The abuse of words is an essential ingredient in any scam. The reason is that the listener or reader has a complex idea of a specific word.
By knowing that idea is in the head of the victim, the scammer can extract money and services, and even products from him or her.
- Madoff used the word “investment” and people assumed he was investing.
- Wells Fargo used the word “account” when the customer neither knew nor requested it. Everyone assumed that it was opening accounts at customers’ request and charging them fees.
- Goldman Sachs used the word “loan” when they were actually using homeowner transactions as an event starting the issuance of securities – not the establishment of a loan account.
The word “loan” is a device just as “cigarette” was a device for delivering nicotine in the most addictive way possible. It wasn’t just tobacco. The larger the “loan”, the bigger the rush felt by borrowers. In both cases, the consumers were sealing their own doom by using and consuming these devices.
So here are some other examples of trap door words that befuddle both pro se litigants and lawyers for homeowners:
“LOAN” for a homeowner means a transction in which money is advanced by the party named as “lender” whose name appears as “payee” on the note and mortgage. “Loan” is a word trap.
- For the government it means a transaction that complies with lending statutes in which respopnsible lenders are liable for violations — and are available for the homeowner/borrower seeking communication. But compliance is only mandatory for lenders and there is no lender or even a pretender lender if there is no loan account.
- For both the homeowner and the government it presupposes the establishment of a loan account on the books (ledgers) of the “lender” on which all credits and debits are posted for the life of the loan. This is opposite to the goal of investment banking orignations with homeowners.
- For the originating investment bank whose name is never disclosed to the homeowner or the government, “loan” is device causing issuance of securities and does not result in any compliance with lending statutes nor the establishment of a loan account on the accounting ledger of the “Payee” who merely serves as fee-based seller of the financial scheme advanced by the securities brokerage firm that calls itself an “investment banker.”
- The elimination of the loan account is the basis for avoiding liability as a lender for any of the companies and intermediaries involved.
- When the lawyer claims representation of some remote entity and makes a claim for foreclosure, he or she uses the word “loan” thus perpetuating a false pretense that begain with the original transction. Ask an officer of the remote entity — and you will find that entity claims no such thing and it has not hired the lawyer. It neither receives nor distributes any money.
- Hearing the word “loan” or even”account,” the homeowner or lawyer assumes there must be an account and they go on to con themselves into a foreclosure. Admitting the loan account dooms the homeowner not becasue such an account exists but becasue they admitted it exists.
- The absence of any challenge or objection leaves the court no choice but to rule in favor of a foreclosure that results in pure revenue rather that restitution for a (nonexistent) loan account.
“Securitization” implies (nonexistent) government analysis and review. For a homeowner and the government means that a loan account has been sold. But since there is no loan account, there is no sale. Despite recitls of consideration, there is no payment due or received for the execution of endorsements or assignments.
For investment banks, “Securitization” is a word vehicle that is intended to recite events on paper that never happened in the real world. Documents purporting to transfer the loan account are regularly fabricated, without which they could not foreclose.
“Certificates” to homeowners and ocasionally in government mean ownership shares of the “loan,” which is to say the loan account, which does not exist. Investment banks regularly describe them as “Mortgage Backed Securities.”
- The certificates are issued in the name of “trusts” that are only named becuase they are ficitious names under which the investment banks issues certificates, containing only a promise to pay.
- That promise in neither secured by any mortgage (or any interest in a mortgage) nor backed by any other collateral — and is not a security under Federal law. The investment banks convinced the government to remove them as securities that could be regulated in 1998.
- Hence the entire statement is a lie, but both homeowners and their lawyers usually think otherwise because they do not think to question the use of the words “certificate” or “certificate holder.”
- No filing is required for “certificates” since they are not securities. But Investment Banks usually use the forms and procedures of the SEC to file a prospectus or “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”. This is done so that enforcers of false foreclosure claims can download the same documents with an SEC header, thus creating the illusion of a government document that the SEC has not seen or reviewed.
- Many times these documents are accepted as evidence under “judicial notice” as government documents — i.e., documents in which the issuer has no stake in the outcome of the case at bar.
- But the issuer is an investment bank and the document is an unreviewed presentation of future “facts” that never occur.
- The langauge of such documents always refers to future events.
- However, lawyers presenting false foreclosure claims usually succeed is arguing their case relying upon such documents as though they speak to the truth of the matter they are asserting: that the trust exists, the trustee maintains a trust account, the trust account contains a loan account, and the “servicer” is empowered ot manage it.
- None of that is true but because neither lawyers nor judges are investment bankers, they have no clue that the argument is totally false.
- Saying nothing, the court is required to make it the facts and law of the case.
==========
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, 76, 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 |
And SVB failure? All comparing now to 2008 bail-out. Here is analysts distinction as to today from 2008 — “2008 was BAD loans – they did not deserve to be loans.” Well, okay – then why are they held as ANY type of loan (actually ‘account’) against homeowners? Not homeowners fault as to ‘BAD LOANs.” All trusted the system. Then BOOM to them. Nothing disclosed as to original transaction actual accounting – or lack thereof.
Guess that non-disclosure is the way of the land. The way things operate.
An “account” is not a MORTGAGE loan. It is a dubious process that allows a non-mortgage loan to be processed as a non-compliant default loan that ensued from the original transaction. Do not claim they are the same. That process allows ANY fees to be attached from the beginning – including property inspections, broker price opinions, and forced placed insurance – none of which is valid. Most of the “securities” by crisis related are NOT compliant with Regulation AB for private Mortgage Backed Securities, and, therefore, were removed for registration by the issuers themselves. There can never be clean title as were never mortgage loans to begin with. UNSECURED. Nothing more than a credit card “account.” Let us talk straight talk here.
No Ledgers, No Loan, No account, unregulated securities (Madoff went to jail for), WellsFargo made up accounts, GoldmanSachs Events, non Compliance with Lending Statutes, PONZI, oh, excuse me homeowner used one of our illegal LABELS, Asset Forfeiture for you OMG America has lost its way 😢🏠
What I experienced with Wells Fargo was that they used the word “investor” referring to Ginnie Mae which was use to tell the State of Nebraska wrongly that Ginnie was the owner of the debt, as they proceeded with a non-judicial foreclosure. The wording in the foreclosure rules of the State refers to the word “investor” as owner of the debt!
I made it known to the County Register that the Assignment of Deed of Trust was not valid as it made to look as if Wells was the lien holder “holder in due course” even as Wells admits they were not the lender. It had to be done this way as Ginnie not in tile anywhere because they are allowed by US Congress to buy or sell a mortgage loan!
I am looking at filing a Quiet Title as the tile is clouded, and the fact that my property was illegally sold to the Dept of VA without a clean title.