The US BANK-BOA-LaSalle-CitiGroup Shell Game

‘The bottom line is that the notice of substitution of Plaintiff in judicial states, or notice of substitution of Trustee in non-judicial states should be the first line of battle. Neither one of them is valid and in both cases you have a stranger to the transaction being allowed to name itself as creditor, name its own controlled entity or subsidiary as trustee, and then ignore the realities of the money paid to the real creditor. They are claiming damages from the borrower — all for a debt that in the ordinary course of things has already been paid several times over. But it is true that it wasn’t paid to THEM because THEY were never and are not now the creditor fulfilling the definition of a creditor who could bid at the foreclosure auction. It is not that the borrower doesn’t owe money when he borrows it, it is that he doesn’t owe it to any of the people who are claiming it. And that is what gives rise to liability of law firms to borrowers.” Neil F Garfield, http://www.livinglies.me

If our information can be corroborated through discovery with a corporate representative of US BANK or Chase Bank as the servicer, it is possible that a solid cause of action can be filed against the law firm that brought the action, particularly if the law firm took its instructions from the Desktop system of LPS.

In that system law firms are instructed to file foreclosures without contact with the actual client. We saw several cases where sanctions were levied against lawyers and their alleged clients, but none so stark as the one in Florida where the lawyer for US Bank as Trustee for XXX, when faced with questions he couldn’t answer admitted that he had never spoken with anyone from U.S> Bank and didn’t know who had retained his firm.

The law firm that brought the foreclosure action and especially the law firm that is demanding an assignment of rent to protect a creditor who has already been paid through non stop servicer advances was most likely not authorized to demand the assignment of rents which might be why there was no written demand as required by statute. I am considering the possibility of an actual lawsuit against one such law firm for interference with contract on both the foreclosure and the assignment of rents issue.

The Banks are being very cagey about this system — one which they would never use for their own portfolio loans, which begs the question of why they would have two entirely different system of accounting and legal process. But the long and the short of it is that LPS in Jacksonville, Florida is used much the same way as MERS. It maintains a database service that requires a user name and password and that gives unlimited access to the client folders. Anyone can go in and authorize the foreclosure based upon a default that is invested by the person entering the data. They leave out any servicer advances or other third party payments and arrive at an amount to reinstate that is just plain wrong. So virtually all notices of default are wrong which means that the required notice is defective.

You should know that many judges appear unimpressed that there was no valid assignment of the mortgage. I think that it is clearly reversible error. The assignment frequently is clearly fabricated and back-dated because of references to events that happened a year after the assignment was executed. The assignment clearly did not exist at the time of the lawsuit and the standing issue is clear under Florida law although some courts are balking at the idea that standing cannot be cured after the lawsuit. The reasoning is quite simple — if it were otherwise, you could file suit against a grocery store for a slip and fall, and the go over to the store to have your slip and fall.

In one of my cases involving multiple properties, they have an assignment that was prepared and executed by Shapiro and Fishman supposedly dated in 2007 —- but it refers to Bank of America as successor by merger to LaSalle. it is backdated, fabricated and fictional, which is to say, fraudulent.

The assignment has two problems –— FACIALLY DEFECTIVE FABRICATION OF ASSIGNMENT:  the first problem is that the alleged BOA merger with LaSalle could not have happened before 2008 — one year after the assignment was executed. So the 2007 assignment refers to a future event that was not reported by BOA until 2008, and was not approved by the Federal Reserve until 2008. On its face, then, based upon public record, the assignment is void as a total fabrication.

The second problem is that it is unclear as to how the merger could have occurred between BOA and La Salle, to wit:. you might need to read this a few times to understand the complexity of the issues involved — issues that few judges or lawyers are interested enough to master.

LASALLE ABN AMRO ACQUISITION:
Since neither entity vanished in the deal it is an acquisition and not a merger. LaSalle and ABN AMRO did a reverse merger in 2007.

That means that while LASalle was technically the acquirer, because it “bought” ABN AMRO, and ABN AMRO became a subsidiary — the reality is that LaSalle issued so many shares for the acquisition of ABN AMRO that the ABN AMRO shareholders received the overwhelming majority of LaSalle Shares compared to the former owners of LaSalle shares.

Hence in substance LaSalle Bank was a subsidiary of ABN AMRO and the consolidated financial statements show it. But in form it appears as the parent.

So if someone, like BOA, was to say they merged with or acquired LaSalle, they would also be saying that included its subsidiary ABN AMRO — and they would have to do the deal with the shareholders of ABN AMRO because those shareholders control LaSalle Bank, which brings us to CitiGroup —-

CITIGROUP MERGER WITH ABN AMRO: Also in 2007, CitiGroup announced and continues to file sworn statements with the SEC that it had merged with ABN AMRO, which means, if you followed the above, that CitiGroup actually owned LaSalle. It looks more like an acquisition than a merger to me but the wording makes it unclear. This would mean that LaSalle still technically exists as a subsidiary of  CitiGroup.

ALLEGED BOA MERGER WITH LASALLE: In 2008 the Federal Reserve issued an order approving the merger of BOA and LaSalle, in which case LaSalle vanishes — but ABN AMRO is the one with all the assets. BUT LaSalle is named as Trustee of the asset pool. And the only other allowable trustee would be another bank that merged with LaSalle as a successor without the requirement of filing more papers to be a Trustee and BOA clearly qualifies on all counts for that. Section 8.09 of PSA.

But the Federal Reserve order states that the identities of ABN AMRO and LaSalle are the same and the acquisition of one is the acquisition of the other — thus unintentionally ratifying CitiGroup’s apparent position that it owns ABN AMRO and thus LaSalle.

Findings of fact by an administrative agency are presumptively true although subject to rebuttal.

Here is the kicker: there is no further mention in any SEC filings of a merger between BOA and LaSalle, unless I missed it. There is no reference to the fact that CitiGroup controlled LaSalle and ABN AMRO at the time of the Federal Reserve order approving the BOA merger with LaSalle Bank in 2008.

CitiGroup has not, to my knowledge ever reported the sale or loss or merger of LaSalle. Since Citi made the acquisition before BOA, and since BOA apparently did not buy LaSalle from Citi, how could BOA claim to be a successor by merger with LaSalle?

Hence there are questions of fact as to whether BOA ever consummated any transaction in which it acquired or Merged with LaSalle, which while technically possible, makes no business sense. UNLESS the OBJECTIVE was to transfer the interest of LaSalle as trustee to BOA, as a precursor to a much wider deal in which BOA then sold its position as Trustee to US Bank as a  commodity and then filed in the Kalam cases a notice of substitution of Plaintiff without amending the pleadings.

US BANK Notice of Substitution of Plaintiff without Any Motion to Amend Pleadings: The reason they filed it as a notice was that they obviously did not want to allege the purchase of “being a trustee”, which would have been a contested issue in the pleadings. But the amendment is required in my opinion and there should be a motion to strike the notice of substitution of Plaintiff without amendment. The motion to strike should state that no objection to granting the order to amend, but that the circumstances should be pled and we should be able to respond with a denial and affirmative defenses if you choose.

27 Responses

  1. carie – I never got it. try again, please.
    johngault764 @ yahoo.com

  2. RE: ” I am simply benefitting from the trigger-proceeds versus the investment banker. ”

    Unjust enrichment, and profits are a No No …
    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2

    Defendants’ loss of its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP” in 2008

  3. @JG

    I emailed you re. the 1099a but you never responded!!

  4. iwantmynpv – I’m not arguing that they weren’t transferred. In fact, I have posited that the current assgt of both the note and dot is prima facie evidence that they weren’t, and I don’t know what you mean by ‘it’s 2008’. Counter party to what? The PSA? If some yeahoo counter party wants to make good on a loan that was never transferred to the trust and thus not subject to any agreement, I guess it can. If they’re gonna pretend they have an obligation on that pretend-transfer, then I also posit the borrower may benefit from that charade…..? No one would pretend to have an obligation he doesn’t without a good reason. I have no doubt one exists, but I don’t know what it is. Must be some mutual back-scratching.

  5. @ JG – the acceptance argument is 2008. The notes and DOT were never conveyed to the pool. I have been telling folks for two years to fight that no default occurred – that you owe somebody money – just not the plaintiff, and finally, the borrowers paid the premiums for the contracts through a higher interest rate at inception.

    I paid the premium, the counter party is paying the mortgage account each month – I am simply benefitting from the trigger-proceeds versus the investment banker. Who is damaged?

  6. An assignment requires acceptance – fact. Why would a trust or anyone, even if he could, accept the assignment of a loan in default? If I had paid for a loan when it was not in default and not received it, I think I’d say no thanks and demand the return of my funds. I might lose, don’t know (laches comes to mind), but that would be my response. I don’t believe a secn trustee would accept 1) the late assignment of a tax-status shattering 2) loan in default, unless not doing so subjects him to even worse consequences, like from his failure to ascertain that the loan were timely transferred. And if I were the borrower, I guess I’d want evidence that the trust (or anyone) has accepted the assignment of my defaulted loan. Since acceptance IS required, don’t see how a court could refuse the request, especially with a situation where one party, here a trustee, is responsible for benefits to another. If acceptance weren’t required, “innocent” peoples could be made to defend – expend time and resources – any number of situations which don’t involve them at all. These trusts don’t get a pass on acceptance.

  7. “It is not that the borrower doesn’t owe money when he borrows it, it is that he doesn’t owe it to any of the people who are claiming it. And that is what gives rise to liability of law firms to borrowers.”

    Right, Neil—so why are you not suing law firms?

  8. lenders of private loans must sue to collect on a default, and they are subject to your state’s statute of limitations, usually six years

  9. Reading between the lines. The banksters ganged up on the weak the ones who cant defend themselves. “SubPrime” Easy pickings for the bast##ds. Now they have to deal with the entities that can defend themselves. The ones with multiple properties people living in Million dollar and up properties who have a few hundred thousands of dollars to defend themselves. The subprime properties exposed the fraud etc….

    NEVER AGAIN

  10. Charles Reed. I have posted a few times that I won a credit card case defending against Chase debt collecting attorney as the original owner on a CC of a WAMU opened credit card. It was surprisingly easy to defend and question how Chase was wrong to say I owe them anything. Even though it was only for $10,000 in question. I fail to understand why the same doesn’t work for mortgage $500,000 ??????

  11. Hey Christie,

    Long time – no chat. Read your post about how BRIC’s are getting out of dollars right here in the US. They are buying the land out from under our feet.

    Things are about to explode in Asia – Japanese will have to print another 500 billion yen soon, will force US investment companies to close out arbitrage positions.

    We are being squeezed at every angle – and we are still focused on MERS. It seems people always all for the smoke versus locating the fire and putting it out.

    Watch what January brings as these legacy pools achieve maturity ad the statute of limitations has run its course.

  12. Neil ,

    You say you have assignment issues…

    What would you say if the “servicers representative” in a deposition stated that it was normal procedure for an assignment to the masterservicer (named in the undisclosed PSA) in the form of an allonge to be included in the loan package provided to the closing title company… Doesn’t that prove that the entire “loan” was a farce and that the “lender” was just a broker?

  13. Honestly , I am stickily private label so
    ….yes I stand corrected

  14. No note – Wamu Fails/ JP Morgan Chase succeeds
    No Note – CWHL Inc fails /Bof A succeeds
    No Note – Indy mac Bank + Lehman Bros Fails/ Billionaire friends of Bush Cheney & Paul son succeed [One West Non sense)
    No Note – Wachovia Fails / Wells Fargo Succeeds

    WaMU CWHL Wachovia , Indy Mac Bank and Lehman Bros officers fail and leave office humiliated, embarresedand retire Billionaires.

    registerclaims@live.com

  15. Masterseriver at our bank we closed the loans and we funded them and then sold the loans, and I received a copy of the Note sent to the OCC with the sale endorsement and the later blank endorse when the loan was placed into the Ginnie Mae pool. I also have the record from Ginnie Mae when the loan was accepted, plus from there legal this that says the loan are relinquished, and exactly what case they were using to try and claim these loans from failed banks!

  16. File it – just do it .

    I read it again an like it .

  17. Leave a Reply – the requirement is that you must relinquish a blank endorse Note that the lender owns.

    First , you don’t relinquish the note . The lender never sees the note . Under conventional funding scheme , the funding agent sends the live note direct to the bank (“dry” & wet states-other than purchases) purporting to wire “good” funds IN ADVANCE of the wire being released.

    Second, you must also give a blank endorsement and blank assignment IN ADVANCE of the wire being released.

    Third, you do not (in your analysis ) separate the distinction among transfers of the note to the member bank compared to the purchaser under the seller “Buy Sell” agreement.

    Last, the note is destroyed. I know this from first hand experience.

    The note is destroyed as a live note with a discounted security sold to foreign national “swaps” and derivative thieves as a five year pledge using the consumer demand for payoff would constitute the live note as dual consideration.

    This is not personal attack my friend – just facts obtained from experience . The note is a copy that lives in posterity.

    registerclaims@live.com

  18. MS,
    Fear of What ?

    You know how I feel and you know the resources I have at my disposal to enforce the mortgage.

  19. It like I been talking to the wind for a couple year now on this site, but it must be that there were no originating by WaMu in FL.

    WaMu was seized on Sept 25, 2008 and so they was no merger and like all lender placing loans into a Ginnie Mae pools the requirement is that you must relinquish a blank endorse Note that the lender owns.

    Now because that Note is relinquished without a purchase occurring there is a problem if the bank fails as with WaMu because now they don’t exist and don’t have a Note for the loans in the Ginnie Mae pools because they in the possession of Ginnie.

    Now because WaMu in 2006 arranged for Wells Fargo Bank to start Federal Gov saying that the FHA knew what Wells was doing in the falsifying for the purpose of insuring 100,000, but what the end game that being played when Wells is still servicing 1 million or so of WaMu Ginnie pooled loan, that Wells Fargo not keeping the bulk of that money from the foreclosure sale and insurance claims, but it is Wells that committing the law violations (forgery, stolen goods, insurance fraud)!

  20. I have/had Lasalle/Lehman/Citibank/Aurora in a shadowy conduit origination sham. Real creditor if you call it that was just a strawman who vanished out of picture the day we closed. GNMA REMIC states Citibank as trustee ….parties subsequently sold junk position to nationstar who has yet to acknowledge in court as substitute plaintiff their position or claim. Case is five years in making nationstar has delayed showing their hand for six months WTF? The toxicity of this deal stinks from here to high heaven Doc X LPS who gives a flip…their paperwork is riddled throughout the case. We did get the money-HELOC- back in 2005 in a no doc underwriting scam that was laced with fraud. Only admission of fact that’s been granted after plus 5 years is that we don’t know who the creditor is. It is like getting water out of a rock. Such a waste of energy and time.

  21. Do a little research on Fiserv here in WI. same type of operation.

  22. KC Fear stifles, ignorance concurs and hesitation is never going to win a football

  23. You cannot corroborate anything with Chase or US bank as a Servicer.

    There is no servicing when a mortgage is sold into a zero coupon bond that matures in 20 years . Again, see the accounting rules FAS 140 and IRS code for short selling tile held in derivatives for linked accounts .

    There is no servicing when a mortgage sold as a demand that is purchased at a discount (80-20)

    There is no servicing when a mortgage is a substituted “existing line of record held in a 1.1031 tax deferred exchange

    You have to address your leading causes of action citing nonrecognition of assets and charges taken under TARP. Enforcing a lien that was never paid at settlement as alleged is by reconstitution and abandonment

    Collectively, these facts and basis for arguments prohibit servicing under 1122 AB (God this is getting so old….)

    “lawyers- get with the program as a massive call to malpractice is brewing”. I’m not an advocate of suing lawyers for malpractice ….but the other side (opportunistic lawyers for the opposition) who know what I am talking about may soon jump ship and …Oh oh !

    registerclaims@live.com

  24. They Lost the Bait and Switch Game Neil,
    They Too Shall Lose the Shell Game.

    Bad Boys .. Bad Boys …
    What are you going to do, when they come for you?
    Bad Boys … Bad Boys …..
    No More Big Boy Toys for You …………..!!!!

    BAD BOYS!

  25. How about Rusk Consulting still trying to get those that “rejected/refused” to cash that $300 check another chance to cash that check?

    Property stolen by terroristic threats and the criminal offers a box of cracker jacks as restitution.

    Legitimate acts do not require a settlement.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  26. How about assignments in May 2009 From Bank A to Bank B, yet in February 2009 from Bank B to Bank C. !!!!!!! Yes read that over again and again. Bank B gave it to Bank C before A even assigned to B.
    Doesn’t anyone even own a calendar ???
    And yet the debt collectors fraudclosing attorney scum continue to post this exact timeframe in all their paper work to the court as it diesnt even matter. (Because best I can tell it doesn’t matter in the courts of just us !!! )

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: