Be careful what you read and how you use it. Not everyone has background like mine in investment banking, bond trading, accounting, law and layering (securitizing). That goes for the latest “plant” that is taking up 50% of the comments of our blog with false facts, no training or education and nonetheless an opinion that I have sold out to the banks. Their point is that anyone can be purchased if the price is high enough.
The only clue you need: If I had sold out to the banks, I wouldn’t be working at all. But not all banks are bad and not all bad banks do bad things all the time. We must be educated to understand when they go astray and what we can do about it.
My primary focus is on stopping foreclosure and getting restitution from the banks for the homes they stole. That has not changed since I started in blog in October 2007 warning as many people as I could of the coming crash in the housing market and the coming crash in the stock market. I’ve published nearly 4,000 articles and all of them are still accessible on the blog.
So when someone gives you the impression that there is nothing can be done for you and nobody to help, then ask the key questions about their education, training and experience and where they got their information so you can check it out. Ask them if they are being paid by the banks and whether the “Sell-out” was their’s.
Here some unequivocal statements and where I stand:
- Except as an expert witness for borrowers, I have never received single penny in compensation from any bank, financial institution, pseudo financial institution, or credit union, indirectly or indirectly nor am I the least be interested in having such discussions with them.
- It is my premise that most of the mortgage liens during 2001-2-11 were not perfected which means they cannot be enforced.
- It is my premise that the note, whether the original is presented as a signed original or not (they are very good at faking it) presents material variations from law, fact and the expectations of the actual lender. Industry underwriting rules were abandoned because there was no risk to the intermediaries in the false securitization chains by which they now claim a right to payment or a right to foreclose. The investor would not have advanced money for bogus mortgage bonds if they knew the real deal on the loans offered and the borrower would have been in a position to know the real terms as set forth in bond indenture instead of the partial truth exhibited in the note. The fundamental purpose of TILA — to give the consumer choice in the marketplace — was thus removed.
- The document trail starts and compounds violations of basic law — that each transaction must be supported by consideration.
- The real debt owed to the real creditor is not correctly stated in virtually any of the declaration of default, foreclosure or auction and in many cases might be zero resulting from the trillions of dollars made in “proprietary trading” conducted by the investment banks or their affiliates. These “trades” were sham trades by which investor money was used for “trading.” Since the Master Servicer retained the right to pull the rug out from a pool whether there were apparent loans or not, they could gamble freely knowing that the profits would be retained by the banks and the losses would be fabricated and thrown at the investors contrary to the express terms of the pooling and servicing agreement.
- Had the proceeds of insurance, credit default swaps and other exotic instruments been paid to the principal (the investor who advanced funds for the purchase of bogus mortgage bonds) the liability to the lender/creditor would have been reduced regardless of whether or not the borrower was making payments and regardless of whether those payments were being collected by an authorized servicer.
- If the investors received any such money or even if it was merely their agent that received the money (investment banking affiliate) then the total liability would be reduced, as long as payment was received by agents of the real creditors.
- With the principal balance owed TO the creditor reduced, the balance due FROM the buyer is correspondingly reduced since a creditor can only collect the debt once.
- Based upon my analysis summarized above, it is my conclusion that most homeowners either owe much less than the principal amounted demanded by the pretender lender or even owes nothing if the liability was wiped out by third party payment. It is even possible, that with multiple time the same loan or pool share was sold, that the homeowner/borrower may have a right to collect the over payment received by the subservicer.