What the Media is Missing About the “Securitization” of “Mortgage” Loans

The Banks called it “The Hustle”. So why is anyone thinking it was anything other than a hustle?

Judges need to reconsider their positions. They need to make the choice between their false perception of a “free house” and a “get of jail free card.”

The plain facts are that those so-called REMIC Trusts do not and never have existed as operating entities. They exist on paper and have no legal significance because they never were in operation. It is not just that the paperwork was fabricated, back-dated and forged. It’s that the presumed transactions never happened. That is why Adam Levitin refers to it as “securitization Fail.”

Schedule A Consult Now!

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

Coming soon —- automated direct access to our calendar where you schedule your own consults.

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

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

—————-

Pennymac and CW

http://fortune.com/2012/10/02/countrywide-its-baaack/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/business/an-unfinished-chapter-at-countrywide.html?_r=0

“High Speed Swim Lane,”<<< another term for “The Hustle” which was run by Rebecca Mairone .

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-30/bank-of-america-s-countrywide-ordered-to-pay-1-3-billion

Even investigative journalists are missing the obvious. Either they lack the knowledge to report correctly on the subject or they have been instructed to stay away from Wall Street corruption. The plain facts are that those so-called REMIC Trusts do not and never have existed as operating entities. They exist on paper and have no legal significance because they never were in operation. An empty trust has no legal significance.

It is not just that the paperwork was fabricated, back-dated and forged. It’s that the presumed transactions never happened. That is why Adam Levitin refers to it as “Securitization Fail.” And that is the whole reason for fabrication, forgery, backdating and robo-signing of documents. If the transactions were real, nobody would have needed to go to DOCx, LPS (now “Black Knight”) et al to create the documents that created the illusion of reality.

The questions that have NOT been asked include but certainly are not limited to the following:

1. How could the Big Banks be carrying bad loans on their balance sheet? AND the corollary question is how they could be the seller of those loans. The answer is that they cast themselves  as the seller of loans so they could book “trading profits” on loans where they were not the lender. In doing so they were asserting positions that were diametrically opposed to the positions taken in foreclosure actions — that the “lender” was whoever is on the note and mortgage. So on one hand the TBTF banks are asserting they made the loans, they own the loans and they were losing money as a result of non-payment by the borrowers and the other hand they are having their puppet players assert that they are the lenders who originated or acquired the loan. Which is it? ANSWER: NEITHER! The banks used the money of all investors from a commingled fund undifferentiated by any of the Trust acronyms, and then claimed whatever was convenient. And nobody is talking about this crime. The investors are the ONLY parties with an equitable claim for payment but are not protected by either the false note or false mortgage — both of which were converted to the apparent ownership of dozens of players who participated in this scheme. In the meanwhile the Banks and servicers are eating away at any semblance of recovery for the investors by asserting improper claims for fees, costs and advances.

If you sit down with pencil and paper you can understand that by hiding a 10% APR loan in a 5% APR portfolio they were able to “sell” the loan to the “trust” — on paper without any consideration — and book a false “trading profit” equal to the amount of the loan. Do the Math. The media is either ignoring the truth or don’t understand it.
Those trusts were never active, never got any money from the sale of their “mortgage backed securities”, never had a bank account and never had a financial statement, which on the reporting trusts would have been filed with the SEC. Instead they filed rule 15 forms saying they had nothing further to report.
They are hiding behind the cloak of another part of that rule that says reporting can stop when the number of investors falls below 300. But these trusts never had more than 300 investors at inception or any other time. They only filed on some of the trusts to give the appearance of propriety when in fact the BANKS were taking the entire proceeds of the sale of the mortgage backed securities issued BY THE TRUSTS and pocketing it. Then they used only as much of the Investor money as was necessary to give the appearance of a loan pool that was originated or acquired by the trust when no such transaction ever occurred. In short the were treating the offering of MBS issued by the Trust as though it was offering of the Bank. The “Trust’ was merely a 100% controlled entity of the Bank existing only on paper and not at law.

2. The same logic applies to the sale of the mortgage backed securities. The banks were not buying them, they were selling them. So the entire “loss” myth is merely a continuation of the fraud the Banks perpetrated on the investors and then the borrowers — violating the law and creating the illusion of a lender who was really not the lender.

That is important because it violates the federal law against the practice of table-funded loans. But more importantly, a party who does not loan money to a borrower has no right to be on the note and mortgage. And parties who make claims based upon the note and mortgage are really pursing their own interests and thus perpetrating a fraud upon the court, contrary to the interests of the investors whose money was procured by trick and deceit.

Lately some court have started allowing discovery to pursue this “theory” of the defense. The Banks are screaming. Enforcement of those discovery orders would reveal the true nature of the largest economic crime in human history. And the assumption expressed by many judges in open court that these are things that can be worked out by the parties later is belied by the fact that the Banks are continuing to steal what is left of the investments.

That “assumption” by the court is legislating from the bench and in direct conflict with Federal and State law regarding lending and property.

That assumption by the courts has opened a door to moral hazard that is wreaking havoc already on the West Coast and undoubtedly will soon be seen on the East Coast — total strangers discovering apparent debts owned by consumers in all sorts of loans, sending the “borrower” notices and then pressing for collection or even foreclosure. That is exactly what was revealed in the San Francisco, Osceola and dozens of other studies. Judges need to reconsider their positions. They need to make the choice between their false perception of a “free house” and a “get of jail free card.”

%d bloggers like this: