How and Why is US Bank becoming the trustee of all the REMIC Trusts?

US bank is popping up as the substitute Plaintiff in cases I have where BOA claimed to be the trustee of the REMIC Trust by virtue of being a “successor by merger.” Now I see them popping up where Chase was the Plaintiff. In all cases the bank originally filed under an assumed name by renting the name of someone else or by claiming to own the loan themselves. Now they are under the administration and under the coordination of what I believe to be the Chicago law firm that coordinated the first burst of Aurora strawmen when Aurora itself was a strawman for Lehman Brothers. The object I suspect is centralization of all the trustee positions into US Bank.

The next logical step would be bankruptcy to end of the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. But that option won’t work because of the amount of assets and income US Bank is claiming now. So the only thing left for them to do is dilute the liability into virtually nothing. And the only way to do that is package up the income streams and, as you might have guessed, securitize those packages and sell the securitized packages with insurance and indemnification — the same way they layered over the sale of the trustee positions from BOA. The object I can tell you from experience is to make it so complex that they create a grey area in the law or rather the appearance of a gray area just like they are doing successfully with the mortgages and the Foreclosures. They are nothing if not consistent.

There is, so far, one chink in the armor that I have detected or maybe two. The first is that the PSA does not generally give the Trustee of the REMIC Trust the power or even the right to inquire about Foreclosures although that hasn’t stopped US bank from claiming to be the Plaintiff in foreclosure actions. The second is the issue of whether the sale of the trustee’s position is allowed under the governing law (New York usually) since it is contrary to the express terms of provisions in the PSA. Those provisions identify the trustee and allow only for succession by merger, which is why the banks were all claiming that. Under New York law if any trust transaction violates the terms of the trust (PSA) then the transaction is void, not voidable.

The question of law that will be the battleground is whether homeowners have standing to challenge that sale and whether the courts are going to take a disliking to the sale by the trustee of its duties and revenue. As I explained yesterday, such a precedent will cause uncertainty and chaos in the marketplace not only with trusts. It will also be used to commoditize other things that we take for granted are not for sale.

All of this relates to an earlier post I made about the Pope’s comment about the idolatry of money. His point is well taken. Instead of actions being taken that are acceptable under moral standards or legal standards, these banks have us thinking that somehow the world will be better if we put a metric or value on everything and anything, thus raising moral hazard as a goal rather than a limit on human behavior. And you might find them arguing that none of it matters because the trustee has no powers anyway. This would be a foolish argument that might invite the ire of the judiciary.

The bottom line is that they are trying to undermine the whole standing issue and the relevance of ownership of the loan. Under the standards being set by the banks if you can find any debtor then anyone can collect from the debtor if they get to him first. In short, this is nuts.

16 Responses

  1. If US Bank is watching us, JOHN GALT LEAVE THEM A FEW WORdS ON THEIR PHONES. just fooling with you JOHN.

  2. i Am on a do not call list that i TRACED BAck now to be be owned by a Sydney Chasin doing a survey for US BANK HIS NUMBER IS 402 952 4444 Guess they are w/atching us.

  3. U.S. Bank has been part of the sham since the get-go. Supposedly, our property was “bought” by US Bank as a credit bid when our property allegedly was being “auctioned for sale,” which is another sham in and of itself, among countless others. At least in CA, US Bank has been listed as the “Assignee” on so many Assignments in non-judicial foreclosure states, where the entire process is ramrodded without the banks even having to justify or prove whether they have the right to foreclose in the first place. Talk about
    “carte blanche”! As I’ve reiterated for the past several years, what’s happening is the “Crime of the Century” not to mention the ultimate Ponzi Scheme, yet none of the CEOs, who supposedly should be the “Tone at the Top,” which is ludicrous and naive, have yet to be indicted for anything. Hell, man, if “corporations are people,” according to Citizens United, why can’t the people who are part of the “People” of corporations who are designated people are exempt? I know damn well that the rest of us, Real People, aren’t exempt from being charged with major criminal indictments if we individually decided to go head to head with the banks and their overt criminal actions which would land We the People possibly in the electric chair for such misbehavior and overt global criminal fraud. What does Madoff get? Oh, so he pleaded guilty to avoid a prolonged trial and so most of the dirty laundry never came out as a result — at least not on a public level. WTF, man? So the greedy bastards get off scott free, more or less (Club Fed), meanwhile, the rest of us who are truly the engine behind the global economy, get a virtual hand job from the very people in our financial institutions and government, in which we used to trust but never will again. BTW, our alleged assignee was US Bank, as Trustee for GSR 2006-9F. GSR stands for Goldman Sachs, and the R stands for REMIC. 2006 was when we bought our home — that’s no coincidence. This whole scam was already in place when we bought our homes; all these fraudsters needed was an economic house of cards to bring it all down. So, it was never an If, it was a When/ Never forget that.

  4. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  5. The banks are up to no good at all times. Further rigging of the court system, lawyers and judges. I still say: what goes up must come down. It will eventually blow up all together.

  6. I have mentioned this on another website or two, but I don’t know if it resonated with anyone or not.

    Google Patent search is a wonderful resource.

    Case in point:

    http://www.google.com/patents/US8244572?pg=PA1&dq=8244572+B1,+US+patent,+jackson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hxEtUZftBua28AGB34HAAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=8244572%20B1%2C%20US%20patent%2C%20jackson&f=false

    This is U.S. Patent 8,244,572 (B1). It has to do with the method and process of carrying out a foreclosure, a dispossessory, an eviction, etc., or what their industry calls an “SIEA,” or “Security Interest Enforcement Action.” The patent was applied for and published in several names, a Jackson from Irvine California and a Jackson from Ladera Ranch California, being two. (Not sure if there is a father/son relationship to the blogger who runs the Housing Wire or not.)

    Anyway, there is one aspect of this particular patent from 2012 that is what I would refer to as a “judge tracking” module, for which it has an algorhythm that allows the (foreclosing entity) to assign the foreclosure mill attorney to the SIEA case AFTER the judge has been assigned. In this manner, a foreclosure mill atty with the best track record with a particular Judge or Court is automatically assigned (from a pool of potential foreclosure attorneys) AFTER the Jurisdiction, Court, and Judge have already been assigned to the case.

    (The patent document, as is linked by a basic Google Patent Search, has double columns, each column having it’s own number. So, when you look at column #3, for example, you will not necessarily be on page 3.)

    So, if you look at column # 3 under “SUMMARY OF INVENTION” (which happens to be on page 2) and look at the last sentence of the paragraph in that section, toward the top left corner of the page, it states, “In one embodiment, the candidate attorneys are rated solely on their past performance in a particular jurisdiction, in a particular state, in a particular[ly] county, in a particular court, or in front of a particular judge.”

    In other words, they track judges:

    In the middle of column 41 that begins with the paragraph that starts, “Referring to Fig. 33, [A] hybrid EBMS TRACKING module 3201 tracks the completion of each SIEA…………these templates can be customized to allow for differences within a jurisdiction, as granular as the county which the SIEA is filed, the courthouse in which the SIEA is filed, the courthouse in which the SIEA is filed, OR THE JUDGE IN FRONT OF WHOM THE SIEA IS PENDING.” (emphasis mine.)

    You can even look at the diagram of this “embodiment of invention” if you refer to the page entitled “sheet 51 of 57.” It is also referred to as “Fig. 47”.The 8 processes within “process 4700” are specifically illustrated on that page. The 8 processes (or steps) that make up the 4700s are 4710, 4720, 4730. 4740, 4750, 4760,4770, and 4780.

    Step # 4720 is the step that receives the identity of the jurisdiction, Step # 4730 is the step that receives the identity of the Court, Step # 4740 is the step that receives the identity of the Judge, and Step # 4760 receives the “historical data on past performance” (presumably of the Judge.)

    Several pages later, on sheet “53 of 57”, or “Fig. 30”, The 5000s processes are given the title “ASSESSING ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE”. It has three steps, 5010, 5030, 5030.

    The very next page is sheet “54 of 57”, or “Fig. 51”. The 5100 processes are given the title “SELECTING AN ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE A SIEA”. It also has three steps, Step # 5110, Step # 5120, and Step # 5130. Step # 5130 is “Assign responsibility to the candidate attorney with the best timeliness rating.”

    So, the foreclosing entity knows the identity and history of the particular judge prior to when it’s patented algorhythms select the foreclosure attorney “best-suited” for that judge.

    How comforting.

  7. carrie b – feel your pain, been there on that one. You might cut and paste periodically to a text or word doc (but I need a note in my face to remember to do that or I’ll remember once and forget twice)

  8. I’ve been arguing that MERS is a novated party (and one which bifurcates the note and dot, if not just plain vitiates a ‘mortgage loan’ contract, which I still believe (and which situation most likely would itself find the note unsecured). But more than that, I believe under the mechanics of securitization with counter-parties, interest rate swap parties, guarantees, etc. on the securites, one or more of these other parties have been novated on the notes /debt obligation to the securities’ holders. Actually what’s been novated is the contract. There doesn’t actually appear to be a beneficiary of the trusts related to the notes, even if the trusts own the loans. What there appears to be a” beneficiary” of is a separate and distinct contract. I just learned that not only may one party be novated to a contract, but (duh on me) the contract itself may be novated with a new contract, and I think that’s what’s happened here. I previously thought more than one contract was at issue here, but now I think there is only one, and it’s a novation 1) of the mtg loan or 2) of an unsecured note, whichever may survive MERS’ novation in the collateral instrument (which is part 2 of a 2-part mortgage loan contract): it’s the borrower’s promise to pay in the note which has been novated to the “beneficiary” by others’ promise to pay and guarantees on mortgage backed securities.

    A novation of an existing contract extinguishes the original contract.
    If the trusts bought a pool of loans, the loans are the original contract
    which became novated by new agreements with other parties.

    This to me further supports my take on the bifurcation by novating MERS and reciting MERS authority to foreclose therein (which with novation would be totally superflous but for MERS lack of interest in the notes). If there were novation of the mortgage loan contract itself, But it’s more legal fiction if the note has been novated as an obligation itself, if the borrower’s promise to pay has been changed to someone else’s obligation to pay something else. Hman (think it was) a couple weeks ago pointed out that the payments on the securities don’t match those on the notes. The note says if I give you 100.00, 90.00 goes to interest (and so on) and the balance to principle. Securities aren’t paid that way. (Still not wholey clear on this) The payments received by the securities holders go to different promised (by someone ELSE) interest first. Neither the payments on the securities or the term in years follow or mirror those of the notes. One note cannot create two separate and distinct obligations. There has to be novation of the original contractby another one with the securities holders. I don’t know what it means, if anything, that the borrower had no say in this. Maybe no one is going to want to believe it, but since novation of an existing contract does in fact extinguish the original contract, the note may well be toast.
    If Sam and Harry and Mary bought some loans and created a trust and made themselves beneficiaries of the loans, that’s one thing. But that isn’t what was done here. Notes were (allegedly) sold to trusts, “derivatives” were created and sold, new obligations were created which replaced the notes. If the securities holders are the bens of a separate contract (which they are or tell me why not) , they can’t be the ben of another, as well, when that contract has been 86’d by the contract which gives them their rights and it’s not the same as the old contract. Don’t know quite how to express that.
    Well, it’s a hard sell, and maybe even errant, but it sure looks that way. If there were novation of the contract, the notes should have been destroyed – returned? I think destroyed (and may have been x digitial copies out in the cloud, MERS e-registry, or who knows where) – and presenting them as live, enforceable instruments would be criminal, and not just because they’re paper copies of digital copies. This is no “we’re looking for a gotcha to get out of our contracts” IF there were one (mtg loan = 2 part contract), someone else may have already done that for us. Some bankster may have a note, but it might be worthless.
    There’s more to this, more about why MERS was made the beneficiary, and its got to be about enforcement of the old contract and going after homes based on the collateral instrument because the notes were novated by a new contract. Or so it appears. That Consent Order messed them up royally or should have. Now they have to assign the notes and dots to the trusts and pretend there was no novation of the borrower’s contract (if there were a complete contract in the first place). I hope before anyone tosses this out as crazy, you’ll consider what the govt who issued the
    Consent Order would have to have realized and why they “might not be inclined” to fully acknowledge and broadcast it. But even that wouldn’t explain why securitization is still around. Or MERS. But then, NG is convinced the investors funds were used to fund loans at the closing and no one but those here and other f/c defense sites seem to give a damn. And even if the investors funds weren’t used (embezzled, stolen) that bs nearly killed the globe.
    Why does anyone think MERS (read servicer – employee) is trying to assign the notes? Seriously, why?

    By the way, I just read a case where the plaintiff asked a higher court for a writ of prohibition to preclude the lower court from making any substantive determinations until after discovery. Unfortunately (for us), the defendant’s dismissal was overturned on appeal, so didn’t get to see how the appeal court might have ruled on the prohibition.

  9. Check this out: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22park+sienna%22+countrywide&oq=%22park+sienna%22+countrywide&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.14730j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=117&ie=UTF-8

    OK, well this blows. I just wasted over an hour creating content explaining the context of this URL, but it apparently “went away” because I currently have a lame-ass biz infrastructure ever since some jagoff robbed us and stole my macbook pro. So now I’m stuck with a PC which only shows 50 percent of the screen, a lame Asus netbook rental which has no software, an ipad mini which is great but has its limitations, and another pc that we bought in 2004, which is the best of the bunch except any command takes 30 to 60 minutes to do anything. Other than that, it’s reliable. Our other PC can’t even power up without giving us a “will self destruct if you don’t turn me off now.” Plus today, the half-screen wonder fell while I was moving it, thereby crushing the D-link wireless card, which also punched out all of the USB and other ports which are now worthless.

    If I can find the supplemental post, I’ll send it along, but the chances of that are the same as my above comments.

  10. Has anyone ever heard of Park Sienna? When we closed on our home in 2006 and when we received our first mortgage bill, it was accompanied by a letter which advised us that Park Sienna was the new creditor, but that Countrywide (later BOA) would be servicing the loan. Years later, I discovered that “Park Sienna, etc.” was one of the parties listed, along with Countrywide, BOA, etc. as part of the first AG settlement.

    Did anyone else receive such a letter, together with the first mortgage bill? If so, I’d like to know because we were never able to introduce this very significant fact into evidence as part of our lawsuit against BOA.

    If you can, please go back and check your records when you got your first bill, especially if your “lender” was Countrywide and if you closed on your home on or about 2006 and if the home you purchased was in CA. Our assertion has always been that our mortgage was securitized before we even made our first mortgage payment. Unfortunately, this very significant fact was ignored by all — not only the UD but the ultimate foreclosure and sale to a bona fide purchaser. Even our lawyer at the time didn’t raise this significant issue of fact, even though I raised it in my first draft of the discovery documents, which I did because I was more familiar with the facts than our counsel and also because we were trying to save money because we were bleeding $$, which ultimately resulted in our being homeless after the Sheriff came to change the locks after the Writ of Possession was issued and executed.

    I welcome any comments or observations fellow foreclosure friends may have on this issue.

    BTW, when we were foreclosed upon, it was via US Bank as Trustee for GSR 2006-F and not Park Sienna. There’s nothing in the public records about Park Sienna; only the letter we received before we made our first mortgage payment in 2006.

  11. Behave Christine!
    🙂

  12. The tides have turned. We the People didn’t get rid of 80 year old Judges because of their age – we got rid of them because they forgot to follow the Constitution.

  13. “Instead of actions being taken that are acceptable under moral standards or legal standards, these banks have us thinking that somehow the world will be better if we put a metric or value on everything and anything, thus raising moral hazard as a goal rather than a limit on human behavior.”

    MS and NG have now officially entered the insanity contest. Both have serious chances: they can line up words in long, incoherent sentences and make them sound intelligent… until you try to understand what they wrote about and try to put it into any kind of application to save yourself from foreclosure!

    Schizophrenia at its best. A real disease. Anyone attacking me on this will be branded as such. Pick your gurus. Take responsibility for your results. Or forever hold your peace (fat chance. Like begets like…)

  14. The question is How can we legally stop these thieves from taking over our property? I am tired of seeing them get away with everything. I am tired of judges siding with the banks without proper due process. I think judges are in bed with the banksters, don’t give a damn about the law or are plain stupid despite their fancy Harvard diploma and high education.

  15. Neil, we have a local case where the defendant has changed its identity three times after a rescission request in 2007 shortly after closing. Taa Daa … the new Flavor is U.S. Bank as Trustee/Owner.

    Give Meeze a Break! I wasn’t born Yesterday!

    U.S. Bank was the owner of the REO prior to sale, but Ocwen was the Seller at closing. hahahaha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: