Information, Resources and Help with Your Loan Strategy – Serving Over 11,000,000 Visitors

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays Starting Again on January 7, 2016

COLLABORATE! LAWYERS, HOMEOWNERS, CONSUMERS, CLICK HERE!

Have a question? Fill out our FREE registration form at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583

RECOMMENDED READING:

Pretender Lenders: How Tablefunding and Securitization Go Hand in Hand” By William Paatalo and Kimberly Cromwell. CLICK: http://infotofightforeclosure.com/tools-store/ebooks-and-services/?ap_id_102

MISSION STATEMENT: I believe that the mortgage crisis has produced manifest evil and injustice in our society. I believe our recovery will never reach the majority of struggling Americans until we restore equal protection for all citizens and especially borrowers in our debt-ridden society. LivingLies is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with sufficient resources to combat bloated banks who are flooding the political market with money. We provide thousands of pages of free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site. And we provide paid services, books and products that enable us to maintain an infrastructure to provide a voice to the victims of Wall Street corruption.

Call 520-405-1688  for West Coast information and 954-495-9867 for East Coast information AND 850-296-1960 for Northern Florida Services. Ask about our rescission package.

Consultations with Attorneys and Borrowers with Attorneys available. Case reviews by Neil Garfield available. Litigation and Expert Consulting in all fifty states.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Purchase Memberships, Books, Services from our Online Store Customer Service West Coast 520-405-1688 East Coast 954-495-9867 GET HELP!!!

  • GET A CONSULT WITH NEIL GARFIELD
  • GET our Rescission Package
  • GET Litigation support
  • Get our COMBO Title and Securitization Report
  • Select recent articles from the right side of this page

Featured Products and Services

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

Has LivingLies Helped You? Consider Making a Donation. Call  We appreciate your support!

Call 520-405-1688  for West Coast information and 954-495-9867 for East Coast information AND 850-296-1960 for Northern Florida.

Patricia Rodriguez Tonite! What Happens After a Mortgage Loan is Rescinded? Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show 6pm EST

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 40,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.
===============================
 In addition to simply exercising rights under the law of the land, homeowners who send and record rescissions are in actuality attacking standing through another door to the courtroom. Because in the end, the only party who can dispute a rescission is a creditor who actually owns the debt because the debt is owed to that creditor.
*
AND because of the rules of procedure set forth in TILA rescission, NOBODY can challenge or dispute a rescission unless and until a real creditor steps forward within the 20 day window of opportunity to dispute the rescission.
*
Sending a letter telling the homeowner his rescission is no good just seals the doom of the servicer and all the other players in the false game of nonexistent securitization. But the letter DOES establish that the group of companies calling themselves “the Lender” actually received it. Filing a motion or memorandum disputing the homeowners motion to dismiss won’t cut it either if the same parties who started the foreclosure try to do it because there is no more note or mortgage.
*
But in all events, as the Supreme Court has stated, all rescissions are effective when sent whether they are disputed or not. Raising the issue of a statute of limitations is a dispute. The three years runs from the date of consummation.
*
Who is to say whether the transaction was EVER consummated and if so, when? That is a factual issue that can ONLY be raised in a legal dispute. AND the legal dispute can only be raised by filing a lawsuit seeking to vacate the rescission. The lawsuit can only be filed by a party with standing — and standing to dispute a rescission can ONLY come from the real creditor. Nobody can use the note and mortgage for anything, least of all standing, because there is no more note and mortgage. They are void because of rescission.
*
So what happens after rescission is sent? Do the heavens open up and rain money on borrowers. Not so fast.
Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.,
1961 West Huntington Drive | Suite 201 
Alhambra, CA 91801
phone: 
(626) 888-5206

Confronting the “Motions” Filed Against Rescission

THIS ARTICLE IS FOR LAWYERS ONLY
===============================
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.

—————-

Several attorneys are sending me their motions or opposition to motions directed against the rescission. My observation is that they have not taken the time to think about what they are doing and the real reason they are pursuing rescission. The real reason is standing. What you cannot accomplish through the front door you can definitely accomplish by coming in through a side door. It isn’t enough to summarize your position, you must go for the jugular on this.

The motion filed is good although missing a key component that should be expressly stated.

*The court may not rule on anything unless it has jurisdiction.

*Rescission is effective as a matter of law on the day it was mailed. A party may only contest or dispute the rescission if they file a lawsuit seeking to vacate the rescission. The only party that can file such a suit is the actual creditor — the party at the end of the chain to whom the money is allegedly owed.

*All other parties are barred for lack of standing, to wit: an effective rescission voids the note and mortgage (see 15 USC 1635, Regulation Z, and Jesinoski v Countrywide). No party in any court can get relief based upon a void instrument.

*The only thing left after rescission is the debt; hence only the owner of the debt has standing. The banks want the court to presume that they own the debt since they had the paperwork. But if the last 8 years has taught us anything, we know that the paperwork does not reflect the actual transactions where money exchanged hands.

*The only jurisdiction this court had was based upon the allegations based upon the note and mortgage. The rescission removed the note and mortgage as valid instruments as of the date of mailing the rescission. Hence unless one or more of the parties allege that they are the owner of the debt and the end of the line in the “chain” (and then prove it) none of the existing parties have standing to dispute the rescission which, as Justice Scalia said on behalf of a unanimous US Supreme Court, was effective on mailing regardless of whether it was disputed or not.

*The only relevant statute of limitations at this point is the 20 day window in which the lawsuit disputing the rescission could have been filed. That has expired in most cases, but it doesn’t stop the owner of the debt from filing the lawsuit, since the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense unless it is clear on the face of the complaint and exhibits that the 20 day window has expired, in which case the homeowner may move to dismiss the challenge to the rescission as untimely.

*The same logic applies to the rescission itself. If the rescission itself states that the transaction was consummated on a certain date, THAT starts the clock counting off the three years. But in all events the rescission is effective — and whether or not the true owner of the debt can step forward and establish standing, sue to vacate the rescission is unknown.

*Although theoretically a lawsuit is still necessary and the party seeking to void the rescission probably doesn’t have standing, it is a tougher road to argue about forcing the other side to file a lawsuit that, assuming there is standing, you will lose. Any effort to contest the existence of consummation will be rejected if you have already admitted it. So while you definitely have the upper hand if you do not admit consummation and do not admit the date of consummation you still can stay in the game by demanding that the court not rule on something over which it has no current jurisdiction — because the rescission, disputed or not, is effective on the date of mailing, the note is void and the mortgage is void.

Rescission Insurance Offered By Radian

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.

—————-
AND for those of you who continue to doubt what you see on these pages despite concurrence by all three branches of government, consider this: Since 2014 the banks have been purchasing rescission insurance. If they didn’t think they had a problem, why would they buy the insurance?
The answer is simple — what fund manager is going to buy alleged mortgage backed securities on loans that could disappear overnight? The bigger question will reveal itself: Like AIG in 2008-2009, there isn’t enough money in the world to cover these policies; but they look good on paper.
In plain language I know that the attorneys for the banks are fully aware of the danger posed by rescission and the particular vulnerability the banks have for loans “originated” without funding (i.e., no consummation). Also known as “table-funded” which is “predatory per se” which SHOULD interfere with them getting the equitable relief of foreclosure (unclean hands, per se). And the conflict with state laws will also come front and center — how can anyone enforce a note or mortgage for which there was no funding from any of the parties in their “chain.?”
If they admit or if it is revealed that there was no consummation of the loan contract, they don’t need rescission insurance because there is no loan contract to cancel.
BUT if they admit  there was no loan consummation then nobody could have acquired it by definition.
AND if they stick by their story that the parties going into court are merely enforcing lawful rights, then they are stuck with rescission and no ability to dispute the rescission because they have nobody who fits the description of a creditor who could sue to vacate the rescission.

What does the homeowner really know?

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order for us to keep track of our volume and the types of questions that might be asked, it will make it easier and better for you if you fill out the form at 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.

—————-
Since 2007, when I started this blog I have been frustrated by  the cases decided against borrowers — because they had to be decided that way. And the reason they had to be decided that way is that the homeowner, pro se or through counsel, either outright admitted or failed to take issue with the basic presumptions and presumptions about the alleged origination and alleged transfers of the loan. My suggestion to all attorneys has always been to admit nothing, because none of it is real. But even the lawyers for homeowners are having difficulty accepting the idea that the whole mortgage run-up was one giant exercise in multiple layers of fraud.
Consider:
*Once the debt, note, mortgage and loan contract are admitted the court has no choice but to allow foreclosure — assuming the homeowner stopped making payments. It isn’t a failure of the justice system that it has allowed so many foreclosures while regulatory agencies and law enforcement are busy fining the same parties for filing fraudulent documents, forgery, robo-signing and fabricating false documentation. The Judge’s job is to rule on what is accepted into the record as evidence or undisputed fact.
*If you admit the allegations of the pretender lenders, there is no “but.”
*It is hard for anyone to wrap their heads around the fraud that the banks committed. Virtually everyone knows that the banks did something wrong but they are still willing to admit things that make the facts undisputed when they come before the Judge, giving him or her no choice but to rule for the banks.

*What does the homeowner know? Only that he was offered a loan and that he or she signed papers. How much was paid out as loan and by whom is a complete mystery to the homeowner. The homeowner THINKS he knows that the loan was made, and thinks he knows that the paperwork is the same as what he signed but he doesn’t know.

*Judges often regard this answer as too cute by half because the assumption is made that money went to the closing agent, which might be true but we have no record of it, and that the money came from the “lender” designated on the note and DOT, which is almost certainly not true. But that is why we have lawyers — to take the difficult positions that are right and to convince a court that the pretender lenders are just that. You can’t do that if you have already admitted that they loaned you the money and that you signed the documents they are showing the court.

*The homeowner knows now that it was custom and practice in the industry to destroy the original documents, and then to fabricate them using technology to look like the the papers he signed. The homeowner cannot identify with certainty whether the documents presented to him in court are actually the same as what he signed at closing — but the homeowner admits it anyway completely undermining his arguments about standing, jurisdiction and fraud.

*Nobody likes looking like the fool, but unless you are willing to call out the banks on what they did to you and the country, things are not going to change. When you are voting in November, at least one factor should be identifying those candidates that are running against the Wall Street banks.

*The homeowner knows that LPS (Black Knight now) posted a menu of services and prices for fabrication of documents including the signatures. Thus the homeowner upon information and belief can assert that the “lender” was following custom and practice in the industry and that it was customary practice in the industry to violate Federal and state lending laws as part of a larger scheme to defraud investors who bought certificates issued by a Trust created and controlled by the investment bank.

*The fact that almost none of these “Trusts” ever had any business, assets, liability, income or expenses coupled with the failure of the banks to assert HDC status (where they would only need to allege payment in order to avoid borrower’s defenses) corroborates the homeowner’s belief that the Trust is a paper placeholder for other third parties who are probably being defrauded by this scheme.

From my interviews with hundreds of lawyers and thousands of homeowners here is what I think the average homeowner does NOT know:

  1. His alleged “loan” was table funded. That means that the party on the note and mortgage or deed of trust never loaned him any money. And it means that there was NO CONSUMMATION of any loan contract between the homeowner and those who are seeking to enforce the nonexistent loan contract. AND THAT means that rescission isn’t necessary since the absence of a valid, enforceable loan contract renders the other signed documents (including the note and mortgage or DOT) void.
  2. RESCISSION has only become necessary because of the damage that homeowners did to themselves — admitting in words or conduct that the servicer was the servicer and that the “investor” is whoever the servicer says it is. Having admitted that, for purposes of each individual case, the reality in that case is that there is a loan contract even though we know there wasn’t a loan contract. Rescission is just another strategy of attacking the same issues of standing. Why do you think the banks NEVER file that lawsuit disputing the rescission within the 20 days provided by the TILA Rescission Statute? ANSWER: Because they can’t.
  3. The absence of any payment history starting with the alleged “lender” explains fully why there were no payments for the alleged transfers of the loan papers. They were transferring paper, not loans.
  4. The money that went to the homeowner as a purported “loan” was never reflected on any valid document. The documents, on the other hand, recite terms of a loan contract that was never consummated. Basic contract law is two people, one offer, one acceptance of the terms of the offer and consideration from each party to THAT agreement. That “Closing” money came from an account holding stolen or diverted money that everyone thought went into the trusts. The REMIC Trusts were supposed to fund the origination and acquisition of loans. Trust received neither cash nor loans — only paper that was worthless. And THAT means that the Trust never was activated, never had any business, assets, liabilities, income or expenses or even a bank account. And THAT is corroborated by one simple fact — if the Trust did pay for it they would be able claim the status of holder in due course in which case the defenses of the borrower would be irrelevant. If the Trust could prove that it paid for the loan, there would be no effective defenses. But notice that it virtually no case is the allegation made that the Trust is claimed to be a Holder in Due Course. That is because there is no proof that the Trust ever paid. Admitting that the trust can be treated as a holder in course is just as bad as admitting that the original loan came from the identified “lender.”

*Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst for LivingLies, comments further on the role of the “closing agent” —

*In California, the “agent” is a dual capacity agent and is the agent for both parties simultaneously.  Once the escrow instructions are met 100% (substantial performance does not apply), the dual agency splits and the “agent” becomes an agent for the homeowner and an agent for the lender.  At that point the documents are transferred from the homeowners agent to the lenders agent, and probably the same thing happens with the money from the source of funds. However, it would appear that the agency is never split because the instructions are never followed.  So even though the documents are signed (in anticipation of the loan closing and receiving money from the “lender”), the instructions are never completed, the deed of trust is not authorized to be delivered and is never constructively delivered.

It was never the homeowners intent to give the documents to a party that did not lend the money, nor to give a security interest to a party that had not paid money, nor to give a security interest to an unknown/undisclosed party that did provide money but that was not included in the note, security instrument or TILA disclosures.  And it was never the homeowners intent to give a security interest to MERS, who was never disclosed until the homeowner sat down to sign the papers (no TILA disclosures to MERS were ever given, nor was MERS disclosed prior to the time the homeowner sat down to sign the documents).
But the “agency” held by the escrow company is interesting because the escrow company will not disclose some information it receives and knows…

 

Chart Shows Progression of Alleged Mergers of Banks

We don’t actually know what was in the merger agreements but we do know that Chase, for example, always left their options open as to whether they were going to assert ownership over a loan as a result of a merger. The “schedule” that was supposed to be attached to the 9/25/-8 WAMU-Chase-FDIC-BKR Trustee agreement never materialized. This was left to Chase to fill in after the alleged merger.

We also don’t know which subsidiaries were included in the alleged mergers, so keep digging.

see bank-chart

OCC Fines JPM Chase For Failing to Take Corrective Action, Using Fraudulent or Fabricated Documents

So here is my theory. Administrative findings have a presumption of validity. This fine is for continuing false, fraudulent and defective claims, like all the banks did. So it seems to me that the fine and the charges against JPM Chase constitute a finding of fact — the fact being that Chase is continuing to violate the law and is using fraudulent and defective claims against unsuspecting borrowers. Judges seem to be viewing this as a one-off — “You must owe the money to somebody so why not Chase?”

*

In my opinion this presumption by the Judges needs to be challenged aggressively. But it gets easier as the evidence piles up with administrative agency findings that what the borrowers are saying is true. It seems to me that it is better and more credible to give a presumption of truth to the administrative findings of fact than the presumption of truth on “facially valid” documents that we already know are most likely defective.

*

Any other approach continues business as usual — homeowners are losing their homes to volunteer intervenors (the banks and servicers) who have no interest in the loans and no documents that are credible which would show otherwise. Why haven’t the real parties (investors) stepped forward? Lots of reasons, not the least of which is that they have no idea what is going on since they do not get reports on individual mortgages and they prohibited from inquiring in the prospectus they signed when they bought certificates from a pass-through trust.

*

Why doesn’t the Trust step forward directly and why doesn’t the trust have a single witness at foreclosure trials? Simple, the Trusts are creatures of the investment banks, which is why nobody complained when the money from sales of certificates was not given to the Trustee, who did not expect it, nor the Trust which didn’t have a bank account. The Trustees were named as window dressing with no duties to perform.

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

reuters.com | January 7, 2016

JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) has been fined $48 million for failing to meet terms of a settlement to resolve mortgage servicing violations, U.S. bank regulators said on Tuesday.

The fine will be on top of another $2 billion that JPMorgan had been ordered to pay to cover remediation costs and foreclosure assistance to borrowers, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said.

JPMorgan was among a number of banks which participated in a 2013 nationwide settlement with regulators over the practice of robo-signing, in which banks pursued faulty foreclosures by using defective or fraudulent documents.

The OCC also said Tuesday that EverBank (EVER.N) will also pay a $1 million fine for similar violations connected to the mortgage servicing case.

For Lawyers: Rescission and Jurisdiction — Neil Garfield Show Tonight!

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 40,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.
===============================

The only jurisdiction the court had was based upon the allegations based upon the note and mortgage. The rescission removed the note and mortgage as valid instruments as of the date of mailing the rescission. Hence unless one or more of the parties allege that they are the owner of the debt and the end of the line in the “chain” (and then prove it) none of the existing parties have standing to dispute the rescission which, as Justice Scalia said on behalf of a unanimous US Supreme Court, was effective on mailing regardless of whether it was disputed or not.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,249 other followers

%d bloggers like this: