By laundering the title to the recorded lien AFTER the homeowner has failed to derail the false claim, the foreclosure mills have lulled most homeowners and most lawyers and judges into a state of complacency wherein they miss the fact that the new substitution — often without permission of the court — is an admission that the homeowner’s defense narrative was correct from the beginning.
US Bank Trust, N.A. as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust vs. XXXXXXXX Superior Court of Washington County of Kitsap.
*
The name is an off-shoot (subsidiary) of US Bank NA. That change happened in the foreclosure marketplace when it became apparent that US Bank faced potential liability for violation of statutes in which it licensed the use of its bank name in (1) foreclosures against homeowners and (2) the sale of securities to investors — country to the laws of the state in which the transaction occurred and the foreclosure was being pursued. Only Banks are permitted to use bank names. Nonbank entities are generally required to seek permission from the commissioner of banking, who might grant the use of the word “bank” in the name of an entity.
*
The use of the word bank is concealed behind a reference to an actual bank that is not serving any functions as either a bank or a trustee. Hence a subsidiary was formed to defend any claims if they arose. The liability of US bank or US bank was indemnified by the undisclosed party who was using the name -“US Bank”. That undisclosed party was an investment firm (securities brokerage and underwriting) that often used the moniker “investment bank.” This moniker produced confusion in the marketplace contributing to the 2008 crash. The Glass Steagal Act was specifically enacted to prevent securities firms from calling themselves banks or acting like one. The fix was over a weekend when the “investment banks” were converted to licensed commercial banks chartered by the United States government.
*
The substance is that there is no trust or trustee and no “thing” (res) subject to management by the named trustee, nor are there any active participants or beneficiaries. Hence the LSF9 name is also a ruse. The gravamen of the homeowner’s defense is that the party named as Claimant (Plaintiff) had no legal existence and even if it did fulfill the conditions precedent to form a legal fictitious business entity, neither US Bank nor LSF9 claimed or received any money from the homeowner in the case at bar or any other homeowner. Nor were they expecting or entitled to receive the proceeds of a forced sale in foreclosure.
*
However, under litigation and immunity and basically anonymous electronic communications, the lawyer for the foreclosure law firm was allowed to and instructed to make a claim on behalf of US bank and LSF9 that was unknown and disclaimed by both. US bank, US Bank Trust, and LSF9 are not clients of opposing counsel, nor have they had any contact regarding any unpaid receivable allegedly owed by the homeowner. None of them maintain any ledger on which an asset is shown bearing a description and name of an obligation due from the homeowner at bar.
*
Previous attempts to establish these facts have failed. But the most recent events clearly show that the defense narrative is completely correct. Mirroring a tactic used in many states across the country, the securities firm who retains control (but not ownership) over the money trail and the paper trail the laundering of title occurs after orders or judgments are entered. Such is the case at bar.
*
Opposing counsel now seeks us to believe that US Bank or US Bank trust or LSF9 trust wants to transfer their spoils of victory to a new entity — in order to make it easier to distribute the proceeds of receipts from the forced sale of the property. No transaction is alleged nor any other intent to gift the nonexistent “ownership” to the party whom they now wish to serve as the sham conduit through which the proceeds will be distributed as revenue and profit and not one penny distributed to anyone to reduce an outstanding account receivable due from the homeowner.
*
No transaction has ever occurred in which any underlying or even inchoate obligation of the homeowner has been purchased or sold for value. All instruments purporting to transfer lien rights were void and were shams created for the sole purpose of foreclosure and are not reflected on the books and records of any creditor, lender, or successor lender.
*
All records produced as a record of transactions conducted by any “servicer” are false since those companies do not perform any servicing functions. Those records are not “business records” since they contain no record of any business conducted by the alleged servicer. The process of collection, administration, correspondence and enforcement is performed by financial technology company serving only the securities investment firm that started the scheme as set forth above.
*
==============================
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
Neil 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.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure |
Great article, it’s mind-boggling that the 5 basic principles of accounting: Revenue Recognition Principle, Cost Principle, Matching Principle, Full Disclosure Principle, and Objectivity Principle are paraded with absurd misrepresentation by Wallstreet and the banks. Even more, disturbing is that the foreclosure Lawyers and Judges believe those false narratives.