How to Beat the Shell Game

Posted on November 19, 2018 by Neil Garfield

The bottom line is that the foreclosures are a sham. The proceeds of the foreclosure never go into a REMIC Trust because there is neither a REMIC election nor a Trust, much less any entity that outright owns the debt, note or mortgage. In order to win, you must know that the securitization players use sham conduits and fictitious names at will, leaving an ever widening gap between the real and the unreal. It’s the gap that enables so many homeowners to win.

Without getting too metaphysical about it, I am reminded by what Ghandi said when he won India’s independence against all perceived odds. He said that in the end truth always wins out. Always. Of course he didn’t say when that happens.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

I recently received an email from someone dealing with “Shellpoint” servicing. I thought it might be beneficial for everyone to see my response, to which I have added some edits.

Shellpoint is an apt name. It is a Shell company organized to deflect inquiries and claims from the real actors. The “point” is how they stab homeowners. Modifications are pointless in most cases, designed to place the homeowner in a hopeless economic situation in which they cannot avoid foreclosure.

Mods are intentionally convoluted and virtually nothing is happening on their side except the process of asking for more documentation when you have already sent or they already have it. Some mods are “granted” but only after they have raked the homeowner over the coals and they offer ice in the inter, along with their outright theft of the debt from the actual legal or equitable owner.

The new lender, effectively, is the so-called servicer who in turn has a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the underwriters of so-called mortgage bonds or certificates. They are not bonds and they are not actual certificates. While those underwriters do business in the  fictitious name described as a REMIC trust when dealing with homeowners, they do not use the fictitious name when they create the illusion of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

CWABS is Countrywide. CW was an aggregator only in the loosest sense of the word. Most believe that CW acquired the loans and then was the seller to REMIC Trusts. The entire scheme was a sham. CW did not acquire any loans and was therefore not the seller of the debt, note or mortgage. The REMIC Trust was legally nonexistent and /or had no transaction conducted in its name in which the Trustee of the so-called REMIC Trust was entrusted with your loan to manage on behalf of beneficiaries who also were nonexistent.

The investors who purchased certificates issued in the name of the fake trust are not beneficiaries. The Trustee has absolutely no power to even inquire as to the affairs of the Trust much less actively manage them. Read the PSA — all the way through.

Although there are a few exceptions the investors disclaim any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage. If they were beneficiaries they would have rights to the loans and rights regarding the management of those loans.  The named Trustee would have fiduciary duty to the investors regarding those loans. In truth the underwriter of the certificates was actually the issuer acting under the name of the nonexistent trust which was neither the direct nor indirect owner of any assets, much less loans. And the Trustee is merely a rent-a-name to make it look like a serious financial institution was at the head of this scheme.

Companies like Shellpoint claim their power is derived from the nonexistent trust that does not own the debt, note or mortgage and which will not receive the proceeds of foreclosure.

If their powers and rights are said to derive from the existence of the Trust, then they have no power. They have no right to collect anything or enforce anything unless a specific owner of the debt, note and mortgage is (a) identified and (b) the owner gives specific rights and direction to an agent (servicer) to conduct business in the name of the owner or for the benefit of the owner of the debt, note and mortgage.

Proving this to a judge who is at best skeptical of such claims is essentially impossible. That is because the defense narrative would require digging deep into the books and records of the trust (there are none) and deep into the records of the previous and current servicers to determine where they sent money that they collected from homeowners supposedly pursuant to the terms of a promissory note. The current state of such narratives is that they are deemed not credible or “not proven” even though they are true. And accordingly the attempts at such discovery and investigation are thwarted by the court sustaining objections to such discovery.

Those objections are lodged by lawyers who claim that they represent the named claimant. That is also a misrepresentation in many cases because the claimant they have named does not exist and has no direct or indirect power or rights over the debt, note mor mortgage. Since the claimant does not exist, that should be the end of the matter. But once again rebuttable presumptions come to the rescue of the lawyers of nonexistent clients. And once again those presumptions are not rebuttable without getting proof from sources who simply will never comply even if ordered by a court.

But just to be clear, this is a possible basis for suing the lawyers who filed such claims either knowingly or by failing to conduct basic due diligence. Any normal lawyer would not knowingly take directions from a third party in which they were to file suit or start a nonjudicial foreclosure on behalf of a nonexistent entity that neither exists nor has any interest in the subject matter of litigation. So later when you file suit for wrongful foreclosure, abuse of process, RICO or whatever you decide are proper grounds and causes of action, consider the foreclosure litigation to be  a vehicle for laying the groundwork for actions in fraud, misrepresentation and negligence.

So the lawyers who win these cases enter the courtroom knowing that the defense narrative is true but they do not assert it as a claim they must prove.  They are adept at keeping the burden of proof away from their client homeowner. The winning lawyers basically follow the track of keeping the burden of proof on the claimant who seeks foreclosure. The lawyers know that the the claimant simply will not and cannot answer certain questions that can be used to undermine the legal presumptions on which the entire claim is based, contrary to the actual facts. The winning defense lawyers are the ones who use timely objections and good cross examination (i.e., constant follow-up). In the end the witness or the document will collapse under its own weight.

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Servicer, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

“Boarding Loans:” Centralized “Processing” at LPS (Black Knight)

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Neil Garfield

It’s complicated. But as this article proudly states, Black Knight is a leading “fintech” company, meaning that it handles the technology and software for “servicing” loans in default. This is the same company that, through DOCX literally published a menu of prices for fabrication and robosigning documents several years back.

My point has been that based upon my investigations, there is no loan boarding. It is a complete fiction. This is hub and spoke management. The hub is Black Knight. “Boarding” actually consists of changing the user name and password, and perhaps not even that. So discovery should include inquiries as to whether Black Knight (or others like it) are the ones involved in the so-called transfer of data.

Consider this quote from the article: “MSP is a comprehensive, end-to-end system that encompasses all aspects of servicing – from loan boarding to default – for first mortgages and home equity loans.” (e.s.)

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released.

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase audio seminar now — Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

see Boarding on Home Point Financial and Black Knight

Among the names you should be digging for is “LoanSphere.” Check this out

In addition to MSP, Home Point Financial also implemented:

  • LoanSphere Bankruptcy, which assists servicers’ management of the bankruptcy process by using workflow and servicer-defined rules to automate bankruptcy-related tasks;
  • LoanSphere Foreclosure, which uses workflow and automated, servicer-defined rules to help servicers with the foreclosure process; and
  • LoanSphere Invoicing, a web-based invoice management solution that consolidates invoice process tasks – from bill presentment and processing to post-payment activities.

They are hiding in plain sight comfortable in the knowledge that practically nobody will understand what they are really doing. This is “servicing” for the servicers. Not for the trust, not for the investors, not for the beneficiaries (if there are any), not for the obligee of the debt owed by the homeowner, not for anyone except themselves.

The naming of a trust as beneficiary under a deed of trust or mortgagee under a mortgage is in actuality the underwriter of RMBS doing business as the name of the trust, — which is a name of a presumed entity that in fact does not exist. In fact no transaction in the name of the trust occurred in which the trust paid money for any debt, note or mortgage. Thus no proceeds from the foreclosure go to the trust. Just ask.

The changing of servicers is merely a game to set up more layers and more curtains with the goal of increasing opacity. In actuality the servicers are merely pretenders acting under orders of the underwriter for the sale of fake bonds and promises issued by a “Trust” that neither exists nor receives the proceeds of sale of securities issued in its name.

Practice Hint — the issue is always legal standing: QUESTION FOR CROSS EXAMINATION: Who will receive the proceeds of liquidation of the property after foreclosure sale? HINT: IT CAN’T BE THE TRUST BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE BANK ACCOUNT. Will the trust receive the proceeds? Will the beneficiaries receive the proceeds? Will the Trustee receive the proceeds? Will the Master Servicer receive the proceeds? How will the trust or the beneficiaries receive any money from the proceeds of liquidation of the property?

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, legal standing, Servicer | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

The Barbara Bratton Story: Judicial Hypocrisy

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Neil Garfield

Editor’s Note: There is something happening here and it is beginning to bother me more and more. A number of people have attempted to file papers in the county recorder’s office  in order to preserve their ownership rights to property that is either in foreclosure or has been the subject of a foreclosure sale. As I’ve stated on these pages most foreclosure sales are an illusion. Credit bid is submitted by a non-creditor  on behalf of other parties who are also non-creditors.

I might add that many pundits, writers, bloggers and lawyers have actually recommended to clients that they file any legally defensible document in opposition to a change in title or possession that would result from enforcement of fraudulent bank documents that are recorded in the public records. Our view is that the very existence of MERS is proof enough of fraudulent intent by the banks, their attorneys, the trustees on deeds of trust, and the other parties involved in the foreclosure and securitization scheme. Our view, like the oath that every attorney takes before becoming licensed, is that every effort should be made to advocate for the position of someone who is in an adversarial position. This does not include making false statements or recording false documents. But the issue becomes very cloudy when one side is allowed to file false documents and the other side is not.

The banks, and the law firms that represent the banks, have used their influence with local politicians and officials to snare these homeowners into a  legal nightmare. It is true that the documents that were filed are of dubious value, but that doesn’t mean that substantively they are wrong or false. The same could be said for the documents that were filed in support of the foreclosure and the foreclosure sale, except that we have ample evidence that many if not most of those documents are fabricated, probably forged, and refer to transactions that never occurred.

The hypocrisy here is beyond comprehension. We have proof and admissions by the banks that they fabricated, forged and illegally signed documents that were then recorded with the County Recorder’s office. The County recorder in Maricopa, Arizona for example, admits that the title records have been corrupted by the banks but for political reasons refuses to use her administrative powers to remove or tag the offending bank documents that were filed electronically from “trusted sources” which it turns out are only on the side of the banking industry including the banks themselves, their attorneys etc.

So we have, like the Bratton case, $250,000 bond placed on a person who filed a “Corrective deed” using her own name, and perhaps fabricating the existence of a twin sister. I agree. That was wrong. Any document that recites facts that are untrue should be corrected in the county records. Any document containing false statements that are known to be false at the time of the filing shows criminal intent. That is also unavoidably true.

The hypocrisy is that for the banks that filed documents containing false statements that were known to be false when the document was recorded, there not only is no action by law enforcement, but you have statements like: (1) the Arizona Attorney General who says that it is an acceptable shortcut and (2) Attorney general Holder who admitted that he didn’t prosecute because the banks were too big to fail.

I see novel defenses here (check with criminal lawyer in your jurisdiction before you use this):

  1. Estoppel and related constitutional argument of equal protection:  if law enforcement has decided not to prosecute a particular crime against a particular segment of the population then it should be stopped from enforcing that particular crime against any portion of the population. It might well be said that a homeowner could reasonably conclude that although a statute exists declaring a particular behavior to be a crime, that the state and local law enforcement agencies through a pattern of conduct have waived their right to enforce the statute. This is akin to an estoppel argument in civil litigation.  In criminal litigation the lack of prosecution by law enforcement as a matter of state policy can only be seen as a failure of due process and a violation of equal protection.
  2. Self Defense:  This might sound like a stretch and it probably is, but it is nonetheless accurate and applicable. If the banks are allowed to attempt to steal property through the use of fraudulent documents and the state policy prevents law enforcement from prosecuting those crimes, then out of necessity it may be said that a homeowner is exercising a right of self-defense by filing fraudulent documents in opposition to the fraudulent documents of the banks.

One way or the other needs issues are going to have to be addressed. If you look at each case on a strictly individual basis you will come to the conclusion that the homeowner did something wrong and should be punished. If you take a broader view, you will see that the homeowner did the only thing that was possible to stop the steamrolling banks from stealing her home. 

From Hopegirl2012 on Facebook
The powerful mortgage industry, that almost brought down the entire global economy with their casino mentality, continues to generate mountains of fraudulent documents to kick families out on the streets and steal years off of innocent citizens lives by keeping them entangled in ludicrous legal shenanigans.

Below is one of the latest stories of one woman, Barbara Bratton.

For Immediate Release
UPDATE: Barbara Bratton – Out On Bail                                                                    Defrauded Homeowner Jailed As Domestic Terrorist
Friday, June 28, 2013: San Bernardino, CA.
Homeowners’ rights advocate Barbara Bratton was released on bail early this morning after spending two weeks detained as a felon on charges of forgery, burglary and offering false documents for allegedly filing a corrective deed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s office. Homeowners sometimes use corrective deeds as a preliminary step towards court recognition of systemic land title fraud on their home.
At a Wednesday hearing in San Bernardino Superior Court, Ms. Bratton’s attorneys argued that she showed no criminal intent, had no criminal record and posed no flight risk. Bail was reduced from $250,000 to $150,000. Terms require Ms. Bratton and her associates to stay away from her family home of 40 years as well as from the couple who wrongfully obtained the property from her.  A preliminary hearing is set for August.
Since 2008, Barbara Bratton, a native of the City of Ontario, CA. and life-long member of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in that city, has been engaged in a determined legal battle to win back her home. In an apparent attempt to intimidate her, the office of San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos accused Ms. Bratton of being a domestic terrorist associated with the “sovereign citizens” – a charge wholly without merit. She has never identified herself as a sovereign citizen, nor does she support their views.
At least six officers were assigned to assist the District Attorney’s office with the case. FBI agents were also present in court. Ms. Bratton’s arrest comes at a time of growing public dissatisfaction with domestic surveillance and other gross violations of civil and human rights since passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11.
Barbara Bratton believes in and is in full compliance with the U.S. Constitution, which is why she is fighting a strictly legal battle to win back her home. These trumped up charges appear to be a desperate attempt by county and city officials to divert public attention from the real crimes:  the powerful home mortgage industry [[1] ] that has generated mountains of fraudulent documents that continue to pollute property records in San Bernardino County – a county with some of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. Until land title fraud is weeded out from public property records, judges will continue to sanction illegal foreclosures and bankers and home loan servicers who nearly brought down the U.S. economy will go unpunished.
Look, they’ve tried to make this “too complicated” for most of us to understand for a reason. Let me break it down for you. But first I have to warn you. This is going to upset a lot of people, especially if you own a home, and most especially if you’ve recently lost it in foreclosure.
The titles to our homes are in our names and on the public record. When we “borrowed” our own money we gave a promissory note to the bank. The bank exchanged the deed and possession of the house for the promissory note. A simple exchange and an executed complete contract paid by Operation of Law. At that point you have a valid contract with consideration and exchange of valuable property.The bank then sells the promissory note, our value and property which we gave to the bank, into the open market in the form of a “security”. 70% of these securities are guaranteed or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or FHA, all government-sponsored enterprises (GSE’s). These GSE’s are now being held, insolvent (deemed unable to pay a debt), under the Federal Housing Finance Agency which has legal control over the BAIL OUT.So in other words, the bank took our value, sold it, decided that our value was a debt that we would never be able to pay and therefore worthless, and now our value is being held by the branch of our government – our employees – that gave even more of our value back to the banks in the bail outs.
When the bank sold the promissory note as a security, they were paid. The value of our promissory note was passed from the bank to the party that bought the security. But somehow, the banks still act like they are the ones with our promissory notes, and they proceed in making us pay 20+ years of mortgage payments for a value that they were already paid for, which they then deemed worthless after they were paid, not once – from the sale of the security – but twice, from the bailouts. The only party that could have any claim against our homes are the ones that bought our promissory notes from the bank. Yet the banks foreclose on us and throw families out of their homes out onto the street? Why? Because they need to be paid with our value a third time? How does that work??????
Honestly, I’m just stumped and at a loss here. Why are we not rioting over this? Why are we not outraged? How is it that women like Barbara Bratton and so many more of my close personal FRIENDS AND FAMILY are STILL going through this nonsense in court, when it is so OBVIOUSLY AND BLATENTLY WRONG????? INHUMANE!!!
Pass and share this story please. Help me help others to see the fraud here so that hopefully we can stand up to this and do the right thing! It’s time to take our value back from the casino lords!
Hope

 

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage | Tagged: , , , , , , | 24 Comments »

MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX RECORDER SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHO OWNS THE LOAN

Posted on December 7, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

“They are Filing Fraudulent Documents to Take the Homes across the U.S.”

26,000 DEFECTIVE TITLE CHAINS ASSOCIATED WITH FORECLOSURES IN ONE COUNTY

see ESSEX COUNTY RECORDER ON MSNBC

Watch this short video to get the whole problem in a nutshell. Title has been corrupted throughout the country, homes have been taken with fraudulent documents (not my words, but official statements from recorder offices around the country), fraud was committed against investors, homeowners and the taxpayers.

Homeowners, knowing they had not made a payment that was “required” under the promissory note they signed, have walked from their homes without a fight or have lost the fight despite the fact that unknown to them, the payment was not due and there was no default. Lawyers who concede the default may be committing malpractice.

This is not just about the paperwork. It’s about the money and the lie we are living about who is losing money and who is making money at whose expense. This should not be fought out on the internet — it should be fought in the courtroom with real evidence and the Judges need to start hearing that evidence and judging it objectively without any assumptions arising from the “default” of the borrower.

Wherever you look there is fraud and the Banks are about to give large bonuses to their executives. Why not? They certainly did well by the bank didn’t they? Well, no, not really. despite Federal Law making it a crime for the top executives to sign a statement that they have adequate internal control and that the controls were working and therefore the statements are true, those statements are NOT true and they knew it.

So the executives are getting bonuses for committing fraud on their own shareholders too. When will someone actually pick up the ball and run with it?

“This is disgraceful. Somebody has to stand up for the little guy”

So here is a little primer on why this is all happening like this. The fact is that the mortgages are probably invalid in most instances in the sense that they do not perfect a lien against the property. This is because of the way the securitization was set up and because of the way securitization was practiced (two different things, which is why you need the COMBO, Loan level accounting, etc.). At the nub of this crisis is the fact that third parties who are not on the mortgage, not on the note and had nothing to do with the funding of the loan are  foreclosing on these invalid mortgages and even if the mortgages were valid, these third parties have no right to enforce them. The reason is that there has been no sale of the loan. Even if the the third party has a potential cause of action against the homeowner for money, they still have no right to foreclose because the debt is either unsecured or not secured to the third party bringing the foreclosure.

What does all that legalese mean? It means that people without a lien are taking homes without benefit of due process, a money judgment where the actual money is counted — all of it — and normal enforcement procedures of a money judgment. The people doing this have no chance of success if they are required to prove the case that they lost money. But they are succeeding because they are not being required to show it in most foreclosure proceedings. They are gaming the system with presumptions instead of facts.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments »

After The Storm – Foreclosure Fraud & Robo-Signing Continues by Nye Lavalle

Posted on August 23, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: THE ONLY THING MISSING IS THE LARGEST QUESTION OF ALL: WERE THE MORTGAGE LIENS EVER PERFECTED? DO THEY EXIST?

I also contest the issue of whether the banks were ever intending to do things right. I know from interviews I conducted that several lawyers who were assigned the task of drafting papers and procedures for securitization simply quit, citing illegality and even criminality of these acts. I believe the intention was always to defraud the investors, defraud the borrowers and take the principal as fees. This diverges from past corruption where fees were excessive or where the investment was bad. Here, the intent, in my opinion, was to create a bad investment and use leverage on the banks name and reputation to sell something that didn’t exist.

The proof is in the pudding. Analyzing these pols and the securitization scheme set forth in the PSAs, it is quite clear that the worse the loan, the worse the mortgage bond, the more Wall Street made. The higher the certainty of a loss to the investor, the higher the probability of the borrower being defaulted, the higher the profits and fees. Just do the math. If the investors wanted a 5% return, they wanted $50,000 per year as interest on their money if they invested $1 million. Wall Street delivered the $50,000 by making high risk loans averaging 10% instead of 5%. The result was that they could take $500,000 and fund a 10% loan, and take $500,000 and put it in their own pockets.

The Banks are still leveraging on their prior reputation for risk aversion and sticking by the rules of underwriting. And people are still buying the myth that the banks were just out to make loans. They were not. They were out to make profits, stealing the investors money, stealing the borrowers down payment and other money, stealing the houses and leaving both sides with nothing. Why won’t people use the age-old instruction: “look to the result to determine the intent?”

SEE NYE LAVALLE 62650988-After-the-Storm-Final

“In the best-­‐case scenario, concerns about mortgage documentation irregularities may prove overblown. In this view, which has been embraced by the financial industry, a handful of employees failed to follow procedures in signing foreclosure-­related affidavits, but the facts underlying the affidavits are demonstrably accurate.

Foreclosures could proceed as soon as the invalid affidavits are replaced with properly executed paperwork.

The worst-­‐case scenario is considerably grimmer.

In this view, which has been articulated by academics and homeowner advocates, the ‘robosigning’ of affidavits served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure. In essence, banks may be unable to prove that they own the mortgage loans they claim to own.

The risk stems from the possibility that the rapid growth of mortgage securitization outpaced the ability of the legal and financial system to track mortgage loan ownership.”

After The Storm – Foreclosure Fraud & Robo-Signing Continues by Nye Lavalle

Foreclosure
Fraud
&
Robo-­Signing
Continues…

A Year Ago, A Storm of Allegations And Reports Highlighting Robo-­Signing And Foreclosure Fraud Swept Across America Causing Major Banks To Halt Foreclosures Nationwide While Congressional, State, And Federal Investigations Were Launched. A Year Later, While Investigations Are Still Ongoing, Regulators Have Failed To Correct The Underlying Issues Behind Foreclosure Fraud And Robo-­Signing. The Overwhelming Evidence Presented In This Paper Is That Not Only Were American Homeowners And Borrowers Defrauded In The World’s Greatest Financial Scam, But American’s Wealth And Security Were Placed At Risk. To Date, There Has Been Only One Criminal Conviction Of An Executive Of A Major Mortgage Company And Other Criminal Convictions Have Been Halted. Still, As Shown In This Paper, Foreclosure Fraud And Robo-­Signing Continue While Some Courts Address The Issue And Others Ignore The Ramifications Of This Massive Fraud. What Is Now Known Is That These Scams Were Not Unique, But Industry-­Wide. The Mortgage-­Backed Securities Turned Out To Be Non-­Mortgage & Note Backed Empty Trusts. To Conceal This Massive Ponzi Scheme Perpetuated Against Americans, The Nation’s Mortgage Industry Continues To Manufacture, Fabricate, & Destroy Evidence, Despite The Inherent Risks And Ramifications Since Over 90% of Borrowers Don’t Challenge Their Foreclosures.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments »

IL AG ISSUES NEW SUBPOENAS TO LPS AND NTC

Posted on May 26, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

MADIGAN ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO LPS, NationWide Title Clearing ; WIDENS ‘ROBOSIGNING’ PROBE

FROM STOPFORECLOSURENOW.COM

MADIGAN ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO LPS, NationWide Title Clearing ; WIDENS ‘ROBOSIGNING’ PROBE

Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan today expanded her investigation into “robosigning” practices, issuing subpoenas against two national mortgage servicing support providers. The subpoenas are the latest effort in Madigan’s ongoing probe into the fraudulent practices used by banks and other mortgage institutions that contributed to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent global financial crisis.

Madigan issued subpoenas against Lender Processing Services Inc. and Nationwide Title Clearing Inc., two Florida-based corporations that provide “document preparation services” and other loan management services to mortgage lenders for use against borrowers who are in default, foreclosure or bankruptcy.

“Foreclosure became a rubber-stamping operation that robbed many homeowners of the American Dream without a fair and accurate process,” Attorney General Madigan said. “I will not relent in my investigation into the fraudulent practices by lenders and others that caused and exacerbated the mortgage crisis and the resulting massive foreclosure crisis.”

Lender Processing Services (LPS) provides loan servicing support for more than 50 percent of all U.S. mortgages. More than 80 financial institutions use LPS to service more than 30 million loans. These loans have an outstanding principal balance exceeding $4.5 trillion.

Nationwide Title Clearing (NTC) provides a range of mortgage loan services to eight of the top 10 lenders and mortgage servicers in the country. NTC specializes in creating, processing and recording mortgage assignments, which are often needed for a lender to foreclose on a borrower.

Madigan will investigate reported allegations that LPS and NTC engaged in the practice of “robosigning” legal documents filed with the court to foreclose on borrowers. Robosigning occurs when an individual has no knowledge of the information contained in the document and often doesn’t even read or understand the document that he or she is signing. The use of robosigned documents was pervasive as lenders foreclosed on borrowers’ homes. The probe will also include a complete review of the accuracy of the systems and services that LPS and NTC provide to the large lenders including servicing platforms, foreclosure attorney interaction with these platforms and the assignment of mortgage process.

Attorney General Madigan said former employees of LPS, NTC, or former employees of any residential mortgage servicer or bank who have knowledge of any unlawful practices relating to mortgage servicing or the execution of documents should call her Homeowner Helpline at 1-866-544-7151 to aid in the investigation.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

INTIMIDATION: Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son

Posted on May 14, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: They are getting desperate, but the question is who is “they?” Does Deutsch know that a suit was brought in its name? Deutsch’s actual trust department has nothing to do with these fictitious “Trusts.” Now, just as Colonial sued Reagan in Arizona for just asking a question, Deutsch is suing the son of a foreclosure expert while he is minding his own business studying poetry.

Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son With No Financial Interest In Her Case

Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son With No Financial Interest In Her Case

Disgusting…

HuffPO-

But Deutsche Bank wasn’t just going after her. The bank was also attempting to sue her son, Mark Cullen, who is currently pursuing a graduate degree in poetry at the New School in New York. Cullen hasn’t lived in Szymoniak’s house for seven years and is not a party to any aspect of her mortgage — he has no interest in either the property or the loan, and never has had any such interest, according to Szymoniak.

[…]

And other Florida foreclosure experts say it’s difficult to interpret Deutsche Bank’s move as anything other than retaliation for Szymoniak’s media presence. If it is not, in fact, retaliation, they argue, then Deutsche Bank’s lawyers have demonstrated rank incompetence.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 27 Comments »

Florida Appellate Courts Are Getting It — and so is everyone else

Posted on November 11, 2010 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

LIVINGLIES BLOG

41737977-Servedio-v-Us-Bank

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

EDITOR’S COMMENT: It all comes down to “black letter law.” None of this is new. It’s just that the pretender lenders thought they could side-step the process by making it LOOK like they were complying with the law. The failure to comply is not just indicative that they tried to short-cut the process like many people are saying in the media.

  • That would mean that they actually DO “own and hold and the note,”
  • that they COULD “tender the original promissory note to the trial court,” or
  • that they COULD prove a case to “re-establish the lost note under [Florida] State statute [673.3091].
  • It would also mean that they could show and prove that the original note was payable to the would-be forecloser OR
  • that the note had a special indorsement in favor of the forecloser
  • [OR, if it isn’t subject to the restrictions against blank indorsements in the securitization documents, that they had a blank indorsement.
  • In the securitization environment it would mean that they could show and prove that the would-be forecloser was the assignee of an assignment “from the payee to the plaintiff”
  • OR in a motion for summary judgment that is unopposed (no questions of fact in dispute) that they have an affidavit from a competent witness to prove the would-be forecloser is the owner and holder of the note.

There are several common-sense presumptions behind each one of these black letter law requirements. This isn’t technical stuff. It is substantive. If the party seeking foreclosure is not the creditor and doesn’t lawfully hold and own the note then THEY can’t foreclose no matter when the last payment was received from anyone including but not limited to the borrower, third party co-obligors set up in the securitization documents or government bailouts. If the loan is subject to foreclosure it can ONLY be by a party fitting the above description as stated in the above case in a per curium (unanimous) opinion of the appellate panel. The reason is not just that we have rules and you can’t pick and choose which rules you will follow and which you can’t.

The reason is that in foreclosure there is a change of ownership and title to the property. Any subsequent party, innocent or otherwise, must know with certainty that if they buy that property or lend money using that property as collateral, that the title is clear, marketable and free from any cloud or defect. Without that certainty, commerce comes to a virtual standstill. Not only would real estate transactions be thrown into chaos, but the principles behind the requirements for foreclosure also are applied to any other debt or the transfer of anything else, tangible or intangible. So if ANY court allows for even the possibility that disinterested parties could legally intervene in the chain without proving their right to do so, all of commerce comes to a halt.

Which brings us to my final point in this article: in the context of securitization, there is no such proof. That’s why they are faking it. If they had it, they would show it. The reason they don’t have it is that it never existed. What they want the courts to do NOW is to allow them to substitute fiction for fact. They want courts to allow them to submit either fake documents or documents that have no legal effect. The basic problem they have is that the evidence of transfers and change of ownership of the note does not reflect the original liability of the borrower nor the existence of the original real creditor. The original payee was not the lender. Thus the mortgage or deed of trust secures a note that is invalid. They can’t bring a legal action to modify the note to reflect the real lender because that would be admitting that they ever made the proper disclosures required under federal (TILA) and state lending laws.

The ONLY way they can correct the title problem, the chain of ownership problem (title and obligation) is by getting BOTH real parties in interest to agree and sign something ratifying such an arrangement or by getting a court to issue a judgment cramming such an arrangement down the throats of investors and borrowers alike. Since their problem is that the property was never worth what was represented and the loan terms, now revealed in all their glory, are not viable, it is impossible to imagine that the investors would agree to anything other than getting their money back or that the borrowers would agree to anything other than a correction of the terms and principal of the obligation to reflect the true value of the property and the losses incurred between the time of closing and the present time.

As brilliant as some of the schemers are, they based their entire framework on a completely unworkable presumption and thought they had the “risk” problem solved. Now Wall Street finds itself the cowardly owner of the risk — because they tried to split the obligation, note and mortgage each from the others in such a complex way, with repeated iterations of “assignment” of receivables that it is in reality not possible to correct in the real world. They convinced the government to be the lender of last resort when the crisis started, but now the FED is asking for its money back , as are the investors. The borrowers are filing individual and class action suits, and the opinions from the bench are turning against Wall Street in strong, angry language from the bench.

Every day it gets worse for Wall Street’s prospects. All eyes are on Wall Street and how they could survive. The answer is that Wall Street will survive because there are hundreds of investment banking firms that would be only too happy to fill the void left by the resolution of the megabanks. There are 7,000 community banks and credit unions, many with assets in the tens of billions, that could and would easily fill the retail banking void. The electronic funds transfer backbone already exists and is in use in all of these firms and banks.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

“It is the culmination of the worst civil procedure nightmare we’ve ever imagined,” said Anne L. Weintraub, a real estate attorney at Sarasota’s Syprett Meshad law firm, referring to the recent appellate rulings.

From Stopforeclosurefraud.com

florida-ruling-might-further-complicate-loan-crisis

RULING MAY COMPLICATE LOAN CRISIS

Ruling might further complicate loan crisis

Published: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 8, 2010 at 10:04 p.m.
.

( page of 4 )

Appellate courts in Tallahassee and West Palm Beach have admonished lower courts for allowing foreclosures to proceed without the proper paperwork and kicked the cases back to circuit judges in a move some experts say could further complicate the foreclosure crisis.

At issue is the use of sworn affidavits that convinced circuit judges the borrower’s original promissory note had been lost in the shuffle but that the lender still had a right to foreclose. Experts likened it to a used car dealer selling a vehicle using a photocopy of the title.

Circuit court judges have been using such promises to issue summary judgments, which have sped cases along at a time when the courts have been inundated.

Observers say the rulings from the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee and the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach could become templates for more challenges.

It is unclear just how many cases could be affected — the chief judge in this region’s circuit says foreclosure paperwork is carefully scrutinized by teams of case managers — but the rulings come as the system already is dealing with disruptions from self-imposed bank moratoriums to deal with questionable paperwork.

“It is the culmination of the worst civil procedure nightmare we’ve ever imagined,” said Anne L. Weintraub, a real estate attorney at Sarasota’s Syprett Meshad law firm, referring to the recent appellate rulings.

What happens next could have widespread implications for the more than 200,000 Floridians who have lost their homes to foreclosure since January 2007, including the more than 12,000 in Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte counties.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: