How the SEC Is Used by Wall Street Brokers to Deceive the Courts, the Public and the Legal Community

The question is related to whether the SEC had undertaken any analysis of supposedly exempt MBS certificates. It is obvious that it has not done so. The agency has taken a position that is contrary to express factual and legal findings in thousands of court cases, administrative proceedings, and settlements. Such certificates are only exempt if they are in fact mortgage-backed pass-through certificates that allow payments from homeowners to flow to investors who buy them. It is an undeniable fact that this is not what is happening and not what Wall Street brokers ever intended.

*

Astonishingly if you ask any attorney representing any party claiming to have rights to foreclose on homeowners’ property, they will either evade answering or they will admit they have no clue as to whether the loan account exists or who owns it. Yet they persist in attempting to foreclose because they can. But the way they can is partly due to weaponizing a simple practice granted to people and companies on the SEC’s website.

*
The certificates are not mortgage-backed. In addition, there is no pass-through legal obligation to pass payments from homeowners to investors. Instead, certificates are an unsecured discretionary IOU from an investment bank — i.e., “REMIC” certificates are securities that are not exempt from registration requirements and should be regulated by the SEC. The SEC is an agency that has failed to drill down to the facts and has proceeded instead on false assumptions. 
 *
The SEC is the primary source of misinformation about the origination and acquisition of homeowner transactions and the creation, issuance, sales, and trading of securities that are not exempt from registration or regulation. Instead, the SEC has become the primary vehicle for the dissemination of false information by allowing login credentials to individuals and companies to upload documents to http://www.sec.gov and then download them with the website URL in the header — thus giving the false impression that the document is a government document or that it has been processed by a government agency. 
 *
This practice has been utilized to present false self-serving documents that are treated as facially valid, authentic representations of transactions that in fact have never occurred nor were they ever intended to occur. 
*

Both the SEC and the IRS have made erroneous assumptions causing widespread moral hazard and loss to investors, homeowners, and the government (in loss of tax revenue). The SEC is the focal point because that is the agency with the knowledge and resources to make administrative findings as to the certificates that are issued as if the issuer was a REMIC trust. In fact, the REMIC trust name is only a label used by the investment bank to issue discretionary unsecured promises to pay by investment banks. 
*
The failure of the SEC to properly regulate and investigate this has resulted in a near-universal and erroneous consensus that the 2008 Recession was caused by risky behavior instead of illegal behavior. Such behavior is a continuing scheme. This Federal agency (SEC) is contributing to a myth that the transactions with homeowners were loans, that an underlying obligation was created, and that the underlying obligation was sold in pieces to investors who receive the proceeds of scheduled payments from homeowners and from foreclosures. In most cases, this is patently untrue, as shown in thousands of court cases. No “loan” was sold to anyone, much less to investors who owned shares of loans.
*
The SEC is uniquely suited to correct the misinformation scheme. As it odes with all investigations of public offerings, it could analyze the actual flow of money and the intended flow to determine if the issuance is one that the SEC can and should require registration and regulation.
*
There is a simple fact that could be investigated without any material expenditure of resources: at the end of the claimed securitization” cycle, there is no loan account receivable owned by any creditor. Accordingly, all representations and implied representations to the contrary are false and known to be false and are meant to deceive investors, the courts, homeowners, and the legal community. At the very least the SEC should stop any practice in which its websites used to propagate false narratives about the so-called securitization of residential debt.
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*

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

13 Questions: Here is what the OCC said should be minimum operating standards for “servicers”

On April 19, 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published “Operating standards for scheduled foreclosure sales.” This was about 5 years after public recognition of the mortgage meltdown, and 1 year after the infamous 50-state settlement in which the “servicers” and Wall Street brokers settled claims of fabrication of false documents that were forged, backdated, and robosigned. Another 50-state agreement was reached last year in a settlement with Nationstar, now known as Mr. Cooper. 

The settlement was all about money with some provisions in which the “servicers” promised to take corrective action. It should have been about title. It avoided the essential question on the table: Why was it necessary for anyone to fabricate and forge false documentation? In an industry that invented all the paperwork for “loans”, why was it necessary to trash the original paperwork and invent new stuff? None of the parties to the agreement or the Wall Street brokers that paid for it ever changed anything.

see foreclosure_standards_42013

The interesting thing about all this is that these minimum standards are said to apply only after the foreclosure process is complete and a sale is scheduled. Why they wouldn’t be applied at the commencement of “servicing activity” is or should be subject to scrutiny. This effectively gives a pass to anyone operating under false pretense right up until the actual sale.

I would also add that the one question missing from all of this that should be present is the one posed by Article 9 §203 of the UCC: Has the named claimant paid value for the underlying obligation? That statute, adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions verbatim, says simply that there can’t be foreclosure by anyone who has not fulfilled that condition precedent.

Here are the questions posed by OCC:

1. Is the loan’s default status accurate? [Editor’s Note: Failure to understand the possibility of false claims for securitization — the question should have the following words tacked onto the end “as to the named claimant.” Wall Street has been successful at pointing to scheduled payments as the sole basis for the action. But knowledge of scheduled payments does not mean ownership. Litigators who fail to understand this distinction are giving away the store. A secondary question here which probably ought to be the first question is whether there is a debt, i.e.: is there anyone who is carrying the alleged debt as a loan account receivable on its accounting ledgers?]

2. Does the servicer have and can demonstrate the appropriate legal authority to foreclose (documented assignments, note endorsements, and other necessary legal documentation, as applicable)? [Editor’s Note: It isn’t enough that there are documents fabricated to demonstrated the claimed authority. The authority can only come from one who paid value for the underlying debt and who owns it. Note that it is possible under the “securitization” scheme invented by Wall Street to pay value without getting a conveyance of any right, title or interest in the scheduled payments of a homeowner — e.g., investors who buy certificates]

3. Have required foreclosure notices or other required communications to the borrower or others, as applicable, been provided in a timely manner?

4. Has the servicer taken all steps necessary to confirm whether the borrower, co-borrower, and all obligors on the mortgage, trust deed, or other security in the nature of a mortgage are entitled to protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), including running queries through the Department of Defense database? If the borrower, co-borrower, or other obligor is subject to SCRA protections, has the servicer complied with all applicable legal requirements to foreclose?

5. Determine whether the borrower is in active bankruptcy. If so, does the servicer have documented legal authority to foreclose? [Editor’s Note: Again the emphasis is on documents instead of a determination as to whether the documents are a memorialization of some real transaction in the real world or just some imaginary transaction to justify a disinterested party getting the windfall award of foreclosure.]

6. Determine whether the loan is currently under loss mitigation or other retention review or such review has been requested by the borrower as part of the foreclosure process. If so, did the servicer notify the borrower that all conditions necessary to effect the loss mitigation or retention action have not been met, what is needed to meet those conditions, and the date necessary to cure the deficiencies to avoid further foreclosure action? If a borrower submitted a complete loan modification application after the foreclosure referral, did the servicer comply with any applicable dual track restrictions? [Editor’s Note: The missing question is whether the “servicer” or anyone else has any legal authority to solicit, accept, consider or decide upon loss mitigation and retention. If they are not the owner of the debt or presenting someone who owns the debt (by virtue of payment in exchange for a conveyance of the debt) then they should not be accepting any discussion, correspondence to communication regarding the alleged debt.]

7. Is the borrower currently in an active trial loss mitigation plan?

8. Determine whether the servicer accepted any payment from the borrower in the preceding 60 days (that is, were borrower payments, including interest, principal, fees, escrow payments, applied to the borrower’s account or retained in a suspense account). If so, did the servicer clearly communicate to the borrower that he or she is neither in nor being considered for a loss mitigation program and that the bank’s acceptance of the payment in no way affected the status of the foreclosure that is proceeding?

9. As applicable, was the borrower solicited for and offered a loss mitigation option, such as, those required by HAMP, government sponsored enterprise, the Federal Housing Administration, the U.S. Veterans Administration, state-level government programs under U.S. Department of Treasury, other third party investor, or the servicer’s loss mitigation and modification programs? To the extent applicable, has the servicer complied with its loss mitigation obligations detailed in the National Mortgage Settlement? Have any borrower complaints, appeals, or escalations been considered and addressed? [Editor’s Note: The obvious problem here is the reference to third party investors. So they are conceding that third-party investors might be involved but still allowing a virtual creditor to be designated as the claimant. Again, litigators who fail to notice this distinction are probably doomed to failure in attempting to defend against illegal foreclosures. ]

10. Was the fully executed loan modification application submitted by the borrower, as defined by the applicable modification program, reviewed by the servicer as required, including any timeline or notice requirements?

11. Was the modification decision correct and validated as required by the applicable modification program (to include, as applicable, compliance with program requirements and accuracy of calculations and application of the NPV test) along with appropriate resolution and communication of any borrower complaint, appeal, or escalation?

12. Was the borrower or the borrower’s representative (housing counselor or attorney) notified of the loan modification decision and rationale as required by program or policy guidelines?

13. If required by a GSE or other investor, has the servicer certified to the attorney conducting the foreclosure that all delinquency management requirements have been met, including that there is neither an approved payment plan arrangement nor a foreclosure alternative offer pending or accepted?

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

Tonight! The Name Game: How Foreclosure Mills Fool the Courts 6PM EST 3PM PST

LISTEN ON APPLE PODCASTS

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6 pm Eastern Thursdays

It is often true that the best challenge is after a foreclosure is complete. I know that sounds crazy. But tonight we will discuss tactics and strategies in foreclosure defense in which we can hang the evil-doers by their own paperwork. It’s true that eventually, the truth comes out — or at least part of it. When the “credit bid” is moved around and the deed from foreclosure is granted, the party involved is often not the named party who sued you or on whose behalf the Notice of Default was sent.

So tonight we are going to look at one such deed and I’ll tell you how to analyze it and what you can do about it. Here is some of the wording that we will look at and analyze:

This Deed is made by Paul M. Halliday, Jr., as Successor Trustee and a member of the Utah State Bar, under the Trust Deed described below, in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, for LXS 2007-8H, ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2007-SH, P.O. Box 619080, Dallas, TX 75261-9741, as Grantee.

WHEREAS, on XXXXXXX, 2007, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,, as Trustors, executed and delivered to Meridian Title, as Trustee, for the benefit of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Varent Inc., a Utah Corporation, its successors and assigns, as Beneficiary, a certain Trust Deed to secure the performance by the Trustors of obligations under a Promissory Note of the same
date executed and delivered for a valid consideration to the Beneficiary and the Trust Deed having been recorded in the office of the Utah County Recorder on XXXXX, 2007, as of Entry No. XXXXXXX:2007, describing the property set forth below; and
WHEREAS, a breach and default occurred under the terms of the Note and Trust Deed in the particulars set forth in the Notice of Default in this matter; and
WHEREAS, Paul M. Halliday, Jr., was duly appointed by the Beneficiary as Successor Trustee by a Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Utah County, State of Utah, on XXXXXXX, 2015, as Entry No. XXXXXXXX:2015;

Always wrong, never in doubt. IRS Struggles With REMIC Relief

see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/irs-extends-remic-and-trust-relief-9911184/

Always wrong, never in doubt.

The problem is not whether REMIC trusts, trustees, and beneficiaries should be given extensions on reporting and other relief on the cash flow generated or delayed through REMICs.

The problem is that there is no cash flow through REMIC trusts. There is no real estate. There is no mortgage. There is no investment. And nothing flows through the REMIC as a conduit. The beneficiaries are not investors who bought certificates. The underwriters and beneficiaries are both the same entity: the investment bank bookrunner. And the named “trustee” neither knows nor manages any assets.

So much for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit.

There is nothing to extend except the illusion that these REMICS exist. There is no relief because there is nothing to tax — except for the unreported revenue of the investment bank.

 

Ocwen (PHH) Slammed with Lawsuit by 33 State Attorneys General

Let them know what you think!!!

The new suit is about charging illegal fees. But if the attorney generals of each state want real leverage they need only demand discovery responses to one simple question: Name the Creditor Who Authorized You to Act as Agent, Servicer, or Power of Attorney.

Ocwen doesn’t have any money to pay fines, penalties and damages, but the Wall Street stockbrokers (aka Investment banks) sure do — and they will pay to escape any requirement that they respond to that question.

How do I contact NY Att. Gen’l Letitia James?
  1. Contact Office by Mail: Office of the Attorney General. The Capitol. Albany, NY 12224-0341.
  2. Press Office Email: NYAG.Pressoffice@ag.ny.gov.
  3. General Helpline: 1-800-771-7755.
  4. TDD/TTY Toll Free Line: 1-800-788-9898.
  5. Healthcare Hotline: 1-800-428-9071.
  6. Medicaid Fraud Control Unit: 212-417-5397. Disclaimer.

Office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison
Tel: (651) 296-3353 (Twin Cities Calling Area) or (800) 657-3787 (Outside the Twin Cities)
(800) 627-3529 (Minnesota Relay)

The SEC.GOV Scam Played By Foreclosure Mills

 Sec.gov is basically used by foreclosure mill lawyers as an ftp site on which documents are stored rather than registered or reviewed for facial validity. But they use it to mislead the court into believing that the document is a public record document when it clearly is not.

A favorite tactic of foreclosure mills for the last 12 years has been to introduce documents that they say were filed with the SEC. The documents are often admitted into evidence by the judge by way of a motion for the court to take “judicial notice.”

Although such documents are technically admitted as proof that they exist and not for their contents, this is a distinction that is often overlooked or proactively ignored by judges who want to get to the “inevitable” end of the case. Since the homeowner has already admitted the existence of the loan and has admitted that there was a default, what harm results from technical error by the Judge?

So let’s look at this ploy and see what is really happening. The foreclosure mill has either filed a complaint naming, for example, “U.S. Bank NA as trustee of Structured Assets Securities Corporation Trust, pass-through certificates series 2007-A1.” So they are implying that there is a trust and that U.S. Bank — but they don’t actually say anything about the trust, where it was formed, or in what state it is operating. They also don’t say how or when the trust was formed or what was entrusted to the trustee on behalf of any beneficiaries.

Instead of filing an allegation that could be subject to charges of perjury they either refer to or introduce a pooling and services agreement (PSA) as though it is the trust agreement appointing U.S. Bank to administer the active affairs of the trust. In most cases, the PSA does not say it is a trust agreement. Instead, it purports to be an agreement in which holders of certificates are going to be paid, but not from the trust or the trustee. And even where the PSA receipts or is titled as “trust Agreement” it isn’t a trust agreement.

A trust agreement has several basic elements, all of which must be included or there is no trust. That means if the elements are not present, the law regards the trust agreement as a nullity — at least with respect to the item claimed to have been held in trust. The elements are (1) a named trustor (2) a named trustee (3) a named beneficiary (4) written terms of administration and distribution to beneficiaries and (5) specified assets described and legally conveyed to the named trustee.

In reviewing thousands of PSA documents I have not seen one that fulfills all of those elements. That is why I have repeatedly said that there is no trust and that the trustee has no power over anything claimed to be in trust. Merely applying logic, if the trust does not legally exist and the trustee has no powers to administer any assets, it follows that any claimed authority from the trustee over those assets is equally void. But the banks are very good at creating illusions. So because several layers of companies are created or hired to act as though the trust exists, the illusion emerges that the trust probably does exist even though it does not.

The real trust agreement (I have seen dozens of them) says that the trust only exists for bare legal title to documents that have no legal effect. The note is endorsed to the trustee but the rust agreement prohibits the trust or the trustee from asserting any financial interest in the scheduled payments. The mortgage is assigned under the same principles.

The beneficiary is the bookrunner brokerage firm that did the fake underwriting of the certificates. I say fake underwriting because the creation, issuance, and sale of the certificates were done in the name of the named trust but the proceeds went to the broker, not the named issuer. It was an offering of unsecured IOUs from the broker and many prospectuses say exactly that.

No PSA or REMIC trust Agreement ever describes a purchase of assets by the trustee or trust because that trust never received the proceeds from the IPO of IOUs issued by the broker. It had no money to make such a purchase. And no PSA or trust agreement ever names a trustor or settlor that owns the underlying obligation or any right, title, or interest in the note or mortgage. It merely names a “seller” implying but not stating that the seller owns the asset. No such ownership exists.

No PSA or trust agreement EVER has Mortgage Loan Schedule attached. Those are all created, as the need arises, in foreclosure actions. The investors don’t care because they don’t own any right, title or interest in any scheduled payment from any homeowner.

So the PSA is part of an illusion. As a trust agreement, it is a complete bust missing most of the elements legally required for the establishment of a legally existing business entity doing business as a trust. It is relevant to some degree between the broker and the investors but it is irrelevant to the homeowner who has promised to make scheduled payments. Note that I no longer refer to any part of the homeowner transaction as a loan, which I am now sure is not the case. Payments to investors are NOT conditioned on receipt of scheduled payments from homeowners. Investors are NEVER beneficiaries of the alleged trust.

All such payments are made subject to the sole discretion of the broker who can vary it at their own instance for virtually any reason. No party ever loses money as a result of a missed scheduled payment.  but plenty of people are making money with each such payment and often receive a windfall in the event of foreclosure.

So given the aforesaid backdrop how do foreclosure mills manage to get past such obvious obstacles to a successful claim for a foreclosure? One of their favorite tools is to take advantage of their ability to upload any document of their choosing to the SEC.GOV website. Unless the offering is a registered offering under SEC regulations nobody ever looks at much less approves of the uploaded document.

The uploaded document is never “filed.” And it is not a government document. Therefore it is a self-serving document that has only been uploaded to get the “SEC.GOV” heading on the download, thus giving it the illusion of a government document subject to judicial notice. It is rank false hearsay masquerading as a document that has been vetted by a trusted government agency. And that is why the judge will most often (especially if the homeowner fails to contest it) accept the document’s authenticity and veracity.

PRACTICE NOTES FOR ATTORNEYS:

OK this is really technical and potentially out-dated. But still relevant.
*
This is from old English common law. It generally is used in the context of Scire Facias. That in turn means “written on its face.” But contextually it also means something of record, and by that is meant something of public record.
*
Nul Tiel Record, also Latin, literally means there is no such record. It is used in the context of a defense (criminal case) or claim (civil) which relies on the allegation of a written record, presumably a public record. THE PSA MAY EXIST BUT IT IS NUL TIEL RECORD.
*
Nailing a poster to a telephone poll would not ordinarily be regarded as a public record despite being a “record” and displayed in “public.” Some authorized agency would need to review and approve it as being in conformity with statutory requirements for entering it into the public record. The presentation of the PSA is the same as nailing a self-serving notice to a pole. It has no presumption of authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
*
Versions of these concepts are found in appellate law where the appellate court is limited to looking at the record in appeal and not on allegations contained in the brief that are unsupported by the record on appeal. Some doctrines allow a very limited amount of time to correct the record or to show how the matter is literally a matter of record and hopefully, public record.
*
These particular doctrines related to allegations that claim something is in the record but in fact is absent from the record, as displayed.
Theoretically, these concepts could be used in the context of foreclosure actions where, for example, banks or their lawyers upload some version of the PSA and then point to that record as being facially valid because it was “recorded.” But uploading it to a site that can be seen is not the same as formal registration of the document; and formal registration of the document does not mean it is complete unless it is reviewed and formally accepted by the government agency with whom the document is “registered.”
*
So for example a county clerk would reject a deed that does not have a signature, notarization, or the proper number of witnesses. At SEC.gov there is no such review and thus no rejection or formal acceptance of improper documentation. While the document is scire facias (i.e., it has writing on its face)  it isn’t “of record.” This is why the PSA should never be used for judicial notice. Sec.gov is basically used by foreclosure mill lawyers as an ftp site on which documents are stored rather than registered or reviewed for facial validity. But they use it to mislead the court into believing that the document is a public record document when it clearly is not.
*
Such documents are definitely in the public domain when they were written and displayed publicly. But they are not appropriate for judicial notice because they have neither been reviewed nor accepted by any authorized government entity or agency.
*
Perhaps an extension of these doctrines could apply to assignments of mortgages and endorsements of notes that contain an amorphous or implied reference to public records that do not exist. For example, Ocwen signing as Attorney in Fact asserts or implies that Ocwen is the attorney in fact.
*
Being an attorney in fact necessarily implies a power of attorney executed by a party who possessed powers to convey. Such powers generally need to be in writing. Such an assertion then would be a reference to a document that is neither attached to the original document nor specifically described as part of public record. Thus the document would be claiming Scire Facias (it is written on the face) without describing the document upon which it is written.
*
It also might imply that the power of attorney is a public record. If a homeowner challenges the document as not being in the public record at all and not being attached to the instrument, the court should refuse to accept the facial validity of the instrument. But the validity of the document can still be proven with extrinsic (parole) evidence showing that the power of attorney actually existed even though it wasn’t in the public record and wasn’t attached to the assignment.
*
And without timely objection, the instrument could be accepted into evidence even with obvious defects.
*
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

Why the SEC Should Enforce Securities Laws and Regulations Against Wall Street Brokers Who Issued “certificates” Under False Pretenses

Investors who sued based upon “bad underwriting” have received settlements. Homeowners who sue based upon “bad underwriting” are given the boot. Either they are told they cannot sue proactively or they are defeated later because the trial judge thinks the homeowner is merely trying to improperly, immorally, and unethically get out of a perfectly valid debt by weaponizing legal technicalities — i.e. the exact opposite of the truth.

The dirty little secret about law enforcement agencies is that if you don’t do their work for them, they won’t prosecute anything except simple, easy to win cases.

*

As far as the SEC is concerned I think we need to simplify the argument. The bottom line is that the “mortgage-backed” certificates, as issued in practice, are securities and should be regulated as such. The goal should be to create pressure on the SEC to take a closer look and see that they have been hoodwinked.

*
The SEC has not enforced SEC regulations against the brokers who issued “certificates” because, it is said, that the “mortgage-backed securities” (“MBS”) certificates under the 1998-1999 legislation are private contracts and should not be treated as securities.
*

The reason for that was that there was a public policy in place that made it a priority to make loan money more available to the average consumer and diversification of risk would provide a vehicle for accomplishing that objective. And that is the reason that Bush and Obama both were told that what Wall Street brokers had done was not illegal.

*
However, the problem with that is that it was the legislation that was taken as an accurate description of what happened next. It wasn’t accurate and was never meant to describe future events.
*
First, the certificates were not mortgage-backed and thus the public policy reason for the legislation was entirely defeated.
*
Second, the vehicle did not diversify risk — it eliminated it — leaving “borrowers” twisting in the wind without a lender, loan account, or anyone with authority with whom they could communicate. Pretender lenders had only one incentive — get the homeowner to sign. These non-lender lenders were paid a fee regardless of scheduled payments being made or not. “Underwriters” similarly had only one incentive — get the homeowner to sign. That is what enabled them to sell layers upon layers of passive income securities on an almost infinite basis — without allowing the investors and the homeowners (the only two real parties in interest) — to participate in any way.
*
They left homeowners accepting risks and losses that were deeply concealed for as long as 15 years. Investors who sued based upon “bad underwriting” have received settlements. Homeowners who sue based upon “bad underwriting” are being given the boot. Either they are told they cannot sue proactively or they are defeated later because the trial judge thinks the homeowner is merely trying to improperly, immorally, and unethically get out of a perfectly valid debt by weaponizing legal technicalities — i.e. the exact opposite of the truth. In short, thousands of course in millions of cases have reversed the facts because they erroneously believe they know “what is really going on.” This is exacerbated by the same belief of homeowners and their lawyers.
*
Contrary to all Federal and state lending statutes, Wall Street brokers were incentivized to disregard the viability of the “loans” and instead create situations where the homeowner could be declared in default — even without a creditor, lender, successor lender, or anyone in authority to make that declaration. And homeowners, who had zero access to any information that would have or could have tipped them off to what was happening, failed in most cases to challenge the declaration of default or the seemingly innocuous correspondence and notices that preceded it.
*

With the availability of bets, hedge contracts, and insurance the Wall Street brokers could fund these transactions hoping they would fail — the exact opposite of consumer lending statutes, rules, and regulations. Also, this was the exact opposite of normal expectations established by customs and practices in the business of “lending” over centuries if not millennia.

*
So we know that investors and homeowners got screwed. We also know that so far that Wall Street brokers have escaped prosecution for what the rest of us know was an intentional consequence of illegal behavior. The trick is to find a way to force agencies to see it.  In the meantime, we must educate our judges one case at a time. That means educating ourselves. If we don’t know, we can’t teach.
*
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

Watch Out for Foreclosure Rescue Scams and Promises of Modification

see https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/business/article248795490.html

Anyone asking for an upfront fee who is not a lawyer or other licensed professional is probably practicing law without a license and more likely than not making promises they have no way of keeping.

They are telling people what they want to hear and then taking money they can’t possibly earn.

WHAT IS A SERVICER ADVANCE? According to Ocwen it has zero credit risk and is not really an advance

One place where securitization players and foreclosure players don’t lie is in reports that are formally filed with the SEC. So in my research, I found a document in which Ocwen describes itself and which is subject to judicial notice because it is a government document downloaded from the Sec.gov website. The filing of 8k and other reports required by securities laws and regulations is an official act. It is a sworn representation by the issuer (Ocwen here) that the facts being presented are accurate and true on penalty of going to jail. Here we see a filing that identifies the people who would go to jail if the facts were not at least arguably accurate.

THIS IS ALSO A MENU OF INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY FOR PARTICIPATING IN FRAUDULENT, NEGLIGENT ENTERPRISES AND WRONGFUL FORECLOSURES. 

======

NOTE ON JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SEC.GOV

Note my words here. In most court cases, the documents used by foreclosure mills are merely self-serving documents laundered through the SEC website. If you have the credentials you can upload anything including but not limited to porn.

So for court purposes only they upload as much as they can to the SEC.gov website — and then download it with “sec.gov” in the heading. Then they produce it as a governent document (which it isn’t) and ask for judicial notice. Without opposition, the judge grants the motion for judicial notice and that practically means the case is over.

Most pro se litigants don’t know what judiclal notice is and most lawyers and homeowners take it for granted that they can’t oppose judical notice for a government document. they forget to inquire whether that IS a government document and in virtually ALL cases, it is not a govenrment document — and therefore (1) it is not subject to judicial notice and (2) the attempt to use it as such is subject to a motion for contempt and sanctions — if you file the motion. This is another example of how the banks are using pure fabrications and weaponizing civil procedure to support their thieving scheme.

see https://shareholders.ocwen.com/static-files/24390846-8787-4a36-9c30-53b5b5f0a0e5

OCWEN 8K 0001193125-13-015500

Note that this is a “Lender’s Presentation.” That means it is a presentation to prospective lenders. Any lies would be subject to criminal prosecution not only for violations of securities laws but also for bank fraud.

Take a look at this from Ocwen’s 8k report to the SEC in 2013: Note how the filing is devoid of any representation that Ocwen is a lender, successor lender, or attorney in fact for anyone.

Note how Ocwen is basically always teetering close to bankruptcy because it has very few assets and maintains a business plan that is always based entirely on income from “servicing.”

Note how on page 20 they represent Ocwen, BOA servicing, Chase servicing, Saxon Servicing, Litton Servicing, and HomeEq Servicing to all be the same thing. Since 2013 you can add PHH, REZ, and other entities or names that were used ficitiously.

THEN ON PAGE 36 THEY ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHAT IS A SERVICER ADVANCE?

  1. Note that they use the word “advance” in quotes, just like I did here. That is because if they said it was an advance they would be lying. There is no advance. This is a cover-up for the fact that there is no loss to anyone when scheduled payments are not paid by homeowners. So there is no need for any advance, much less by a “servicer”. No company would accept responsibility for making such advances. Imagine if your bookkeeper said “That’s ok, if they don’t pay you, I will.” Imagine the fees that would need to be paid for any company to incur such liability. Imagine insurance and reserve deposits required. None of those things exist.
  2. So the advance does not come from Ocwen’s balance sheet and it actually does not exist. This is cover for the Master servicer putting in a claim for nonexistent advances. All payments to creditors of the securities brokerage firm (i.e., investors who purchased uncertificated certificates) are made from a huge such fund that is referred to in other documents as a reserve pool which consists of (1) proceeds from the sale of the certificates (2) money deposited with permission of the stockbroker who started this scheme including money received from homeowners and (c) proceeds of sales from other similar schemes. It is all commingled and obviously, this has nothing to do with any homeowner (aka “borrower”).
  3. Next, they say that “servicers incur funding costs on these non-interest bearing advances but do not bear credit risk.” Translation: there is no advance.  But we claim funding costs in order to get paid for pretending that servicer advances are real thus justifying fees for nonexistent services.
  4. Next, they say that “Advances are recoverable at the ‘top of the waterfall’ first from proceeds at a loan level, and then if those funds are insufficient, from cash collected from other loans in an RMBS trust.” Translation: Advances are recoverable but not by Ocwen. It never sees that “recovery.” The money is taken first from “a loan level.” which means it could be any loan. That is reinforced by the remaining words which refer to other loans in any RMBS trust. And that is why I say that there is no loss to anyone in any individual loan. It’s impossible. As long as there is money anywhere from investors, homeowners, or insurance for the certificates, everyone gets paid. So far there has always been money available not only to make all payments to everyone but also to for exceedingly high profits like what we saw with Goldman Sachs in 2009 when they forced the AIG bailout not to cover losses, but rather to cover additional profits.
  5. And lastly, they make the silly statement that “A servicer” can ‘stop advance’ if it believes that an advance will not be recoverable from the borrower.” This is silly because first of all there are no advances except from other people’s money with which Ocwen has no control. Second, because recovery from a borrower is irrelevant as described above. This statement is made solely as part of the coordinated illusion created by the stockbroker (aka investment bank) that started the scheme. It is made to reinforce the false representation that there are any loans, that there is any loan receivable account on the ledgers of anyone, and that therefore those accounts need servicing.
P.S. Note the very beginning where is says: “On January 17, 2013, Ocwen Financial Corporation (“Ocwen”) is making a presentation at a meeting among potential lenders for the proposed Senior Secured Term Loan facility. Barclays, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC are acting as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunning Managers for the facility. Barclays Bank PLC is acting as Sole Syndication Agent and Administrative Agent for the facility. A copy of Ocwen’s slide presentation for such conference is attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto. Such slide presentation shall not be deemed to be “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.” This means they are trying to say, unsuccessfully that even though they’re filing it with the SEC it shouldn’t count against them if they’re lying. 
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Tonight! Chase Bank Maneuvers to Avoid Liability for False Foreclosures and upcoming seminars are described! 3PM PST 6PM EST

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 3PM Pacific, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Today on the Show Bill Paatalo will break down the latest strategies by Chase Bank to manipulate the legal process through name-selection shenanigans. Charles Marshall will break down the latest on Covid, as well as provide a preview of an upcoming seminar to be presented by the newly formed trio of LendingEyes, consisting of Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall, and Bill Paatalo. The coming seminar will focus on topics critical to both homeowners in foreclosure and attorneys who help them with their either judicial or non-judicial litigation needs. A subset of the seminar will also incorporate content specifically for small landlords, many of whom have been greatly impacted by the Covid-19 foreclosure and eviction moratoriums, and are themselves now in foreclosure with securitized zombie loans they can’t pay.

Nothing is or was securitized. No sale of any asset occurred.

The main obstacle to homeowner success in the courtroom is the asymmetry of information causing the homeowner to believe that they were part of a loan transaction instead of merely being compensated for a concealed business plan that was completely reliant on the homeowner’s unknowing cooperation. The homeowner did not receive this information for two reasons. First, no reasonable person would accept the deal without significant compensation. Second, no reasonable person would accept the deal at all. 

Just to add some clarity and simplicity — none of the paper issued and sold by Wall Street brokerage firms was backed by anything. It is erroneous to assume that any sale of any asset occurred. Securities were sold but none of them represented any ownership, right, title, or interest in any asset.

*

Accordingly, it is equally wrong to assume that any investor acquired any right, title, or interest to any scheduled payment from homeowners. They did not. The problem is that most people start with the erroneous assumption that something was securitized. All of the certificates, hedge contracts, derivatives, and insurance products were bets based upon discretionary data coming from the insured — the brokerage firm.

*
This became crystal clear when TARP came into existence. First, it was to bail out mortgage losses from homeowner defaults, then it was to bail out losses from owning the certificates that were supposedly backed by loans, then it was simply used to corporate welfare — resulting in the creation of Maiden Lane entities to launder the title creating the illusion of a legal creditor owning a loan account receivable. “workouts” and “modifications” are
*
Wall Street’s attempt to have the homeowner agree later to what the securities brokerage firm (aka investment bank) intended when the loan was first originated or acquired. Such agreements substitute a new party as the stated or named creditor. It requires acknowledgment that this new party (usually a “servicer’ who performs no servicing, thanks to SaaS), will be treated as though an obligation payable by the homeowner exists on its ledgers. And it presumes that payment of value for the underlying obligation was made by this new entity. None of this is true.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: The reason why any homeowner can win a foreclosure is that none of the parties in the foreclosure team or the securitization team have ever paid for the underlying obligation in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the debt, note, or mortgage. This produces a failure of condition precedent for enforcement and collection. See Article 9 §203 UCC. This is not “proven” by the homeowner. It is revealed through negative inference against the foreclosure mill team. That inference arises when they fail to produce and even assert that they have made such payment.
*
The main obstacle to homeowner success in the courtroom is the asymmetry of information causing the homeowner to believe that they were part of a loan transaction instead of merely being compensated for a concealed business plan that was completely reliant on the homeowner’s unknowing cooperation. The homeowner did not receive this information for two reasons. First, no reasonable person would accept the deal without significant compensation. Second, no reasonable person would accept the deal at all. 
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

Latest Moratorium Extensions Are Two-Edged Sword

The new president is facing incoming fire from all directions. If he does not extend the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, hundreds of thousands of people are going to be homeless. But the extension does not come without costs.
*
As you have seen on these pages, I am quite confident that none of the scheduled payments from homeowners are legally due. On the other hand, I am loathe to tell homeowners or tenants that they should withhold payments if they can make them.
*
The reason is basically extortion or duress. By withholding a scheduled payment without a court order telling you can don’t need to make the payment, you put yourself and your home in jeopardy. the Wall Street foreclosure team will use that as their excuse for pursuing collection and enforcement ending in foreclosure and eviction if you don’t properly defend.
*
The situation with tenants is even more dire. Many if not most rental units are owned by small landlords who do not possess the resources to get through this pandemic period. When the time comes that their units are exempted from moratoriums by time or edict, they will be required to pay the “arrearage” just like everyone else. Those homeowners who are using the moratorium as an excuse to withhold payment without having a plan of attack are headed for trouble — possibly the kind they can’t fix.
*
The obvious answer to this problem is for homeowners to launch preemptive lawsuits against the securitization team. But my observations and experience show that most judges will not allow such lawsuits to go forward. this is because it is seen as an attack on the financial system generally and because judges are afraid that allowing such lawsuits will invite many more that will clog all the court systems. I have had many judges agree that the lawsuit did state a claim but dismissed it anyway sometimes after as much as 14 months of sitting on the motion to dismiss.
*
Some people believe that the judges don’t get it. But most of them do “get it” — at least in part. Since those judges believe the loan exists, the loan account exists and that the homeowners almost certainly owe the payments, they see little harm in waiting until enforcement action is brought against the offending homeowner. Then they will occasionally rule in favor of a homeowner who reveals fatal deficiencies in the proof of the claim.
*
It is during the moratorium periods that homeowners have an unprecedented opportunity to start actions against the securitization team — but not entirely the way most might think. By sending a proper Qualified Written Request and Debt Validation Letter you open up a more palatable action for the Judges in advance of enforcement. This is the opening step in the homeowner’s challenge.
*
They must answer and they risk some rather harsh sanctions if they lie — so they withhold information. But the information they give in response to the statutory inquiries will most likely contain inconsistencies with their correspondence.
*
Your questions need to be very specific. And they should start with existence, ownership, and authority over a loan account receivable on the ledger of some company; that entry can only be legal and valid if value was paid in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the loan account receivable (aka underlying debt or underlying obligation). This is the most basic requirement established by law and custom over centuries in English common law and statutes, American common law; it is also established as the law in every jurisdiction in their adoption of Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
*
Next, the homeowner can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the Consumer Division of the Attorney General of their State. Once again a response is mandated by statute and the securitization/foreclosure team does no dare withhold a response. but once again their response is going to be filled with legalese evasion of admitting the simple fact that they don’t own the loan account receivable and they have not been given any authority from anyone who does own it.
*
Homeowners should not allege nor try to prove that all securitization of residential “debt” is a fraudulent scheme or a lie, even though that is true. It scares judges and it sounds like a conspiracy theory to them. So keep it simple and to the point.
*
Foreclosure is about restitution for an unpaid debt. If the claiming party has no actual ownership of the debt arising from a real-world transaction in which they paid value in exchange for owning the loan account receivable they fail the test of the condition precedent set forth in 9-203 of the UCC. And that opens the door to “limited” actions for violations of the FDCPA (title X, 124 Stat. 2092 (2010) and other statutes. Those statutes have a bite to them and the foreclosure mills are afraid of them.
*
The advantage of the preemptive action by the homeowner is that very often the securitization/collection/foreclosure team is not ready with fabricated documents containing false information about transactions that never occurred.
*
The rule of thumb is to create a vehicle that can be gradually expanded as more information is obtained and the judge is gradually educated as to the true facts of the case. And remember that attorney fees are often recoverable in such actions along with statutory or compensatory damages.
*
Once filed and discovery is underway, the best practice is to take information gleaned from discovery and then request a leave of court to amend the pleadings to include a broader action for declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief.
*
The homeowner would be seeking damages for illegally trying to enforce a debt, and disgorgement of amounts paid to parties who had no nexus to ownership, or authority over the claimed “debt.” While this premise is true in virtually all cases in which securitization claims were in play, it can only be established by revealing the inability or unwillingness of the opposition to answer the most basic questions about existence, ownership, and authority over the debt.
*
They can’t but you must do much more than accusing them. You must out litigate them which is why you most likely should have a lawyer who knows how to file motions to dismiss, discovery requests and motions to enforce discovery requests, along with motions for sanctions, motions for the court to adopt a negative inference against the opposition and motions in limine.
*
If small landlords take heed, they can force the situation to tilt in their own favor, pass some of the savings to tenants and come out the other end of this crisis somewhat intact. If they don’t then it is unlikely that many of them will survive after the moratorium ceases unless their tenants have been paying rent in a timely fashion.
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

“It Must Be a Loan”: Don’t Pretend You Read and Understand the Documents

“Because corporations and their lawyers know most consumers don’t have the time or wherewithal to study their new terms, which can stretch to 20,000 words — about the length of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” — they stuff them with opaque provisions and lengthy legalistic explanations meant to confuse or obfuscate. Understanding a typical company’s terms, according to one study, requires 14 years of education, which is beyond the level most Americans attain.” NY Times Editorial

Most homeowners sign documents at closing (or modification) because they believe their intentions are properly presented in those documents. They are wrong and they don’t like admitting that. We have accepted a world in which lay people are told that lawyers revewing contracts are pointless. And even where lawyers are employed, they rarely possess the skill set necessary to understand what is really happening. Everyone sees the deal through filters that require the reader to think of the deal as a loan — without any critical thinking or knowledge. — Neil F Garfield, April 6, 2006

Anyone who thinks that stockbrokers have an interest other than a profit from the sale of securities does not understand centuries of marketplace transactions, laws, rules, customs, and practices. Banks make loans. Private lenders make loans. Brokers don’t; by definition, they are supposed to be intermediaries. Periodically these brokers on Wall Street have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators and investors so that they still appear to be intermediaries when in fact they are the only principal. The result has always been, without exception, catastrophic for everyone except the brokers who use a common theme: “You can’t punish us with producing apocalyptic results for finance, and your society.” As a society, we are still buying into that threat. It isn’t true and never was true. And so it goes.

The Times’ editorial points out that tech companies are using and abusing “shrink-wrapped” agreements and policies that the consumer must click “Agree” in order to gain access — often to their own information. This is not a new concept. I remember when I was on Wall Street and we were drafting prospectuses and agreements for Initial Public Offerings, one of our guiding principles was to bury anything negative under an avalanche of words. And because nobody wants to admit they did anything stupid or foolish, investors tend to think and insist they knew what they were doing. And that is why those of us who are insiders in securities brokerage privately refer to the New York Stock Exchange as the world’s largest dry-cleaning establishment.

[Hat Tip to Bill Paatalo] And that is the essence of successful con jobs. As a lawyer, I have represented some highly successful con men. And they all told me the same thing. the con only works if the “mark” (i.e., sucker) adopts it as their own. People con themselves. Take Charles C Parker for example:

George C. Parker (March 16, 1860[1] – 1936) was an American con man and prophet best known for his surprisingly successful attempts to “sell” the Brooklyn Bridge…Parker used various names as a con man, including James J. O’Brien, Warden Kennedy, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Taylor.[4]

In addition to his Brooklyn Bridge scam, other public landmarks he incorporated into his scams included the original Madison Square Garden, the Metropolitan Museum of ArtGrant’s Tomb and the Statue of Liberty.[5] Parker had multiple methods for making his sales. When he sold Grant’s Tomb, he would often pose as the general’s grandson, and he set up a fake office to handle his real estate swindles. He produced convincing forged documents as evidence to suggest that he was the legal owner of whatever property he was selling. He also sold several successful shows and plays, of which he had no legal ownership.[2] 

Like the mortgage meltdown (which continues through the writing of this article), in many (but not all) cases, Parker targeted people fresh off the boat who understood little English or American Culture. So they relied upon what he told them and then they imagined the rest. Some people were forced off the Brooklyn Bridge when they started erecting toll booths, as the new owners.

In every con job the paperwork generally has the look and feel of real documents and says, in the beginning, what you expect it to say. So people who do not have 12 weeks to parse thought the language of everything said and not said, simply assume the rest. They are conning themselves. And the perpetrators will often point to the content of what was signed by the layman as providing that the very thing that punished the consumer was disclosed in some fine print wording buried deep within all of the documents that were signed. And I can tell you from personal experience that the art of writing such documents on Wall Street relies heavily on implying something without saying it.

For example, a loan in 1980 would always refer to the loan and would recite that the Lender was Lender who was giving a loan of money to the borrower who was a borrower, receipt of which loan was acknowledged. That is and was the basic language for any loan for centuries — until around 1998. That is when the reference to a loan was dropped and the documents signed by the homeowners started to change —merely referred to the execution of a note and the execution and recording of a mortgage. The loan was implied because what else could it be? The success of this sleight of hand is well-known. Trillions of dollars poured through the hands of securities brokers who prospered during the worst crash since the Great Depression — plus receiving trillions of dollars in “bailouts” and “bond purchases.” Everything else was reduced to rubble.

But consumers and their lawyers have still failed to appreciate the significance of this paradigm shift. Under the new framework, any payment could be dressed up as a loan and therefore a legal demand for its return would be legal, proper, ethical, and moral because it was a loan.

The way this works to the extreme disadvantage of homeowners as consumers and the extreme advantage of Wall Street “banks” is this: First the con (hook): “We are lenders and you’re making applications for a loan. Therefore any transaction we do is a loan.” Then the consequences in which “We never said that we were giving you a loan. We only said we would call it that.” And the “borrower” is left without any responsible party being a lender, no loan account receivable, no creditor, no compliance with lending laws, and that means there is nobody with authority to do anything about your loan like administration, collection, modification, or enforcement. Is that a loan?

Let’s go back to the beginning. The expectation of the homeowner was that he/she was a borrower in a loan transaction. He/she thought that the application for a loan was submitted to a lender and was underwritten by someone with a risk of loss — i.e. a stake in the success of the transaction as a loan. He/she had a reasonable belief that as a loan transaction the party receiving the loan application and the party underwriting the transaction were both governed by Federal and State lending laws. As such, the responsibility for the viability of the loan, accuracy of the loan appraisal, and risk of loss was squarely on the “lender.”

Wall Street banks did what they do — the separated out functions so that only the part that looked like a loan was shown to the homeowner. For the most part, applications for loans were submitted through intermediaries who presented themselves as loan brokers and sometimes misrepresented themselves as lenders (simply because they had a license to act as a lender). In some cases, the parties accepting the applications did not legally exist. They were just names — but that did not matter to Wall Street brokers because they were not really making loans.

The underwriters were aggregators of data providing a service (e.g. Countrywide)— i.e. laundering data to make it look like a pool of loans was being created for “tranches” (layers) of fictitious entities. This service was provided to the brokers through entities totally under the control of the brokers  — for purposes of their real business — selling securities to investors. (Does anyone really think that Wall Street banks ever had any interest in lending money?)

The “aggregators” arranged the data in reports that gave information on thousands of transactions. They never said they were loans and they never said they owned them. But that is what everyone assumes. We are conning ourselves because we can’t imagine what else it could be.

The Wall Street stock brokerage firm calling itself an “investment bank” borrows $1 Billion on short-term credit for example using expected sales of securities as collateral. The broker then sells the securities to investors and repays the loans. In the interim, the money from the loan is used to fund, on average, around $700 million in transactions with homeowners.

The other $300 million is concealed “trading profit”. These fictitious profits occur when the broker shows a sale (only on its own books) of $700 million face value of notes for $1 billion. That false “sale” occurs between a “depositor” who does not own the debt, note, or security agreement and a “trust” that legally does not exist because it has nothing in trust that was entrusted to the named “trustee”. the “trustee” has no right, title or interest in the transactions, nor any right or obligation to seek or receive any information about the nonexistent contents of the”trust” or any activities undertaken in the name of the “trust.” (In other words, it is not a trustee).

All entities are owned or controlled 100% by the broker. This is the holy grail of investment banking. Selling securities without being required to turn the proceeds of the sale (money) over to any issuing entity because in substance the issuing entity is the broker. The extra $300 million trading profit is usually performed in a transaction that is both offshore and off-balance sheet so there is no report of it — until the broker wants to show an increase in profits to bolster the apparent value of its own common stock trading in the marketplace. Recent reports from the big “banks” that are in reality failing, indicate significant “trading profits” that are simply repatriating the money they stole from investors.

Investors were never told all of their money would be used for the origination or acquisition of loans. They just assumed it despite concealed language in the prospectus that did not quite promise anything other than a potential, discretionary revenue stream from the broker that was often disclosed as unsecured and expressly unrelated to any obligation owed by any homeowner. Investors made this assumption because after all the brokerage firm was a broker, not a principal. They were conning themselves. Investors were NOT beneficiaries of any trust, real or imagined but they thought they were because they assumed they were.

It was later when investors (e.g. pension funds) discovered that the broker had no interest in underwriting loans, no interest or intent of having a risk of loss or no intent for complying with any lending statutes, rules, or even custom and practice in the lending industry; investors were rudely awakened to the fact that they had no legal interest in enforcing anything against anyone. They had, as in every con, conned themselves with an assist from the con men — Wall Street brokers.

Investors were left with a “Security” that was virtually worthless because it was discretionary, unsecured, and based upon reports that the payor (broker) could issue in its sole discretion. But if they admitted all of that, they would be required to show the loss of value of the “certificates” (securities) that they had purchased which would result in devaluing the entire pension fund, which in turn would probably lead to dismissal of the fund manager.

So they sued the depositors or “sellers” for bad underwriting even though there was virtually no underwriting involved. The more savvy investors with more savvy lawyers received larger settlements without ever saying the whole thing as a scam — because they were being paid to keep silent about the true nature of this scheme. The smaller, more unsophisticated investors with lawyers who were not well versed in investment banking and securities brokerage received as little as 20-30 cents for each dollar they invested. That is what caused small banks to fail. They were trapped by the con. They too had been investors seeking a “higher return.”

The truth is that most pension funds are over-reporting the value of their assets. That means that at some time in the future, the ability to fulfill pension payments will be correspondingly reduced. Only by that time, it is highly likely that nobody will make the connection to “securitization debt” that never occurred. Even worse, the beneficiaries of pension funds and other stable managed funds still won’t realize that if they are faced with foreclosure, and they all away, they are not just giving up the largest investment of their life; they are also undermining the value of the fund that feeds them.

All of that leads to the question of what can homeowners do about this?

The answer is simple and reduced to three elements — existence, ownership, and authority. In the 1980 loan, the Lender had an entry on its ledger that was a reduction of cash to pay for the loan. In double-entry bookkeeping, this was followed by an increase in loan receivables by the exact same amount. And that is how the loan account receivable is created. It serves as the legal basis for asserting the existence of the loan and the account history for debits and credits throughout the life of the loan.

As some readers have divined from what I have written above (and elsewhere), no such account was ever created. If those ledger entries had been made, then the brokers would have actually securitized loans by selling off pieces of each loan to multiple investors. But that would have limited the brokers to selling the loans only once. If they sold loans more than once it would have been a fraudulent scheme bearing criminal accountability. So they didn’t sell them and that means they didn’t securitize homeowner transactions, which were not loans in the first place.

The brokers paid homeowners money. That much is generally true (although questionable in refis). But the brokers wanted no part of losing money if the homeowner failed or refused to make a scheduled payment. They had no risk of loss. They had no loan account. But by concealing the true nature of the business scheme — i.e. the creation, issuance, sale, and trading of securities — and using the homeowner’s knowledge against him/her, they convinced everyone that the execution of the promissory note was one exchange for the nonexistent loan. The securities were based upon the illusion of a loan transaction but certainly not the reality of a loan transaction.

Adding insult to injury then, the homeowner having played a crucial role in the illusion of a loan is then tricked into giving back the only reason why he/she entered the transaction in the first place— the receipt of money. In short, that is a return of the only consideration for involuntary participation in a securities scheme about which the homeowner knew absolutely nothing. Worse yet, the homeowner believed it was a loan and so agreed to pay “interest” and “fees” on top of returning the only consideration for the deal. This left the homeowner with negative consideration for the deal, plus concealed risks in the form of unmarketable loans, inflated appraisals, and the complete inability to reach anyone with ownership or authority of the transaction to work out arrangements that were necessary to correct the situation.

With no loan account that could be presented without committing perjury and fraud, the brokers hit upon the scheme of using still more intermediaries who were called servicers. The servicers did virtually nothing. All receipts are collected via third-party vendors who are completely controlled by the brokers. The servicers are hired to interface with homeowners, reassure them that their loan is under management, and present a “payment history” about which they know nothing because they never collected a dime from the homeowner.

Servicers are always thinly capitalized entities that can be thrown under the bus for accounting or servicing or collection irregularities. They hire employees or contract employees who know less than the servicer. these people are presented as “witnesses” in foreclosure proceedings. Such people are the only “witnesses” at trial in foreclosure cases. They’re not legally competent and travel along a very thin line between deception and perjury.

The payment history is actually printout from a data record prepared for enforcement only by third-party vendors who process payments from homeowners. Those payments are scheduled, but not due since they are paying off a loan account that does not exist. You will never find any payment history that purports to be the ledger of any creditor — i.e., the party who is named as claimant, beneficiary, or plaintiff in foreclosure. That is because no such ledger exists.

On some level, there are dozens of foreclosure defense lawyers who have realized that the documents used for foreclosure are all fabricated with false information. But only those who have persisted have either won the case or settled in extremely favorable terms to their clients as homeowners.

The time to correct this was 20 years ago when the Federal Reserve skipped regulation in the mistaken belief that market forces would make any needed corrections. Alan Greenspan who was head of the Fed has admitted that was a mistake. It is now up to homeowners and their attorneys to fight these foreclosures at every turn and win. This task will be made far easier if changes in the administration in Washington DC result in an acknowledgment of the obvious facts: the money paid to homeowners was not a loan. It was compensation for involuntary participation in a business scheme. Market forces dictated the amount of that payment. Brokers have no right to recover it.

As I have stated for a decade and a half, investors and homeowners are in the same boat. They should join forces and fight the same battle. the intention of both was a lending transaction. Neither one of them got what they intended. Current brokers and “servicers” should be forced out of the picture and regulators should stop pretending that REMICs exist or that the securities issued were unregulated mortgage-backed bonds or certificates. They were never mortgage-backed. There were no mortgage loans. Those mortgages secured a promissory note that was issued without the homeowner receiving consideration.

The only deal that was completed was the business scheme of creation, issuance, selling, and trading securities. Homeowners were already paid for that. Nobody was ever legally entitled to seek or receive payments that returned that compensation. If that compensation is too high, then let the brokers come to court and file a reformation action.

============================

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

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

 

TONIGHT! Why Lawyers Should Want Foreclosure Defense Cases and What They Are Missing $$$

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6 pm Eastern Thursdays

SHARE THIS POST WITH LAWYERS YOU KNOW!!!

This show is devoted to convincing the lawyers who will listen that they are missing out on something very profitable and important. Representing homeowners faced with foreclosure papers can and does present an opportunity for large paydays, consistent victories in court, and playing a part in changing the trajectory of home finance in this country and around the world.

In 2008 I presented a seminar that provided the essentials of foreclosure defense as we knew them at that time. We repeated it several times in different parts of the country. In that seminar, I also presented a business plan for lawyers to do it. It was the hub and spoke plan that allowed homeowners to pay monthly based upon the known length of time that any foreclosure would last.  About a dozen lawyers followed my instructions and made millions of dollars.

It’s time for a new push.

Modifications Are Part of the Big Lie: Don’t send that application for modification if you don’t want to waive important rights.

The application for modification licenses New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen to sell, distribute the personal data and transaction data to third parties. Besides the obvious problems with data privacy, this confirms the apparent voluntary participation of the homeowner in a securities scheme that was and still is concealed from the homeowner.

By filing the application the homeowner is waiving his right to keep the compensation that was paid for the homeowner’s role in launching the securities scheme or to ask for more compensation. And it creates an assumption of risk by the homeowner that was, is, and always will be concealed from the homeowner. All of this is “illegal” but by signing the document the homeowner has launched a legal presumption that the document and everything on it is valid.

It reaffirms the concealed nature of the transaction in which the note and mortgage were executed and delivered. Instead of a loan agreement, the application alone establishes the authority of the New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen to act as agent/servicer even though it has no such authority. It also makes New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen the creditor, which means the homeowner is accepting a virtual creditor instead of a real one. And the homeowner is waiving any right to contest the standing of New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen to administer, collect, and enforce the note and mortgage.

On behalf of a client, I recently received an “offer” for my client to apply for a modification. My response is going to be that we would be happy to apply for modification if New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen can demonstrate (a) that the loan account receivable exists, (b) that U.S. Bank owns it on behalf of either a trust or certificate holders and (c) that New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen can demonstrate that they have been authorized to act as agent/servicer for a creditor who owns the underlying obligation because (a) they paid for it and (b) they received a conveyance of ownership of the debt as part of a purchase transaction from someone who owned the loan account receivable.

Of course I know that they cannot do that. I know it because along with Patrick Giunta, Esq. in Fort Lauderdale all of that was established beyond any doubt. the Judge found that the trust, the trustee, and the agent/servicer (Ocwen) had no relationship to the debt, note, or mortgage but may have had possession of a note (now lost) that might have been an original. Final Judgment for the homeowner. In fact, at trial, the robowitness was dumbfounded when he realized that the fabricated “Power of Attorney” appointing Ocwen as servicer and as an “attorney in fact” had been not only false but incorrectly created with Chase being the grantor. Chase had nothing to do with this case.

But because they did not file the “original note” until after the lawsuit began — in 2008 — the judge felt compelled under Florida law to enter judgment for the homeowner with findings of fact that disposed of the merits of the case but dismissing the case without prejudice. that is because finding that there was not even the allegation of possession of the note before the filing of the lawsuit there was no jurisdiction. And no jurisdiction means the court is powerless to do anything but dismiss the case.

So the lawyers refiled the case even though there has been a complete negative adjudication of all facts necessary to prove a prima facie case for foreclosure. And they barely managed to squeak through a motion to dismiss because the defense of res judicata is an affirmative defense and so we will file our own motion for summary judgment.

The first interesting thing about all this is that the lawyers chose to file a case that they had already lost. Why? Well until two weeks ago, the law in that DIstrict was that there was no claim for attorney fees if the homeowner won because they established that the named claimant lacked legal standing — a fancy way of saying no case.

The recovery of attorney fees can only be based upon statute or contract. There is no statute that specifically grants the right to recover attorney fees when the named Plaintiff loses a foreclosure case. But there is the contractual provision in the note and mortgage for recovery of fees and Rule 57.105 Fla. R.C.P. that says that such provision is reciprocal.

BUT once the homeowner proves that the Plaintiff is NOT part of the contract, the law WAS that having proven that there was no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the homeowner, the homeowner was barred from taking advantage of the attorney’s fees provision in that contract.

All of that may seem to have some logic except for one thing: it was the Plaintiff who invoked the contract when they started the lawsuit asking for attorney fees and when they were shown to be lying, there are about a dozen reasons why they should not escape an award of attorney fees and costs. And that is what the Florida Supreme Court found. So now the attorneys have filed a new lawsuit that they thought had no risk if they lost; but they have a huge risk because the premise under which they were operating was not only wrong but downright malevolent. The playbook is designed to wear the homeowner down even if there is no case against the homeowner.

And so it is interesting that the unauthorized agent/servicer New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen, constantly changing names to confuse the recipient, is now sending an “offer” to allow my client to apply for a modification. And just to be clear, that is no offer at all. They’re not saying they will consider it, grant it, or even that they are offering it on behalf of some named creditor. And that is why I scored points by filing three motions for sanctions against the opposing side which were granted. They showed up at “mediation” without any authorized person to settle the case. They were only authorized to offer to allow the homeowner to apply for a modification.

This particular offer was sent pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General that requires them to modify loans. The AG office of course made the same mistake as all law enforcement and all regulators, to wit: that the agent/servicer was actually authorized to modify. In fact, the agreement can now be used to argue that they must have had the authority to modify — why else would that agreement require modification? THE AG was either hoodwinked or playing along. I don’t know.

But the main point of the modification is clear. It changes the falsely labeled loan agreement executed by the homeowner into something entirely different. Instead of a loan contract, the proposed application for modification changes the transaction forever. Perhaps the better description is that it reaffirms the concealed nature of the transaction in which the note and mortgage were executed and delivered. Instead of a loan agreement, the application alone establishes the authority of the New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen to act as agent/servicer even though it has no such authority. It also makes New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen the creditor, which means the homeowner is accepting a virtual creditor instead of a real one. And the homeowner is waiving any right to contest the standing of New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen to administer, collect, and enforce the note and mortgage.

So there you have it. That is the reason they sent it. It was designed to lure me into sending this to my client in order to establish a fact that doesn’t exist and a fact that has already been defeated — standing for either the named Plaintiff (U.S. Bank as trustee for SASCO, etc) or anyone else designated by New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen. If they had been successful they might have a shot on the second lawsuit. And it now licenses New Rez aka PHH aka Ocwen to sell, distribute the personal data and transaction data to third parties. Besides the obvious problems with data privacy, this confirms the apparent voluntary participation of the homeowner in a securities scheme that was and still is concealed from the homeowner.

By filing the application the homeowner is waiving his right to keep the compensation that was paid for launching the securities scheme or ask for more. And it creates an assumption of risk by the homeowner that was, is, and always will be concealed from the homeowner. All of this is “illegal” but by signing the document the homeowner has launched a legal presumption that the document and everything on it is valid. And it makes the unauthorized agent/servicer the agent of the homeowner!

The accountholder(s) [label establishes homeowner as holder of an account that exists] consent [uninformed consent] to the disclosure by my servicer  [affirms “servicer” as agent] or authorized third party,* [i.e, anyone and there is no referenced asterisk at the end of the document], or any investor/guarantor [note the introduction of new parties] of my mortgage loan(s) [affirming it is a mortgage loan], of any personal and non-personal information during the mortgage assistance process and of any information about any relief I receive, to any third party that deals with my first lien [affirming lien] or subordinate lien (if applicable) mortgage loan(s), including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or any investor, insurer, guarantor, or servicer of my mortgage loans(s) or any companies that provide support to them, for purposes permitted by law. Personal information may include, but is not limited to: (a) my name, address, telephone number; (b) my Social Security Number; (c) my credit score; (d) my income; and (e) my payment history [affirming paymetns were due] and information about account balances and activity and (f) my tax return and the information contained therein. I/We hereby authorize the servicer to release, furnish, and provide information related to my/our account to: [BLANK FOR ANYONE TO FILL IN LATER IF THEY NEED IT]

The Florida AG fell for this hook, line, and sinker. So have most homeowner and their lawyers. Take a closer look and ask yourself why they would have such wording if they were truly sure of their status as an agent for a lender, and why they wouldn’t announce guidelines for what the “modifications” would look like if “granted” and on whose behalf they are allegedly “modifying” the transaction falsely labeled as a loan. Every correspondence offering the hope of modification is a potential trap for homeowners who frankly, in my opinion, owe nothing. They were paid money equal to at most 8 1/2% of their revenue generated by these securities scheme, everyone received every payment to which they were entitled, and then they signed a note to give it back because they thought it was a loan.
*
But if it was a loan then there would have been an identifiable lender who had an entry on its accounting ledgers showing payment of value for the underlying debt. No such entity exists because the investment bankers were securities brokers and security brokers are interested in trading securities. They had no intention of assuming any risk of loss on nonperforming loans, so they made sure that the transaction looked like a loan but wasn’t. They had no interest in lending and they did not lend money. Investors loaned money to the brokerage firms. And nobody complied with lending statutes because there was no lender.
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

 

Denial is not a Defense: Registrars and Clerks Are Missing the Point and Most of Them Know It

It is the transfer document itself that suggests there was something to transfer. And it suggests that there really is a transferor and transferee because that is what is written on a piece of paper. But there is no transaction that is memorialized. It is all fiction. Nothing was transferred. But that fiction leads to defeat for homeowners unless it is aggressively contested. 

If someone with no claim produces a document that says there is a claim, the courts are required to treat the supporting documents as real until proven otherwise. You can prove otherwise by direct evidence or you can prove it by indirect evidence. But the burden of proving otherwise is squarely on the homeowner and if they fail to understand how and when to apply the rules of civil procedure and evidence they lose their home to a dishonest claimant who probably never made a formal appearance in court.

Take a look at this from Minnesota:

507.413 AUTHORITY OF MORTGAGEE DESIGNATED AS NOMINEE OR AGENT.(a) An assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose is entitled to be recorded in the office of the county recorder or filed with the registrar of titles and is sufficient to assign, satisfy, release, or authorize the foreclosure of a mortgage if:(

1) a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as nominee or agent for a third party identified in the mortgage, and the thirdparty’s successors and assigns;

(2) a subsequent assignment, satisfaction, release of the mortgage, or power of attorney to foreclose the mortgage, is executed by the mortgagee or the third party, its successors or assigns; and

(3) the assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose is in recordable form.The county recorder and registrar of titles shall rely upon this assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose to assign, satisfy, release, or foreclose the mortgage.(b) This section applies to any mortgage, assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose executed, recorded, or filed before, on, or after August 1, 2004.

History:2004 c 153 s 2Minnesota Statutes AnnotatedProperty and Property Interests (Ch. 500-515b)SuperBrowse Chapter 508. Registration of Land (Refs & Annos)M.S.A. § 508.72

This is carefully worded by lobbyists from Wall Street “Banks” (aka stockbrokers). Their plan requires the creation of illusion and in order to do that they must make it appear (a) that the underlying obligation exists, (b) that it is established on the accounting ledgers of someone who paid value for it, and (c) that it has been “transferred” to some party who is a designated virtual creditor for purposes of enforcement. Lawyers and pro se litigants who fail to pursue these points are usually destined for failure in the courtroom.

The issue here is that MERS is an agent. Calling it a nominee changes nothing. MERS is the acronym of a series of names all related to “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MersCorp, or MERS, Inc. dba Mersinc.com. It is an agent for the party named as its principal who is generally either not a real company, not a real lender, or both. So MERS is the agent for a principal that has nothing to do with the homeowner transaction except that is paid a fee for getting the homeowner to sign papers under false pretense.

You will find “principal” in the mortgage (labeled as a “lender,” but is not generally lending any money or establishing any loan account receivable. MERS does not appear on any promissory note nor any other document. It neither accepts nor receives ownership of anything. It obtains bare legal naked title without any ownership of the debt, note, or mortgage (or deed of trust). The banks have worded these laws to literally create the illusion of something out of nothing.

When the successor pops up, they are playing on the court’s natural inclination, backed up by the absence of any credible contest from the homeowner, to assume that everything before the “successor” came into the picture was true, accurate, and valid — this avoiding the painful admission that the entire scheme was a scam mixing parts of Ponzi scheme, boiler room, bucket shop and other illegal practices that often scape the “Self-regulation” that is relied upon by so many people —especially if they believe the myth of “free market.”

In short, it is the transfer itself that suggests there was something to transfer. And it suggests that there really is a transferor and transferee because that is what is written on a piece of paper. But there is no transaction that is memorialized. It is all fiction. Nothing was transferred. But that fiction leads to defeat for homeowners unless it is aggressively contested. 

By allowing the words “successors and assigns” to appear, they distract from the question of whether there was a debt, whether it was really transferred by payment of value, and whether anyone is an assign or successor.

This is not rocket science. If there is no loan account receivable anywhere on any books of account, then a “payment history” produced by yet another disinterested and unauthorized third party adds nothing to the mix. In that scenario there is no basis under any law that any underlying debt or liability of the homeowner exists; but there is a facial debt created by executing the promissory note and that allows for the creation and recording of the mortgage or deed of trust.

And that is why denial doesn’t work alone. The homeowner must disprove the facial validity of the documents. And given the circumstances where the true facts under the sole custody and control of their position they can only do so through the use of indirect evidence, raising the inference that the debt does not exist and that even if it did exist it is not owned by or controlled by the named claimant. This is much easier than most homeowners and their lawyers perceive the task. I have even done it without discovery.

Someone is an assign ONLY if there is an instrument of assignment and the assignor had ownership of the thing being assigned. There is no position of “assign” if those conditions are not met, That is basic black letter law for centuries if not millennia.

Someone is a successor ONLY if they succeded to the rights and ownership of the predecessor. They can ONLY get into that position if they paid for the debt, note, and mortgage altogether or they purchased or merged with the predecessor. They are not a successor just because they’re the next person to make a claim. It doesn’t work that way. It never has worked that way and it never will work that way. This no philosophical discussion. We are an organized society with rules and those are the rules.

But that is exactly the point. The Wall Street banks have created boiler-plated gibberish and attached a meaning to it. Executing an allonge by someone without ownership or authority to do so means there is no allonge or endorsement. Executing an assignment without ownership and authority over the debt, note, and mortgage is a legal nullity in all jurisdictions.

The problem for homeowners and many lawyers is that they don’t get acquainted with the rules.

If someone with no claim produces a document that says there is a claim, the courts are required to treat the document as real until proven otherwise. You can prove otherwise by direct evidence or you can price it by indirect evidence. But the burden of proving otherwise is squarely on the homeowner and if they fail to understand how and when to apply the rules of civil procedure and evidence they end up losing their home to a dishonest claimant who probably never made a formal appearance in court because the lawyer had no agreement with the named claimant (allowing for plausible deniability in case the IRS seeks recovery of unpaid taxes the SEC seeks disgorgement and fines, the FTC seeks disgorgement, damages, and fines, or some homeowner gets a judgment for compensatory or punitive damages in whopping verdict — after the malicious intent of the scheme is revealed).

Judges are not supposed to pay any attention to discovery requests unless you make it an issue according to the rules. Judges are required to assume a valid claim as long it technically is stated to be a claim. Denying is not the same as defending.

The registrars and clerks have become addicted to what little they get from Wall Street brokers who are consistently violating the law of their jurisdiction, avoiding taxes and fees, and generally causing mayhem. And at first, they all started to scream until they were silenced by Wall Street influence, money and politics.

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

Banks have failed to produce any evidence that isn’t false and fabricated

If it were true that the claimants and plaintiffs in foreclosures were real, you would have reams of pleading, exhibits, and evidence showing that — and there would be very few defenses left for homeowners.

in 14 years of challenges from me — in and out of court — the banks have failed to produce any evidence that isn’t false and fabricated and they have lost their foreclosure cases most of the time because of that —  but only if they were challenged.

The banks have known that reformation is their only way out. They have known for many years. And quietly, because nobody understood what they were doing, they have been doing exactly that through the uninformed consent of homeowners who enter into “modification” agreements. 

Both law and common sense dictate that claims of any type against homeowners must only be brought by people who have suffered some injury resulting from something the homeowner did or did not do. Once you strip the presumptions arising from the facially valid transaction documents the foreclosure mill has nothing but an arcane legal argument to get their way. And it is only by wearing down the homeowners and intimidating the lawyers that would defend them, that the banks have, thus far, been successful. 

Bob Hurt and others have been paid agents of PR firms for the banks for over 10 years. They are ramping up criticism since I ramped up the attack with Appellate briefs, my announcement of petitioning the state Supreme courts for rule changes, the blog, and the radio show.

*

Like all fake news proponents, they start with a lie (e.g., there are no cases that support Garfield’s view) or perhaps something with a grain of truth and then state a conclusion that is dead wrong (e.g., foreclosure mills don’t need to show proof of payment of value even when challenged). Banks won’t show their face in this fight because they don’t want to give us more PR oxygen than is absolutely necessary from their perspective. But they are there. And as the old phrase goes, when you’re getting a lot of flack —  that’s when you know you are over the target.

*
The fact remains that in 14 years not one person anywhere has ever said (on TV, Radio, blog, legal article, or live appearance) or produced exhibits showing that the REMIC trusts or trustees have ever been entrusted with any money or assets. In fact, as I demonstrated over the years the seminars for foreclosure mills and bank lawyers have always agreed with me and told the banks and the foreclosure mills that they proceed at their own peril.
*
That is the bottom line. If it were true that the claimants and plaintiffs in foreclosures were real, you would have reams of pleading, exhibits, and evidence showing that — and there would be very few defenses left for homeowners. As it stands my record is over 80% success in defending over 5,000 homeowners directly and indirectly and over 50,000 indirectly because they read my blog.
*
And the banks just took another hit in Florida where the Supreme Court reversed Florida law that said homeowners who prove lack of standing or who successfully defend by revealing that the foreclosure mill has no proof of standing (ownership of the debt, note or mortgage) can get recovery of attorney fees. This opens the door to more access to lawyer, which means more access to courts, and more victories for homeowners.
*
The fact remains that in 14 years of challenges from me — in and out of court — the banks have failed to produce any evidence that isn’t false and fabricated and they have lost their foreclosure cases most of the time because of that —  but only if they were challenged. The only hope they have for maintaining the “securitization” infrastructure is by legally reforming the transaction with homeowners.
*
They must get a court order or an agreement from homeowners that waives compensation for concealed risks (inflated appraisals, nonviable loans etc.) and waives compensation for launching the concealed securities scheme.
*
While “securitization” does not mean securitizing the debt, note, or mortgage, it does mean that securities were sold that use the existence of facially valid loan documents as a reference point for the securities which are simply bets on the reports by investment banks about “performance.” In that scenario, it doesn’t matter what the homeowner does or does not do. It only matters that the investment bank issues a report on what the homeowner did or did not do as part of a group of other homeowners. There is never a report of how anyone took a loss or posted a gain resulting from any homeowner making or not making any scheduled payments.
*
The banks have known that reformation is their only way out. They have known for many years. And quietly, because nobody understood what they were doing, they have been doing exactly that through the uninformed consent of homeowners who enter into “modification” agreements. In those agreements, which appear to be facially (if not substantively) valid, the homeowner (a) waives all possible claims and defenses and (b) agrees to accept the servicer as the new creditor. That is the reformation of the “loan” agreement which now exists thanks to the “modification.”
*

It all comes down to one simple proposition. Both law and common sense that claims of any type against homeowners must only be brought by people who have suffered some injury resulting from something the homeowner did or did not do. Once you strip the presumptions arising from the facially valid transaction documents the foreclosure mill has nothing but an arcane legal argument to get their way. And it is only by wearing down the homeowners and intimidating the lawyers that would defend them, that the banks have, thus far, been successful.

*
PRACTICE NOTE: Lawyers who entering the field of foreclosure defense will be rewarded for their efforts and they will win their cases if they litigate properly. They should be aware and remain aware that despite all appearances to the contrary, the only interested parties in the outcome of foreclosure litigation is the concealed investment bank and the homeowner. And none of the foreclosure players are participating for any reason other than fees. there is no effort for restitution for an unpaid debt because there is no unpaid debt account on the ledgers of any company anywhere.
As I have repeatedly shown in and out of court, proceeding on that premise yields exciting and at first, unexpected, results. Try it, you’ll like it. Tastes like chicken. 
*
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

Another Dubin Victory for Homeowners In Hawaii. How crazy is it that he is under fire?

see SCWC-18-0000071

*

There are several things in this case that I find astonishing.

*
First and foremost is the fact that here is another victory by Gary Dubin on behalf of a Hawai’i citizen fighting to defend his home against an unlawful, illegal and fraudulent claim. And yet, the same court granting his appeal is taking him out of the playground as though somehow they are protecting Hawai’i citizens. NUTS!~
*
Second, this is yet another example of plainly and inescapably wrong-headedness by the lower courts. When will anyone ask why this happening and how this can be explained by anything other than institutional bias, regardless of the facts or the law?
*
Third,  this case underscores the central point of all my writing on the subject of foreclosure defense: it is civil procedure that wins or loses a case!

Crazy! Banks announcement drop in foreclosure filings due to moratoriums as if there is no problem!

Servicers relent one case at a time: The Great Escrow Balance Game. Getting money just because you asked for it.

Playing with the escrow balance and asking for more money is one of many games the “servicers” play in the Great Securitization game. Relentlessness in challenging (1) the authority of the company pretending to be a servicer and (2) their rendition of the escrow balance and reconciliation of their request for more money is how you eliminate the fake shortgage and get a refund. Don’t assume it is a honest mistake. Assume instead that they are trying to steal from you because in most cases that is what they are doing.

The truth is that without having authority to act they have no right to administer, collect or enforce any payment from homeowners under any circumstances, let alone escrow money. And if there is no creditor that they can identify that maintains on their accounting ledgers, an entry establishing the  existence of a loan account receivable, then there is nobody to authorize them.

This is not some plot by 30 million homeowners. It is a defective scheme in which Wall Street banks made trillions of dollars. Don’t blame or penalize the homeowner. Blame and penalize the banks.

Here is one such example: After a homeowner steadfastly refused to accept the demand for more escrow money, this is what they received:

SLS promptly re-ran its escrow analysis upon receipt of your below email in late December 2020. As a result, an updated escrow analysis is attached to replace the previous one with a new payment beginning February 1, 2021 in the amount of $ 1,502.07. This change reflects a credit that was issued in the amount of $2,773.82. Accordingly, escrow shortage of $2,032.29 from the December 2020 statement has been removed and the remaining $741.53 has been issued to you directly as a refund. You should be receiving those funds by check delivered by UPS in the coming days. This new escrow analysis will be timely filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Sincerely, Melissa Licker
Of course, no explanation was offered as to how they got it so wrong.
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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 12 years or more.
  • 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.

 

%d bloggers like this: