FREE Information, Resources and Help with Your Mortgage Loans – Over 13,000,000 Visitors

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

About Neil F Garfield

Schedule Private Consultation

Purchase Services and Products

Purchase Seminars

Submit Case Interview Form – Receive Customized Recommended Services

Q & A – What can you do for me?

Contact Information:

The Garfield Firm

GTC Honors, Inc.

Phone: 954-451-1230

Email: info@lendinglies.com

Services include: Expert Consultative Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, and our Title and Encumbrance Analysis.

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. I provide paid services, books and products that enable us to maintain an infrastructure to provide a voice to the victims of Wall Street corruption.

Ask about our CONSULTATION SERVICES and LITIGATION SUPPORT.

Case reviews by Neil Garfield available. Litigation and Expert Consulting in all fifty states.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from our Online Store

  • GET A CONSULT WITH NEIL GARFIELD
  • PARALEGAL SERVICES
  • GET A REVIEW AND REPORT ON STATUS AND STRATEGIES
  • GET our Rescission Package
  • GET Litigation support
  • Get our COMBO Title and Securitization Report
  • FREE! Select recent articles from the right side of this page!

RECOMMENDED READING:

WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY? by Neil F Garfield. E-Book available on our online store.

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

Tonight! The Neil Garfield Show —Why is there more than one loan number?

Transforming Foreclosure Profit into Secured Debt

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

The simple answer is that it is possible to change loan numbers and the change could be related to combining data between two entities where the loan papers or servicing rights are supposedly being transferred. If Company A for example uses a 10 digit format for loan numbers and then “transfers” the loan to company B which uses 11 digit format for loan numbers, the loan number would need to be changed.

That said, it is often indicative of multiple transfers off record — i.e., where undisclosed third parties had possession, rights or even ownership of the loan documents. One of those parties might have more rights to enforce than the foreclosing party in your present case.

DISCOVERY:

Identify all loan numbers, including MIN, and any index used in alleged aggregation of loans that have ever been associated with the subject loan.

Describe the factual circumstances in which each loan number was used.

Produce all documents as defined herein that relate to ownership of  the subject debt.

Produce all documents as defined herein relating to transfer of any written instrument relating to the subject debt.

GET A CONSULT

FREE RESEARCH: Go to our home page and enter subject in search bar.

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 and draft your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

REGISTRATION FORM: 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. The consult is important to determine how we may be of assistance in the drafting and filing of documents in court or complaints directed to law enforcement.

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.

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

Where it appears that more than one loan number has been used to identify the subject loan, there is more discovery and more investigation to do.

This can occur as the result of many possible events. Some of them are benign.

Mr. Garfield often states that when more than one loan number is observed or revealed, further investigation and discovery should follow that path. He says that multiple loan numbers can be clues or evidence of the assertion that there have been more players in the chain of title than has been disclosed.

Most importantly, one of those undisclosed third party players could still in fact have a claim based upon the note and mortgage — or the proceeds of payment or liquidation; but our analysis in other cases has shown that while some party might have a claim based upon a paper instrument, the underlying debt was not funded or purchased by the party staking claim to the right of enforcement of the instrument.

This is often corroborated by the absence of any asserted claim that the debt is being enforced in addition to the paper instruments. A full case analysis would be necessary, following the TERA report, to flesh out this and other issues.

Note the distinction between claims about ownership of rights to the paper instrument and claims relating to receipt of payment from borrowers or third parties and receipt of payment upon liquidation of the property by sale to an alleged third party. For example, the master servicer might be collecting all the proceeds as “recovery of servicer advances” which means the foreclosure action was not for the alleged creditors/investors or trust but rather for the benefit of the master servicer.

This would mean that the foreclosure is being pursued not to provide a remedy to an injured party, but rather for the purpose of protecting future income. The defense would be that advances were made to the “beneficiaries” or “investors” by the servicer; but the truth is that such advances are made from a reserve “slush” fund that is in actuality a dynamic dark pool consisting of money from many investors in many trusts.

Hence there is no “recovery” but there is still collection of what the Master Servicer declares were “servicer advances.” That is profit, not reimbursement of expense. If that is the case, then the foreclosure proceeding is essentially riding the tail of servicer advances which by self-proclamation have turned an expectation of future profits into the illusion of a secured debt.

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

Cesspools and Loan Pools: Ocwen Sells Servicer Advances for $600 Million

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688 This is for general information only. Get a lawyer. =========================== First of all let me thank all of you who wrote in sending me your prayers and best wishes. It worked. The surgery went fine and I recovering without complications. =========================== see http://dsnews.com/news/11-16-2015/ocwen-closes-servicing-advance-securitization-worth-600-million Servicer advances are just […]

SERVICER ADVANCES: The Big Modification—> Foreclosure Scam by Wells Fargo and Others — “Better be 90 days behind”

See West Coast Workshop Northern California For further information or services please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. This is not a legal opinion on any specific case. Get a lawyer. ====================================== see http://www.occupy.com/article/how-wells-fargo-fraudulently-foreclosed-florida-homeowner The Big Question: How can there be a declaration of default when the creditor is showing no default and no loss on its […]

Use of Factual Findings of Servicer Advances

It is important that the content of the report dealing withservicer advances be argued strenuously.Servicer advances have been received by the creditor, thus reducing the amount the creditor is expecting to be paid. Hence there should be reduction in the amount that is due from the borrower — to the extent thatactual payments have been […]

Servicer Advances, Modification of Loans and Sundry Matters

I appear to have sparked some controversy over my comments that were directed at modifications and servicer advances — subjects that are not necessarily related. But they could be related — as where the homeowner seeks a modification on which there have been servicer advances. So to answer some questions about Modifications, I will first […]

Servicer Advances: More Smoke and Mirrors

Several people are issuing statements about servicer advances, now that they are known. They fall into the category of payments made to the creditor-investors, which means that the creditor on the original loan, or its successor is getting paid regardless of whether the borrower has paid or not. The Steinberger decision in Arizona and other […]

Mortgage Lenders Network and Wells Fargo Battled over Servicer Advances

It is this undisclosed yield spread premium that produces the pool from which I believe the servicer advances are actually being paid. Intense investigation and discovery will probably reveal the actual agreements that show exactly that. In the meanwhile I encourage attorneys to look carefully at the issue of “servicer advances” as a means to […]

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Explains Wells Fargo Servicer Advances

In order to obtain forensic reports including servicer advances please go to http://www.livingliesstore.com or call 520-405-1688. for litigation support to attorneys call 850-765-1236. ——————————— Mortgage Lenders Network v Wells Fargo, Chapter 11, Case 07-10146(PJW), Adv. Proc., Case 07-51683(PJW) In an adversary proceeding in which evidence was presented, Judge Walsh dissected the confusing complex agreements involving […]

ATTENTION LAWYERS: ARE SERVICER ADVANCES ARGUABLY A NOVATION

Where “servicer” advances to the trust beneficiaries are present, it explains the rush to foreclosure completely. It is not until the foreclosure is complete that the payor of the “servicer” advances can stop paying. Thus the obfuscation in the discovery process by servicers in foreclosure litigation is also completely explained. Further this would open the […]

Are Servicer Advances Deductible Expenses for Homeowners?

Many homeowners get tax statements from entities claiming the right to file them, with an EIN that is problematic. We are having trouble linking the EIN with the name of the entity that sends the tax statement. More importantly or perhaps of equal importance is the question raised by individual homeowners and investors who have […]

More Tempests About Servicer Advances

Amongst some lay readers there seems to be antipathy to the views I have expressed and continue to express concerning the advances by servicers to the creditors (if the recipients of the payments are deemed creditors). There is of course the question of whether the mortgage was a perfected lien or encumbrance upon the land […]

The Mystery of Servicer Non Stop Advances

Since I entered the fray as the actual attorney for clients, we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Judges are surprised to learn that the foreclosure case in front of them was filed despite the payments actually received by the alleged creditor through third parties. In other words the case in front of them […]

Bank Fraud News: The reason why banks and servicers should receive no presumption of reliability

The following is but a short sampling supporting the argument that any document coming from the banks and servicers is suspect and unworthy of any legal presumption of authenticity or validity. Judges are looking into self-serving fabricated documentation and coming to the wrong conclusion about the facts. Chase following bank playbook: screw the customer “Chase […]

Self-Serving Documents created by Self-Serving Servicers

The one BIG thing that is missing in most foreclosure litigation is that the documents submitted are hearsay.  The danger is that certain documents kept in the ordinary course of business have credibility and therefore may be admitted as an exception unless you move to strike them from the record immediately. The point here is […]

Motions for Summary Judgment

If the homeowner files it most likely it will be denied. If the pretender lender files it, the homeowner should take it seriously. The issue is simple — are there questions or issues of ultimate fact about which the parties disagree. If yes, motion denied. If not, motion is granted. Beware of a potential trap. If you are saying that there is no issue of material fact in dispute and so is the opposing side in their motion you are cutting your defense short.

GET A CONSULT

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 and draft 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. The consult is important to determine how we may be of assistance in the drafting and filing of documents in court or complaints directed to law enforcement.

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.

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

Like they often say on TV “Don’t try this at home or on your own.” Pro se litigants almost always get it all wrong when filing a Motion for Summary Judgment or when defending against an MSJ from the opposition — in which case the least that should be done is to file affidavit(s) in opposition to the MSJ field by the pretender lender.
*
“Ghost Writing”: The pricing on drafting a motion for summary judgment varies widely. There needs to be an hourly component or the project risks not being given needed attention because the projected hours have already been exceeded. We provide transparent drafting services to attorneys and pro se litigants who intend to consult with local counsel.
  1. Make sure pleading is complete in the case — complaint, answer and affirmative defenses.
  2. Make sure there is no outstanding discovery from the opposing side before filing the motion.
  3. Make sure that there are no Orders entered by the court that might influence the writing of the motion for Summary Judgment — or make sure that we can show compliance with such orders.
  4. Show that there is no disagreement about the essential facts of the case or that the opposing side’s disagreement is based upon an erroneous application of the law. Reference to transcripts, pleading  and documents from the opposing side should be made.
  5. State the narrative which by law entitles you to judgment.
  6. Present legal Argument.
  7. Attach affidavit from client, and perhaps other fact or expert witnesses. Expert witness affidavit is easily deflected by an opposing affidavit; but if unopposed it provides a basis on which the Judge can feel comfortable. Fact witnesses like people who did forensic analysis are helpful for persuasion. But opinions frequently result in concluding that there are issues in dispute.
*
Keep this in mind. It is a rare bird that an appellate court would reverse a trial judge’s order denying a motion for summary judgment. Orders granting summary judgment are reversed with some regularity.
 *
It is easy to get lost in these pleadings and motions. Stick to the essential point(s) and remove hyperbole.
 *
As a general rule, in foreclosure cases, a Motion for Summary Judgment should be filed only for tactical purposes to get the other side to show its hand. Sometimes the posture of the case is such that you don’t want to alert the other side to deficiencies in their claims until trial.
 *
You don’t want to give them an opportunity to fabricate even more documents to “correct” the deficiency in their case. So the first question is whether anyone is actually suggesting the filing of such a motion and the second question is whether local counsel agrees. In order to get to the point where it is deemed advisable or inadvisable to file the motion you obviously need to have a completed TERA and probably Case Analysis.
 *
Practice Hint: Attached Documents — You can always attach documents to the MSJ, but they will be subject to attack. The Judge may or may not agree that the exhibits prove that there are no contestable issues left for trial. BUT if documents are attached to the answer and affirmative defenses they become part of the court record unless the opposition moves to strike them and wins an order granting their motion to strike. So if pleading is not complete, or if there is a chance to amend the answer and affirmative defenses with exhibits you later want to use in the MSJ or Motion to Compel etc., it may be wise to do so.

 

Pope Francis: Help from an Unexpected Source — Derivative Markets “Ethically Unacceptable”

Warren Buffett saw it 15 years ago after analysis performed on the derivative markets. He said that the derivatives, as they were then (and now) being used, were “financial weapons of mass destruction.” If he was ignored what chance does anyone else have?

Enter Pope Francis from the perspective of income and wealth inequality and arriving at the conclusion that the aim of the derivative market was to create and trade on poverty and financial distress.

And he called out the financial system as a whole as being a “ticking time bomb,” something that many of us have been saying for years, starting (like Buffett) from before the manifestation of the Ponzi scheme that was ridiculously named “securitization.”

GET A CONSULT

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 – Pope Francis Calls Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps Immoral

The financial markets have long identified themselves as being “amoral.” Just part of the capitalistic system which is code for “if you do it for money, then it’s OK.” Accepting that argument would mean that a perfect defense to a murder charge is that it was based upon the desire to get money.

The Pope assails “unbridled global capitalism.” He isn’t a socialist. The Vatican is merely pointing out that the chaos we call society has tilted the playing field such that capitalism has moved from a system of finance to a system of governance.

Instead of government reigning in and holding the banks accountable for targeting people of low income and people in poverty (along with everyone else) politicians have (a) taken Wall Street assertions as though they were the product of thorough investigation and (b) blamed the victims and forced them to bear the cost of the blow out that only the Wall Street could have created.

Mainstream media succumbed to this phenomenon. They started off with exposes and investigative journalism only to abandon the follow-up that might have educated the consumer population. Some journalists were told point blank to lay off critical pieces on banks. That became increasingly difficult as verdicts and settlements started pouring like rain all based upon fraud, which the Pope references. They were all based upon investigations, administrative findings and allegations from all attorneys general in the country and many if not most of the investors who were duped into buying worthless “certificates” that existed only in the digital world.

The Vatican analysts came to the same conclusion I did in 2006. Dozens of other analysts across the world came to the same conclusion, some before me and most after me.

The conclusion reached by this group of writers and investigators was basically the same although phrased differently, person to person, to wit: virtually all “loans” generated over the past 20 years have been based upon fiction —  a fictional value for the home, a fictional value for the household income (ability to repay) a fictional value for the “certificates” issued by a fictionally named “trust” that was in fact the bank doing business under the fictitious name of the “trust.”

In 2003, Buffett warned of crisis if the government did not intervene in the proliferation of derivative trading and underwriting. The predicted crisis arrived. Now the Vatican is warning of another one perhaps worse than the 2008 crash. Nobody wants to hear that.

Federal and State lending laws state that the responsibility for determining whether the debt will be repaid lies with the bank underwriting the “loan.” Yet the banks were the only entities to come out of the Great 2008 Recession not only whole, but bigger and stronger. The consumer is seen and treated as meat for the hungry bear. Just ask anyone on Wall Street.

Ultimately the responsibility for what governance is acceptable lies with voters. But they only exercise that control when they vote. The status quo is elevating our financial system to a governance system. It leaves the banks in control of most domestic and global issues. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of the same things: (a) their sole driving  force is retention of power and (b) pushing down fresh new candidates who actually want to accomplish something. The Banks agree.

If you want something different, then VOTE!

 

Tonight! 6PM EDT: Where did all that money go and why isn’t some of it credited to the loan receivables from homeowners?

Indemnification Is Not Enough!

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

A common form of indemnification comes when a foreclosure is filed based upon a “lost” note. The forecloser promises to pay you if someone else shows up with the note or, presumably, ownership of the debt. I remember getting a few of those cases from Taylor Bean and Whittaker back in 2008 — you remember them, don’t you? They went to jail. I rejected their indemnification because it was apparent to my eye, trained in securities analysis, that I would have been just as well off and maybe better if I received a promise from a squirrel to give me some nuts next winter. They declared bankruptcy literally 3 days after the attorneys “man to man” assured me it was a good offer of indemnification.

Tonight join Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo as they discuss some facets of indemnification about which the average lay person neither knows or cares — until it means saving their home.

Indemnification of mortgages is a topic which is implicated when homeowners seek to refinance or sell their homes or the mortgage notes associated with their homes. Indemnification happens when one party tells another party: I will indemnify you from harm, meaning I will carry the weight of any legal consequences, and if you get an unfavorable legal consequence, such as an adverse Court ruling or judgment, I will in effect pick up the tab, and see that you are held harmless.

Securitizers of mortgages and their servicers and auction sale trustees often make it sound as if the hypothetical of another party trying to enforce their sketchy mortgage notes is just a misplaced notion, and that in any case they would argue (particularly in court proceedings or the pleadings related to same), they the institutional trust or servicer could or would indemnify borrowers from a random third-party coming onto the scene to try and collect on the note.

Discussing a California appeal case today shooting down that whole scenario, showing how indemnification may not be enough in these situations.

The Role of Dynamic Dark Pools in Ponzi Schemes Masquerading as Securitized Loan Pools

The bottom line is that there are no financial transactions in today’s securitization schemes. There is only fabricated paper. If you don’t understand the DDP, you don’t understand “securitization fail,” a term coined by Adam Levitin.

GET A CONSULT

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.

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

I received a short question today to which I gave a long answer. The question is “What happens when an investor decides that he or she wants to cash it in does someone redeem their certificate ?”

Here is my answer:

YES they get paid, most of the time. It is masked as a “trade” on the proprietary trading desk of the CMO Dept. which is completely unregulated and reports nothing. As long as the Ponzi scheme is going strong, the underwriter issues money from the investor pool of money (dynamic dark pool -DDP). It looks like a third party bought the “investment.” If the scheme collapses then the underwriter reports to investors that the market is frozen and there are no buyers.

 *
There is no redemption because there are no certificates. They are all digital entries on a server. Since the 1998 law deregulated the certificates, reporting is limited or nonexistent. The entries can be changed, erased, altered, amended or modified at will without any regulator or third party knowing. There is no paper trail. Thus the underwriter will say, if they were ever asked, whatever suits them and there is no way for anyone to confirm or rebut that. BUT in discovery, the investors have standing to ask to see the records of such transactions. That is when the underwriter settles for several hundred million or more.
 *
They discount the settlement based upon “market” values and by settling for pennies on the dollar with small community banks who do not have resources to fight. Thus if they received $2 billion for a particular “securitized pool” that is allocated to a named trust they will instantly make about 10-20 times the normal underwriting fee by merely taking money before or after the money hits the DDP. Money is paid to the investors as long as sales of certificates are robust. Hence the DDP is constantly receiving and disbursing money from many more sources than a fixed group of homeowners or investors.
 *
It is all about gaps and absences. If a debt was properly securitized, the investor would pay money to the underwriter in exchange for ownership of a certificate. The money would then be subject to fees paid to the underwriter and sellers of the certificates. The balance would be paid into a trust account on which the signatory would be a trust officer of the Trustee bank.
 *
If a scheme is played, then the money does not go into the trust. It goes to the DDP. From there the money is funneled through conduits to the closing table with the homeowner. By depositing the exact and expected amount of money into the trust account of the closing agent, neither the closing agent nor the homeowner understands that they are being played. They don’t even have enough information to arouse suspicion so that they can ask questions.
 *
Hence if you combine the proper securitization scheme with the improper one you see that the money is diverted from the so-called plan. This in turn causes the participants to fabricate documents if there is litigation. They MUST fabricate documents because if they produced real documents they would have civil and criminal liability for theft, embezzlement in investor litigation and fraud and perjury in foreclosure litigation.
 *
It is only by forcing a peek around the multiple layers of curtains fabricated by the players that you can reveal the absence of ownership, authority or even an economic interest — other than the loss of continued revenue from servicing and resales of the same loan through multiple investment vehicles whose value is completely derived from the presumed existence of a party who is the obligee of the debt (owner of the debt, or creditor).
 *
That party is the DDP — fund that is partially authorized for “reserve” and which the prospectus and trust instrument (PSA) state (1) that the mortgage loan schedule is not the real one and is presented as an example and (2) that the investors acknowledge that they might be paid from their own money from the “reserve.”
 *
The gap is that the DDP and the reserve are two different accounts. The “reserve” is a pool of money held in trust by, for example, U.S. Bank as trustee for the trust. There is no such account. The DDP is controlled by the underwriter but ownership is intentionally obscured to avoid or evade detection and the liability that would attach if the truth were revealed.
 *
We win cases not by proving theft from investors but by hammering on the fact that the documents are fabricated, which is true in virtually all cases involving a named trust. We will win a large award if we can show that the intended beneficiaries of the foreclosure were parties other than the obligee on the debt.
 *
Thus the attorneys, servicers and trustee are protecting their ill-gotten gains and seeking to grab more money and property at the expense of the unnamed investors and homeowners. They are then transforming an expected revenue stream into the illusion of a secured debt owed not to the funding sources but to the intermediaries.
Go to LENDINGLIES for more help.

Same Old Story: Paper Trail vs, Money Trail (Freddie Mac)

Payment by third parties may not reduce the debt but it does increase the number of obligees (creditors). Hence in every one of these foreclosures, except for a minuscule portion, indispensable parties were left out and third parties were in reality getting the proceeds of liquidation from foreclosure sales.

The explanations of securitization contained on the websites of the government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) clearly demonstrate what I have been writing for 11 years and reveal a pattern of illusion and deception.

The most important thing about a financial transaction is the money. In every document filed in support of the illusion of securitization, it steadfastly holds firm to discussion of paper instruments and not a word about the actual location of the money or the actual identity of the obligee of that money debt.

Each explanation avoids the issue of where the money goes and how it was “processed” (i.e., stolen, according to me and hundreds of other scholars.)

It underscores the fact that the obligee (“debt owner” or “holder in due course” is never present in any legal proceeding or actual transaction or transfer of of the debt. This leaves us with only one  conclusion. The debt never moved, which is to say that the obligee was always the same, albeit unaware of their status.

Knowing this will help you get traction in the courtroom but alleging it creates a burden of proof for you to prove something that you know is true but can only be confirmed with access to the books, records an accounts of the parties claiming such transactions ands transfers occurred.

GET A CONSULT

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.

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

For one such example see Freddie Mac Securitization Explanation

And the following diagram:

Freddie Mac Diagram of Securitization

What you won’t find anywhere in any diagram supposedly depicting securitization:

  1. Money going to an originator who then lends the money to the borrower.
  2. Money going to a named REMIC “Trust” for the purpose of purchasing loans or anything else.
  3. Money going to the alleged unnamed beneficiaries of a named REMIC “Trust.”
  4. Money going to the alleged unnamed investors who allegedly purchased “certificates” allegedly issued by or on behalf of a named REMIC “Trust.”
  5. Money going to the originator for sale of the debt, note and mortgage package.
  6. Money going to originator for endorsement of note to alleged transferee.
  7. Money going to originator for assignment of mortgage.
  8. Money going to the named foreclosing party upon liquidation of foreclosed property. 
  9. Money going to the homeowner as royalty for use of his/her/their identity forming the basis of value in issuance of derivatives, hedge products and contract, insurance products and synthetic derivatives.
  10. Money being credited to the obligee’s loan receivable account reducing the amount of indebtedness (yes, really). This is because the obligee has no idea where the money is coming from or why it is being paid. But one thing is sure — the obligee is receiving money in all circumstances.

Payment by third parties may not reduce the debt but it does increase the number of obligees (creditors). Hence in every one of these foreclosures, except for a minuscule portion, indispensable parties were left out and third parties were in reality getting the proceeds of liquidation from foreclosure sales.

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

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?

%d bloggers like this: