not a lender. It was often tasked with executing endorsements on notes and even mortgage assignments despite its utter lack of ownership of any unpaid loan account due from you.  At the time of your transaction, it was operating strictly as a mortgage broker, and not as a lender.
*
That means that at the conclusion of your transaction cycle, there was no identified lender, contrary to common law and statutory law governing lending transactions. There also was no account receivable created on the books of any creditor to whom you owed money. The money that was given to you or that was paid on your behalf was simply an inducement to get you to execute documents that would make the transaction look like a loan.
*
This enabled the investment bank to sell securities and generate revenues on average of at least 12 times the amount paid to or on your behalf. You not only receive no consideration for being the issuer that enabled the execution of the securities scheme, but you are also required to pay the money back, plus interest, because of the illusion of a loan.
*
You, therefore, received negative consideration for the transaction. (You pay back everything paid to you or paid on your behalf, plus interest, fees, points, etc.). All revenue and profit went to the investment bank and the players with whom it shared fruits of the scheme.
*
MERS was an agent.  The principal was Flagship. Mers did not have any greater rights than Flagship possessed. As I have previously briefly described, flagship didn’t have any rights and didn’t have any ownership. The agency with MERS was an illusion. Any document executed purportedly on behalf of MERS was executed by either an employee or independent contractor for Ocwen Financial Corp. or one of its family of companies.
*
 Your focus should be on the precise identification (assuming absolutely nothing) of the name and contact information of the party on whose behalf claims are being made to administer, collect or enforce an implied existing unpaid loan account. Do not assume the loan account exists. Without actually reviewing your documents and your case, I cannot express a definite opinion, but I am relatively sure that the opinion that I would express is that no such account exists.
*
Your next step is to force the issue in discovery: that is, the requirement that the opposition presents the ledger showing the creation and maintenance of an unpaid loan account due from you to the owner of the ledger. Instead, they will attempt to present you with a payment history which is not the same thing.
*

Only the ledger is the best evidence of the balance due as claimed by the creditor.  and only the best evidence can be admitted into evidence in the court record. If the best evidence is not available, there must be considerable evidence explaining why it is not available and, more importantly, why the party proffering that evidence has any right to do so. This is how you get past legal presumptions in court, which often lead judges to enter judgment against the homeowner and for the claimant, thus providing a windfall to the claimant and a total loss to the homeowner without any right, justification or excuse on the part of the claimant.

*
In most cases, I recommend that you order the preliminary document review premium, which includes a current title search with copies of all relevant recorded documents, my analysis, a review of your correspondence and notices, a review of court documents, and a recorded 60-minute consultation with me. The consultation can be broken up into two parts if necessary.
*
It is always wise to have a local attorney on the line, since I am either not licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction or I don’t go to court anymore even if I am licensed in your jurisdiction. I operate only as a legal consultant.
 To order the PDR premium, please click on the following line:
As an added benefit, you get a free folder into which you will upload all the documents related to your transaction, which you can use as a file drawer.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: People ask me what I mean by transaction cycle instead of just referring to the transaction. The answer is simple, every transaction that appears to be a single event is composed of several parts that most people don’t think about but which make all the difference in the world to lawyers, lawmakers, and judges.
*
In the old-style loan transaction, the loan closing consisted of several parts, including documents and representations that are incorporated into the closing as required by statutes governing lending practices. So the homeowner left the closing table thinking the transaction was complete. It wasn’t. The “lender” had not yet funded.
*
The closing agent had to present the closing documents and signatures first, and then the loan was funded a few days later. So that is why it is called a transaction cycle. The homeowner was typically unaware of all the communications, faxes and wire transfers that first went to the closing agent, then to the seller, then to the prior lender, and then payments to the brokers etc.
*
Since around 2001, the transaction cycle has evolved into something entirely different in form and content. Wall Street changed the form and content. By 2006, ALL transactions were funded via intermediaries who were formed to operate as sham conduits. Those conduits allowed their names to be used but were not permitted to have access to any of the closing funds.
*
The money was coming from the investment bank which was the underwriter (owner of a start-up) that was issuing and selling securities. The investment bank took a loan — usually offshore and frequently from Credit Suisse — that was used to fund the required payment (if any) to the closing agent. No payment was required if the same investment bank was the underwriter of the prior and the current transaction.
*
The investment bank then sold the certificates that were falsely labeled as mortgage-backed securities using the regulations permitting the filing of “shelf registrations” in order to gain access to the Sec.gov site. Lawyers later upload and download documents from that site and present them as if they are government documents despite the fact that no government official has ever seen, accepted or approved them.
*
Unschooled lawyers and homeowners do not realize what constitutes a government document in connection with securities filings and allow such documents to be admitted into evidence as if everything on them was and is true. Such documents are nearly always false usually in whole but sometimes in part.
*
Upon sale of the certificates, the offshore loan is paid off in full, usually within 30 days, and sometimes contemporaneously with the myriad of fake closing tables set up to close transactions with homeowners and prospective homeowners. This leaves the investment bank in complete total discretionary control over all payments, fake obligations, executed notes, and executed liens that were issued by the consumer.
*
But it also leaves the investment bank without any “loan balance” due because they have already been paid in full. In fact, they have generated, on average, 12 times the total amount paid to the homeowner. They have avoided even the pretense of a loan balance because if they had one, they would be the real lenders in a table-funded loan transaction. And that would subject them to the laws, rules, and regulations governing consumer lending transactions.
*
Knowing that they were violating the statutory requirements of divulging ALL sources of compensation, revenue or profit resulting from the execution of the loan documents, they evaded the legal requirements. They failed to report to anyone that the named lender on the note and mortgage was not the lender or a creditor.
*
Like substituting a payment history for the actual loan account, they substituted a name which is usually registered as a business entity with no right, title, or interest to any part of the transaction in which they were named.
*
And then, they named MERS as an agent for the named payee on the note and the named lien holders. By adding the words “and its successors,” everyone missed the point. There are no successors to MERS. And there never was any succession to the named payee or mortgagee. 
===================
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 DONATENeil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, 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. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for 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 CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. 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 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

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.

Filed under: foreclosure |

« »

2 Responses

  1. ANON, on December 8, 2022 at 11:49 am said:

    Great explanation as to what happened pre-crisis. After the explosion and TARP and Bail-Out and PPIP and Settlements – things changed.

  2. Papergate, on December 8, 2022 at 11:00 am said:

    Neil – excellent article; I’d love to read the complaint you refer to above in ¶6 – how do I get it? Thanks!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: