Why Is $21 TRILLION in the Cayman Islands When It Should Be in USA Stimulating the Economy?

Posted on April 10, 2013 by Neil Garfield

The latest reports show that all the real money in the world issued by governments totals around $85 Trillion. AND the latest reports show that 1/4 of all the money in the world is in the hands of “Companies” (Straw-men) controlled by people in the United States. And the last statistic I find important, is that the shadow banking system has now grown to approximately $1.25 QUADRILLION dollars.

How did that money get to the Cayman Islands when it wasn’t there before the mortgage madness meltdown? If you don’t believe in magic or coincidence one can only conclude that the Cayman money, most of which came from the our country, derives (i.e., is a derivative of) the false cash equivalents that was created by Wall Street. How did it get there.

Based upon my research, the money came from (a) skimming the investor money (around $17 trillion) before it ever reached the mortgage markets and (b) betting on losses under circumstances where  the Banks were in total control of the losses and the declaration of who could claim those losses.

And there are other more exotic ways in which at least $3 trillion was siphoned out of the U.S. economy. Altogether it looks like bankers are controlling more than $10 trillion that was “withdrawn” from the U.S> economy and are still on their way to doubling that figure as they foreclose on residential and commercial property in which the real loss w as suffered by real people whose future pension and retirement benefits are going to be cut because of a shortage of money.

So while we are arguing about national deficit and joblessness and hopelessness, the bankers have been vacuuming up all the money we have and maintaining their overpowering oligarchy see this article which mirrors my own writing for several years and that of Simon Johnson and others from the International Monetary Fund and other prestigious economists:

Why Does No One Speak of America’s Oligarchs?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/why-does-no-one-speak-of-americas-oligarchs.html

With all indicators pointing to the fact that bankers control our deficit, our debt and our spending, it is an inconvenient truth that the U.S. is going through a period in which government is by the banks, for the banks. Jefferson warned us of this and Hamilton successfully countered Jefferson with some very reasonable arguments.

The truth is, if you look back into American history and politics, there were two things that the framers of the constitutions missed completely. Banking is a necessary ingredient in every economy and thus is the support for any society. Investment banking increases liquidity by coming up with increasingly exotic ways to lower the cost of risk and thus lower the cost of credit.

BUT, what both Jefferson and Hamilton missed was the possibility that the quest for profit would turn out to be like one of those sci-fi movies in which our own creations — robots — take over the world and kill all the humans.

The answer is a middle ground — to treat banks for what they are, just like water, power and other utility companies that are essential for human existence. By putting them under restrictions that are reviewed for their effect on society, and indeed the world, the likelihood of another crash would be substantially reduced.

As it stands now, the likelihood of another crash and recession is at least as high as it was in 2007. Everyone is buying gold but nobody is talking about it. The fact is that with the next crash the use of American currency as the world’s currency will diminish to near zero. And THAT means we will need to find something that pays back all that currency we have issued in a form acceptable to other nations.

The reason things are out of hand is the housing crisis and the failure of regulators and law enforcement officials to tackle the big problems the way the Senate is attempting to do in the break-up of the big banks. They see the risk. Whether they can act in time to prevent another drop into the abyss remains to be seen.

The entire TBTF doctrine is a cover-up for “let us keep the money we stole.” Take back the Cayman money and we have a thriving economy where workers are trained, deficits go down and the national debt tumbles. But that would mean allowing homeowners to reap rewards from Wall Street’s game — restoring their equity in homes that had been pumped in appraised value far beyond anything real. For reasons that defy imagination it seems to the the policy of this country that it would be better to stay in recession, better to allow the bankers to escape jail. better to leave with their trillions in the Cayman Islands, than to allow relief to the most essential segment of any economy — the middle class which is shrinking as I write this.

Who do you think will buy your upscale goods and food and services if 46 million Americans are living below the poverty line as it is MOST conservatively measured. Where will the revitalization of the American economy come from when the true number of Americans ling right at the poverty line or below is more than 80 million.

The facts are actually quite simple, but Wall  Street, in its quest for continued control attempts to make them complex. If the debt owed to investors  whose money was loaned on residential and commercial deals has been paid down or extinguished, then the borrower should have a corresponding reduction in his payable. That’s all we need to stop foreclose and restore the American dream. Shout out to the Senators in the U.S. congress to get on the stick and restore money to the U.S> Treasury and restore money to those who were victims of the mortgage scam, and while you are at it, make sure you find out state senator and state representative and tell them the same thing. “Give up your alliance with the banks or suffer the consequences.”

First and foremost where is the media, which has gone dark on stories about bank criminal activity? Where is the outrage?

 

 

 

Filed under: CDO, Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 143 Comments »

Wells Fargo-Cendent-Cayman Connection Described

Posted on September 16, 2010 by Neil Garfield

livinglies-newsletter-provides-more-strategic-info

Submitted by Mary Cachrane

Editor’s Note: This is where the original SIV’s stashed the illicit profits they received by taking more money from investors than the amount they intended to use to fund mortgages. We call that the tier two yield spread premium that is also undisclosed at the time of borrower’s closing and which is a ticking time bomb… waiting for some smart competent lawyer to look up the statutes and realize that there’s money in them thar hills. I’m talking gold here.

Your have to find all of the agreements for all of the third partys to show the relationship back to WFC HOLDINGS CORP who benefits (1) owner thru Cayman Islands – since purchase 11/1998 of Wells Fargo & Co. logo. Afterall its just an address of an entity registered in DE organized to appear American – it’s not America.

PHH core of secondary sub-servicing relationships pulled into WFC in 1998 thru over

Depository Trust Company
CeCE & Co.
55 Water Street, NY NY 10041
representing sole registra on behalf of brokers, dealers, banks and other participatns in the DTC system. Such participants may hold Certificates for their own accounts.
Filed on behalf of Cendant Mortgage Capital LLC,
by Cendant Mortgage Corporation as Master Servicer for
CDMC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-1.

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Discovery, Forensic Analysis and Motion Practice: The Prospectus

Posted on March 26, 2010 by Neil Garfield

USE THIS AS A GUIDE FOR DISCOVERY, FORENSIC ANALYSIS AND MOTION PRACTICE TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE

see for this example SHARPS%20CDO%20II_16.08.07_9347

Comments in Red: THIS IS A PARTIAL ANNOTATION OF THE PROSPECTUS. IF YOU WANT A FULL ANNOTATION OF THIS PROSPECTUS OR ANY OTHER YOU NEED AN EXPERT IN SECURITIZATION TO DO IT. THERE ARE THREE OBVIOUS JURISDICTIONS RECITED HERE: CAYMAN ISLANDS, UNITED STATES (DELAWARE), AND IRELAND WITH MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS RECITED AS WELL FOR PURPOSES OF THE OFFERING, ALL INDICATING THAT THE INVESTORS (CREDITORS) ARE SPREAD OUT ACROSS THE WORLD.

Note that the issuance of the bonds/notes are “non-recourse” which further corroborates the fact that the issuer (SPV/REMIC) is NOT the debtor, it is the homeowners who were funded out of the pool of money solicited from the investors, part of which was used to fund mortgages and a large part of which was kept by the investment bankers as “profit.”There is no language indicative that anyone other than the investors own the notes from homeowner/borrowers/debtors. Thus the investors are the creditors and the homeowners are the debtors. Without the investors there would have been no loan. Without the borrowers, there would would have been no investment. Hence, a SINGLE TRANSACTION.

If you read carefully you will see that there is Deutsch Bank as “initial purchaser” so that the notes (bonds) can be sold to pension funds, sovereign wealth funds etc. at a profit. This profit is the second tier of yield spread premium that no TILA audit I have ever seen has caught.

The amount of the “LEVEL 2” yield spread premium I compute on average to be approximately 30%-35% of the total loan amount that was funded FOR THE SUBJECT LOAN on average, depending upon the method of computation used.Thus a $300,000 loan would on average spawn two yield spread premiums, “level 1” being perhaps 2% or $6,000 and “level 2” being 33% or $100,000, neither of which were disclosed to the borrower, a violation of TILA.

The amount of the yield spread premium is a complex number based upon detailed information about the what actually took place in the sale of all the bonds and what actually took place in the sale of all the loan products to homeowners and what actually took place in the alleged transfer or assignment of “loans” into a master pool and what actually took place in the alleged transfer or assignment of “loans” into specific SPV pools and the alleged transfer or assignment of “loans” into specific tranches or classes within the SPV operating structure.

Here is the beginning of the prospectus with some of the annotations that are applicable:

Sharps CDO II Ltd., (obviously a name that doesn’t show up at the closing with the homeowner when they sign the promissory note, mortgage (or Deed of Trust and other documents. You want to ask for the name and contact information for the entity that issued the prospectus which is not necessarily the same company that issued the securities to the investors) an exempted company (you might ask for the identification of any companies that are declared as “exempted company” and their contact information to the extent that they issued any document or security relating to the subject loan) incorporated with limited liability you probably want to find out what liabilities are limited) under the laws of the Cayman Islands (ask for the identity of any foreign jurisdiction in which enabling documents were created, or under which jurisdiction is claimed or referred in the enabling documentation) (the “Issuer”) (Note that this is the “issuer” you don’t see don’t find about unless you ask for it), and Sharps CDO II Corp., (it would be wise to check with Delaware and get as much information about the names and addresses of the incorporators) a Delaware corporation (the “Co-Issuer” and together with the Issuer, the “Co-Issuers”), pursuant to an indenture (don’t confuse the prospectus with the indenture. The indenture is the actual terms of the bond issued just like the “terms of Note” specify the terms of the promissory note executed by the borrower/homeowner at closing) (the “Indenture”), among the Co-Issuers and The Bank of New York, as trustee (Note that BONY is identified “as trustee” but the usual language of “under the terms of that certain trust dated….etc” are absent. This is because there usually is NO TRUST AGREEMENT designated as such and NOT TRUST. In fact, as stated here it is merely an agreement between the co-issuers and BONY, which it means that far from being a trust it is more like the operating agreement of an LLC) (the “Trustee”), will issue up to U.S.$600,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class A-1 Notes”), U.S.$100,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class A-2 Notes”), U.S.$60,000,000 Class A-3 Senior Secured Floating Rate
Notes Due 2046 (the “Class A-3 Notes” and, together with the Class A-1 Notes and the Class A-2 Notes, the “Class A Notes”), U.S.$82,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class B Notes”), U.S.$52,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Interest Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class C Notes”), U.S.$34,000,000 Class D-1 Secured Deferrable Interest Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class D-1 Notes”) and U.S.$27,000,000 Class D-2 Secured Deferrable Interest Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class D-2 Notes” and, together with the Class D-1 Notes, the “Class D Notes”). The Class A Notes, the Class B Notes, the Class C Notes and the Class D Notes are collectively referred to as the “Senior Notes.” The Class A-2 Notes, the Class A-3 Notes, the Class
B Notes, the Class C Notes and the Class D Notes and the Subordinated Notes (as defined below) are collectively referred to as the “Offered Notes.” Concurrently with the issuance of the Senior Notes, the Issuer will issue U.S.$27,000,000 Class D-2 Secured Deferrable Interest Floating Rate Notes Due 2046 (the “Class D-2 Notes” and, together with the Class D-1 Notes, the “Class D Notes pursuant to the Indenture and U.S.$45,000,000 Subordinated Notes due 2046 (the “Subordinated Notes”) pursuant to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Issuer (the “Issuer Charter”) and in accordance with a Deed of Covenant (“Deed of Covenant”) and a Fiscal Agency Agreement (the “Fiscal Agency Agreement”), among the Issuer, The Bank of New York, as Fiscal Agent (in such capacity, the “Fiscal Agent”) and the Trustee, as Note Registrar (in such capacity, the “Note Registrar”). The Senior Notes and the Subordinated Notes are collectively referred to as the “Notes.” Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (“Deutsche Bank”), New York Branch (“Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch” and, in such capacity, the “TRS Counterparty”) will enter into a total return swap transaction (the “Total Return Swap”) with the Issuer pursuant to which it will be obligated to purchase (or cause to be purchased) the Class A-1 Notes issued from time to time by the Issuer under the circumstances described herein and therein. (cover continued on next page)

It is a condition to the issuance of the Notes on the Closing Date that the Class A-1 Notes be rated “Aaa” by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) and “AAA” by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“Standard & Poor’s,” and together with Moody’s, the “Rating Agencies”), that the Class A-2 Notes be rated “Aaa” by Moody’s and “AAA” by Standard & Poor’s, that the Class A-3 Notes be rated “Aaa” by Moody’s and “AAA” by Standard & Poor’s, that the Class B Notes be rated at least “Aa2” by Moody’s and at least “AA” by Standard & Poor’s, that the Class C Notes be rated at least “A2” by Moody’s and at least “A” by Standard & Poor’s, that the Class D-1 Notes be rated “Baa1” by Moody’s and “BBB+” by Standard & Poor’s, that the Class D-2 Notes be rated “Baa3” by Moody’s and “BBB-” by Standard & Poor’s.
This Offering Circular constitutes the Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) for the purposes of Directive 2003/71/EC (the “Prospectus Directive”). Application has been made to the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (the “Financial Regulator”) (you could ask for the identification and contact information of any financial regulator referred to in the offering circular, prospectus or other documents relating to the securitization of the subject loan), as competent authority under the Prospectus Directive for the Prospectus to be approved. Approval by the Financial Regulator relates only to the Senior Notes that are to be admitted to trading on the regulated market of the Irish Stock Exchange or other regulated markets for the purposes of the Directive 93/22/EEC or which are to be offered to the public in any Member State of the European Economic Area. Any foreign language text that is included within this document is for convenience purposes only and does not form part of the Prospectus.
Application has been made to the Irish Stock Exchange for the Senior Notes to be admitted to the Official List and to trading on its regulated market.
APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATOR RELATES ONLY TO THE SENIOR NOTES WHICH ARE TO BE ADMITTED TO TRADING ON THE REGULATED MARKET OF THE IRISH STOCK EXCHANGE OR OTHER REGULATED MARKETS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DIRECTIVE 93/22/EEC OR WHICH ARE TO BE OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IN ANY MEMBER STATE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA.
SEE “RISK FACTORS” IN THIS OFFERING CIRCULAR FOR A DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH AN INVESTMENT IN THE NOTES. THE SENIOR NOTES ARE NON-RECOURSE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CO-ISSUER AND THE NOTES ARE LIMITED
RECOURSE OBLIGATIONS OF THE ISSUER, PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE COLLATERAL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
THE NOTES DO NOT REPRESENT AN INTEREST IN OR OBLIGATIONS OF, AND ARE NOT INSURED OR GUARANTEED BY, THE TRUSTEE, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., DEUTSCHE BANK OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES. Note that you have more than one trustee without any specific description of where one trustee ends and the other begins. It is classic obfuscation and musical chairs. NOTE ALSO THAT TRUSTEE DISCLAIMS ANY INTEREST IN THE BONDS BEING ISSUED [REFERRED TO AS “NOTES” JUST TO MAKE THINGS MORE CONFUSING].

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Maples Finance Shows as SIV for Deutsch Bank

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Tony,
I got an interesting email to my blog BUT when I replied POOF they disappeared! I have been researching this for a bit now.

I need information on the following tip:

“Deutsche Bank National Trust passed the certificate to the administator of the main trust Maples Finance Limited, You want to check out Indymac c1-1 Corp they are incorporated in Cayman Islands.”

This is where most of the Corporations are formed.

Maples Finance, which provides clients with a multi-jurisdictional legal and specialized management service from offices in Jersey, the British Virgin Islands and Dublin as well as the Cayman Islands. Maples Finance also provides management and administration services for Cayman Islands’ investment funds and Cayman Islands’ structured finance vehicles.

Maples Finance provides directives to structured finance vehicles which undertake a wide range of transactions including, loans and loan programmes, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), cashflow CDOs, securitizations and structured investment vehicles.

All of which have been issued to and are held by Maples Finance Limited, a licensed trust company incorporated in the Cayman Islands (in such capacity, the ” Trustee Share“), under the terms of a declaration of trust in favor of charitable purposes. The Issuer will not have any material assets other than the Collateral Securities and certain other eligible assets. The Collateral Securities and such other eligible assets will be pledged to the Trustee as security for the Issuer’s obligations under the Notes and the Indenture.

This is where we need to find the info.

DinSFLA

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Foreclosure Defense: WHERE’S THE NOTE?

Posted on June 19, 2008 by Neil Garfield

In the context of the Mortgage Meltdown-Securitization Frenzy, it just might be possible that most of the promissory notes issued by homeowners on refinancing or purchasing their homes are lost and destroyed. It might even be all of them. If that is the case, it can be argued that nobody is entitled to receive payments under this unique circumstance. It sounds silly, but the documents from each closing, which more and more resemble the issuance of a security, and the securitization process that led up to the sale of asset backed securities to investors, parsed the notes and security instruments to such an extreme that there is no one party who has possession, control, custody, authority or even knowledge enough to enforce the terms of the note or the mortgage.

At this point it appears to us in our investigation, that the actual real party(ies) in interest cannot be identified by anyone.

As we probe deeper into this mess, many thins are becoming apparent, not the least of which was that the alleged financial geniuses who became “gurus” were simply ordinary people who understood barely enough of the process to SELL it.

We have not found, thus far, anyone in the financial industry or any text, treatise or book, that contains a complete and valid description of the logistics of the typical mortgage meltdown transaction — starting with pre-sales to hood-winked investors of asset backed securities (often before any loan was closed) and ending with the loan closing on the ground where some poor sap had been convinced that he/she was a real estate investor.

EVERYONE WE KNOW HAS SOME KNOWLEDGE OF PART OF THE PROCESS BUT NOBODY HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOTAL PROCESS — AND THIS APPEARS INTENTIONAL TO CREATE THE FACADE OF PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY WHEN THE MESS EXPLODED, WHICH MANY OF THE PLAYERS KNEW WOULD HAPPEN SOONER OR LATER. 

The promissory note is the instrument that is being enforced at a mortgage foreclosure, or in the non-judicial sale states (which we contend violates fundamental due process rights) where the process of notice of sale commences.

In the judicial sale states the “lender” must file a foreclosure action and start off with alleging that they are the owner of the note and possess the rights under the mortgage. They say that they were the one that the borrower(s) was supposed to pay and they have not received payment. But in this unique context, the “lender” is not the actual lender and never was.

We know Taylor Bean is filing foreclosure suits affirmatively alleging that they don’t have the note and don’t know where it is. We know that Wells’ Fargo has been found to have pre-sold the mortgage loan PRIOR TO LOAN closing and was never the real party in interest even though their name was used at closing. It appears that every loan from 2001-2008 is subject to the analysis in these pages. It is possible that loans prior to that date might also be affected.

When you or your client appeared at closing to get the loan and refinance the home or purchase the home, they had already pre-sold or pre-arranged the sale of your loan to a mortgage aggregator. This “sale” involved assignments and begins the process of parsing the various documents into what becomes, in the end, meaningless gibberish. The straightforward nature of the foreclosure process has become a corkscrew of reverse logic, lost documents, dubious powers and even more dubious obligations to pay on the note. 

We have found no situation, as yet, where the original note has appeared or where there is any allegation that anyone knows where it is. We are receiving streaming reports that the notes are lost or destroyed. ANd we have some suspicions, that the actual rights to the enforcement of the note and/or mortgage, and perhaps the physical custody of the notes, actually might reside in the Cayman Islands or some such safe harbor, where a structured investment vehicle with no actual interest in the note or mortgage is holding all or some of the rights of the “lender” by virtue of transmittal documents or assignments that conflict with other assignments in the securitization process. 

Thus it may fairly be argued that there is no known person to the borrower against which he can exercise his rights of rescission, no known person or entity to whom payment may fairly be made without risking a claim for payment from third parties who claim entitlement from assignments or pledges that may or may not be valid, in whole or in part.

THIS IS WHY THE FIILNG OF A BANKRUPTCY ON BEHALF OF A BORROWER SEEKING TO FORESTALL FORECLOSURE MAY RESULT IN ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE OR EVEN BAR GRIEVANCES — AS TO BOTH THE LAWYER FOR THE PETITIONER AND THE LAWYER FOR THE ALLEGED LENDER.

THE “LENDER” IS ACTUALLY UNKNOWN. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY OWED, IF ANY, IS UNLIQUIDATED BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT TO RESCISSION, AND THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE REFUNDS, REBATES AND DAMAGES. AND THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT IS AT BEST CONTINGENT AND PROBABLY VOID BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT TO RESCIND. UNDER TILA, SECURITIES LAWS AND OTHER FRAUDULENT AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES LAWS AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL. 

IF THE SCHEDULES ARE FILED PROPERLY, THEN WHEN THE “LENDER’ FILES A MOTION TO LIFT THE AUTOMATIC STAY, THE BURDEN THEN FALLS ON THE LENDER TO PROVE ITS CASE BEFORE GETTING THE ORDER LIFTING THE STAY. ON THE PETITIONER’S SCHEDULES, IT IS SHOWN THAT THE “LENDER” IS MERELY A LOAN SERVICER OR OTHER THIRD PARTY THAT NO LONGER HAS ANY INTEREST IN THE NOTE NOR POSSESSION OR AUTHORITY TO PROCEED IN FORECLOSURE. THIS “LENDER” IS SHOWN AS HAVING A CONTINGENT, UNLIQUIDATED CLAIM OF UNKNOWN AMOUNT, AND IT IS UNSECURED.

“JOHN DOE” ET AL IS LISTED ON THE SCHEDULES AS BEING PARTIES WHO DESPITE DEMAND FROM THE BORROWER, ARE NOT DISCLOSED BUT WHO MAY HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST THE PETITIONER. AND JANE DOE IS ALSO AN  DISCLOSED PARTY(IES) WHOSE OWN OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN MERGED WITH THE THE PETITIONER.

It would be the position of the Petitioner that the payment has been either made or is covered by a sinking fund, insurance, co-borrower payment, third party payment or fund from proceeds of the sale of asset backed securities. 

At this point there is little doubt that the assignments or sales of the note were split off or parsed from the obligation to pay in the securitization process. Other parties were either substituted as obligors under the note, co-borrowers, etc. Thus the mortgage service provider could at best only state what they have received from a particular borrower on a particular piece of property securing a particular note.

But this servicer cannot state whether OTHER payments have been made upstream that cover the revenue from the borrower’s note. And neither the servicer (nor the Trustee in non-judicial sale states) can state that they have possession of the original note, or any document from the current holder of the original note because the note is gone. In fact they cannot state or assert they know where such documentation exists or even that they know who would know where such documentation or authority exists. 

Filed under: CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Mortgage | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

%d bloggers like this: