World Savings Bank Loans Were Securitized Before Wachovia Merger

World Savings Bank  was acquired by Wachovia Bank  which in turn was acquired by Wells Fargo.  We have previously reported here that we had no information regarding the actual securitization of loans had been originated by World Savings Bank.  Now we have that information. And in a case of the right hand not aware of the left hand it turns out the source is our very own senior securitization analyst — Dan Edstrom, who operates DTC Systems (shown as watermark on documents shown below).

The original opinion that I had written about was that virtually all of the loans originated by world savings bank were eventually securitized either by World Savings Bank directly,  or by Wachovia Bank after it acquired WSB, or by Wells Fargo bank after it acquired Wachovia Bank.  I am now more sure than ever that this is correct. Despite the public assurances during the mortgage meltdown WSB was in fact acting solely as an originator and not as a lender in many transactions. Many other transactions in which they were technically the lender were actually closed in anticipation of sale into the secondary market for securitization.

If you look at the link below, you will be able to see part of the information that has been sent to me. Apparently Foreclosure Hamlet has been ahead of me on this issue since some of the screenshots show that they are from that blog site. This opens the door to a whole set of cases in which Wells Fargo is insisting that it is the current creditor when in fact the loan was securitized and sold into what appeared to be a REMIC trust. of course it still remains an issue as to whether or not the money taken from investors for the purchase of mortgage bonds ever made it into the trust; so it remains an issue as to whether or not the trust is the creditor or the investors are the creditor.

Thus it remains an issue as to whether or not any of the alleged securitization participants can claim authority to act on behalf of the “trust beneficiaries” when the actual status of the entity (the trust) was ignored by those parties. It might be that they can only claim apparent authority as opposed to legal authority since the documents that were given to the investors show a structure that is very different from what was done in  the real world.

World Savings Bank REMICs

Comment from Dan Edstrom:

These docs are mostly from DTC Systems.  We have been reporting on this since at least October 2010.  DTC Systems does Securitization Reverse Engineering and Failure Analysis for attempted World Savings securitizations and they are also included in the LivingLies combo’s where your client had a World Savings loan.  We have the names of all (or most) of the REMICs.  In a judicial foreclosure case in the mid-west a Wells Fargo expert (a former World Savings Bank employee) testified that the loan was pledged to a World Savings REMIC, but was “unpledged” when the homeowner was behind on the loan.  This is why we see several World Savings promissory notes with an endorsement to The Bank of New York on the back but they are stamped “Cancelled”.

Which is very interesting because the PSA states that the loans will be endorsed to the trustee (without recourse and showing an unbroken chain of endorsements (and/or certificates of corporate succession) from the originator thereof to the Person endorsing ti to the Trustee AND an original assignment to Trustee or a copy of such assignment.
So they seem to have the FORM of without recourse but the SUBSTANCE of the transaction is recourse?  What is the purpose of such ambiguity?  Or is it only ambiguous now in light of the mortgage meltdown and the related handling, such as that discussed (unsafe and unsound handling) in the OCC Cease and Desist Consent Order against Wells Fargo and others?
Also note this law from CA which I have yet to see brought up in a case like this (it seems that it is highly probable this same law exists in most states):
CA Civ. Code 1058
Redelivering a grant of real property to the grantor, or canceling it, does not operate to retransfer the title.
The expert testified that it was a pledge and that World Savings (and thus Wells Fargo) owned both the loan and the REMIC.

 

37 Responses

  1. World Savings & loan Home Equity non documentation loans were declared toxic by the Treaury but Wells Fargo is still trying to collect on these throu foreclosure. Feds seem to be oblivious to the potintual crash.

  2. Dear Gayle Garrett- Please contact attorney Attorney Carol Molloy:
    6724 Buford Station Road
    Lynnville, TN 38472

    Phone: (931) 527-3603

    Fax: (931) 527-0382

    e-mail: carol@thelawofficeofcarolamolloy.com

  3. I had a World Savings/Wachovia/Wells Fargo home loan, ran a title search, clouded title, filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo and Melon Bank in Federal District court in Davidson Co., Tn.
    Wells Fargo, fully aware of lawsuit, sold my home at auction, for $170,000 with a mortgage of $353,000. The sale was upheld by General Sessions judge, Williamson Co.
    I asked the judge, with all of my docs in hand, how she could approve the sale of a home with a clouded title. She said one had nothing to do with the other. I was given 10 days to vacate, Dec. 18, 2015. Any recourse?
    Thank-you.

  4. 1-31-14 SALESSI PETITION FOR REVIEW #S216242- Face Page-

    This is the face page of my recent petition to the California Supreme Court requesting to determine if World Savings mortgages which were purchased with Wachovia’s laundered drug money should be annulled and declared void.
    As you can see the date is incorrectly stamped as 2013, instead of 2014. They are supposed to send me a face page with proper stamp on it.

  5. They don’t have it jellybeans…they are lying!

  6. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:

    PUBLIC INVITATION TO JOIN California PETITION TO CANCEL WORLD SAVINGS —–> WACHOVIA —–> WELLS FARGO MORTGAGES:

    Yesterday, 1/29/2014, Kareem Salessi filed a “PETITION FOR REVIEW” in the Supreme Court of California.

    The Petition asks the court to determine if it is legal for Wachovia, which is a convicted drug cartel, to invest its laundered drug money in California real estate by purchasing California loans through acquisition of World Savings, and then to launder the drug-funded mortgages into Wells Fargo to wash it clean, coupled with Wachovia itself disappearing from sight, thus completing the world’s greatest ever drug money laundering operations totaling over $1/2 trillion.

    My estimate of California’s share of above $1/2 trillion is over $100 billion of drug money illegally laundered into the purchase of over 1,000,000 loans in 2007, and their laundering into Wells Fargo in 2008, during its Wachovia’s process of becoming outlawed by losing its banking charters.

    If California Supreme Court grants review and decides the case against Wachovia &/or Wells Fargo they will definitely appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court which will decide to overturn it, or to apply it to their entire $1/2 trillion drug money, and covering the entire country, or refuse to hear it and contain it only to California, according to my personal understanding of their process.

    If you have an interest in the outcome of this case, you can find out from the California Supreme Court how you may be able to participate in prosecuting it.

    Once the Petition is given a case number and returned to me, I will be able to post it here, and on my webpage below:

    ————–http://kareemsalessi.com/litigation-discovery-documents/

    Alternative possibilities:

    1- Ca. Supreme Court may simply deny to hear my Petition and close the case.

    2- Ca. Supreme Court may decide to legalize Wachvoia’s drug money laundering operations similar to the legalization of Marijuana in California!

  7. @ Jolly:

    that’s because they don’t have any originals otherwise they’d give it to you once fully paid.
    They don’t have’m because each note is sold dozens or hundreds of times.
    At least did they record a Notice of Full Reconveyance?

  8. well the above what Neil and Dan say explains why Wells refuses to send my the prior original promissory note marked ‘paid in full’….despite me citing the law which says they are supposed to provide it back to me….

    probably still securitized….they did admit they had it in one of their vaults—the promissory note, that is.

    it started off being a World Savings loan…..refi’d in mid 2000’s….still they refuse to give me that original promissory note back marked ‘paid in full’.

  9. @ E. Tolle 09:35 ,

    I can guarantee you the ISP didn’t send a trojan … they would be sued over that ,, same reason why Dish Network wouldn’t send down a damaging ECM to pirates back when that system was widely compromised.

    The only good solution is to keep offline backup of important files. I used to be datamgmt , storage admin , data security back in my mainframe days … the pc will never be secure ,, there is way too much spaghetti code and old bypassed code to exploit ,, when a one user pc needs 4gb of memory to run at an acceptable speed when I used to have 3000 users on a mainframe with 1mb of memory that should tell you everything you need to know about the amount of code and the quality of the os’s … not to mention intentional backdoors … I have a good antivirus and firewall but they got through.. they can’t reach a dozen OFFLINE memory sticks in scattered locations.

  10. Economic relations torts affect three categories of interference or injury that result in monetary loss. They are injurious falsehood, interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective advantage.

    Intentional Torts Of Economic Relation
    Today’s economy drives people to be very competitive. Businesses scan the environment looking for innovative ways to keep ahead of their competition. Some businesses develop new products and services that outperform their competition. Some business may engage in intentional interference with economic relations that cause financial harm to others, like stealing a valued employee, publishing false information or even interfering with a business’ future economic gains.

    Let’s break it down. The three types of tortuous behaviors that can affect another party’s business conditions are:

    Injurious Falsehood
    Interference with Contractual Relations
    Interference with Prospective Advantage
    All three talk about different behaviors but share one common thing; they all cause economic losses.

    Injurious Falsehood
    When a party publishes or states an injurious falsehood, what they are really doing is making a widespread statement that defames or tarnishes another person’s reputation. The statements must be so damaging that in itself causes another economic loss. Before we review an example, it is important to know that certain conditions must be present and proven by the plaintiff:

    The defendant actually made a false statement about another party’s business.
    Someone other than the plaintiff was made aware of the statement.
    It can be proven that the statement was made intentionally and to cause harm.
    An economic loss by the plaintiff can be proven.
    In Harwood Pharmacal Co. v. National Broadcasting Company (1961), the plaintiff, Harwood Pharmacal, alleged that the defendant, National Broadcasting Company (NBC), broadcasted a television show in which the defendant contended that a product manufactured by Harwood was dangerous. A sleep aid, called Snooze, manufactured by Harwood came under fire during an NBC broadcast. During the broadcast, it was said that Snooze was addicting and contained so many different types of drugs, one would need to go to a hospital to kick the habit.

    The outcome of the broadcast – Harwood’s sales decreased, causing an economic loss. Harwood argued that the comments made during the broadcast were defamatory, malicious and intentional. The defendant, on the other hand, stated that they never meant harm. The court maintained that the language used in the broadcast was enough to damage one’s reputation and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

    Interference with Contractual Relations
    Another economic relations tort deals with interference with contract relations. Sometimes called tortuous interference, interference with contractual relations occurs when a third party intentionally interferes with the contractual relationship of two other parties. A case may help explain. First, let’s review the elements needed to make this allegation:

    The plaintiff had a contract with another party.
    The defendant had knowledge of the contract.
    The defendant intentionally enticed the contract party to breach the original contract.
    There was no justification for the breach.
    The plaintiff suffered damages because of the breach.
    In appeal, White Plains Coat and Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas (2007) taught us a lesson about competition and the application of elements for tortuous interference. In this case, White Plains Coat and Apron and Cintas Corporation competed for the same customers. In the course of business, it was customary to advertise through mailings and other means to attract new business.

    White Plains Coat contended that Cintas lured their customers to breach contracts for services and join Cintas in contractual relations for the same or similar products. White Plains contacted Cintas with a list of customers that they felt breached and ordered Cintas to stop advertising to its customers. When Cintas refused, White Plains filed suit, first in state court and then in appeals court. This was to no avail.

    State court believed that Cintas was merely advertising to customers via proper channels and with no intention of interfering with any existing contractual agreements. What had not been established was a pre-existing relationship between Cintas and breaching customers prior to the breach. In layman’s terms, the court did not see that Cintas knew specifically of a contractual agreement between any specific parties when they launched their advertising campaigns. So the question is whether Cintas’s interest in generating more business can be viewed as interference with White Plains Apron’s contracts with its customers? Both state and appellate court ruled no, it did not.

    Interference with prospective advantage works a little different than this tort. Although interference remains the same, the next tort deals with a third party causing future economic damage to another.

    Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantage
    In the tort of intentional interference with prospective advantage, the defendant intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s economic future. To say it a different way, if a defendant takes purposeful action against the plaintiff that places the plaintiff’s future income or revenue at risk, this may be interference with prospective advantage. A case example may help.

    In Tarleton v. M’Gawley (1793), M’Gawley and Tarleton were both traders on the Cameroon coast. During a trading trip, M’Gawley shot at natives to scare them off. He did this, Tarleton alleges, to interfere with the trading between Tarleton and the natives. M’Gawley claimed he did this because he had an exclusive agreement with the natives of Cameroon. However, a court ruled that shooting at the natives interfered with Tarleton’s ability to trade, which would cause a future economic hardship. And a careful look at the elements will help to explain the decision:

    The plaintiff had an economic relationship with a third party.
    The defendant knew of this relationship.
    The defendant disrupted the relationship in some manner.
    Disruption or interference can be proven.
    The interference caused economic damage to the plaintiff.
    In Tarleton v. M’Gawley, all elements exist. He knew about Tarleton’s relationship with the natives and shot bullets at natives as they attempted to make trades with Tarleton. Unable to trade, Tarleton’s revenues were affected.

    Lesson Summary
    As we learned, all three torts involve purposeful behavior that affects another’s economic gains. To sum things up, intentional interference with economic relations is tortuous action that causes financial harm to others. The three types of tortuous behavior are:

    Injurious Falsehood
    Interference with Contractual Relations
    Interference with Prospective Advantage
    When a defendant states an injurious falsehood, he is making a widespread statement that defames or tarnishes another person’s reputation, like saying your competition’s products are dangerous or defective, even if they are not. Certain elements must be present to prove a claim, like the defendant made a false statement about another party’s business, someone other than the plaintiff was made aware of the statement, it can be proven that the statement was made intentionally and to cause harm and an economic loss by the plaintiff can be proven.

    Next, interference with contractual relations occurs when a third party intentionally interferes with the contractual relationship of two other parties, like stealing your competition’s customers by encouraging them to break contracts with your competition. Certain elements must be met, like the plaintiff had a contract with another party, the defendant had knowledge of the contract, the defendant intentionally enticed the contract party to breach the original contract, there was no justification for the breach and the plaintiff suffered damages because of the breach.

    Finally, for intentional interference with prospective advantage, the defendant intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s economic future, like damaging a farmer’s fruits so he cannot sell them. He would have to prove the following: the plaintiff had an economic relationship with the third party, the defendant knew of this relationship, the defendant disrupted the relationship in some manner, disruption or interference can be proven and the interference caused economic damage to the plaintiff.

  11. “The Jolley ruling, together with the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights, and plain-old negligence principals should now be sufficient to hold servicers accountable for engaging in negligent conduct, when they do things like repeatedly lose documents, misrepresent facts during the loan modification process, dual-track into foreclosure, renege on promises to modify, and wrongly deny people for modification.”

    I still haven’t received a response to all of my Independent Foreclosure Review documents, which detail all of that happening in my case…not a peep.

  12. Big Win For Homeowners
    California Supreme Court Depublishes Aspiras v. Wells Fargo
    This ruling was a significant win for homeowners who had long sought to hold mortgage servicing companies accountable for fraudulent, unfair, and deceptive conduct when reviewing people for and negotiating loan modifications. The ruling was also a watershed moment for homeowners since most of the case law prior to this ruling found that banks could never be held liable for negligence in the loan modification context—no matter how egregious their conduct.

    http://www.bergmangutierrez.com/big-win-for-homeowners-california-supreme-court-depublishes-aspiras/

  13. Correction ..Kaspersky

  14. Kasperspy Business ….. 🙂

    Its runs 24/7 and blocks them at the gateway. The others only run as scheduled or when you run it, by then … its to late.

    Always print important docs and store on a back up disc.
    Keep docs and disc in long distance locations of each other.
    Like safety deposit boxes in anothers name.

    You know,.. just in case of a break in, fire, natural disaster or an Alien Trojan.

  15. Didn’t wait that long…we called provider 5 times, for extended hours, denied they could help…kept offering up “service” packages, instead of techs…requested and purchased all of discs’, to clean, repair and download after cleaning hard drive. Took a bit of time to figure out where the problem was, to be honest! Thanks for the info…

  16. @Poppy, why are you not taking care of your computer? You should have gotten it looked at when this happened. Why did you wait 30 days? There are other services on line that can clean your computer for a reasonable price. Hacking into our computers is now standing operating procedure. It is a felony or a series of felonies. You need state of the art high end software for virus and intrusion control. Do not use Norton or McAfee, old tech and does not work anymore. Every time I was working on docs to file, I got an intrusion or Trojan or virus. Now, I have Kaspersky and Vipre. Vipre for old computer and Kaspersky for new computer.

  17. Right KC and no PSA guided serving rights if it never went into a trust, Ha, Ha, Ha….debt collectors anyone?

  18. There are no Servicing Rights on Private Placement Trusts.

  19. My best guess…REIT Trusts, sponsored by: Holdings Companies, 14,000 + registered in NV, 2011….by our friendly bankers (no banks anymore)…sales of notes only, the more the merrier!

  20. But it should be clear that at least as of 1925, when Benedict was
    decided, section 45 did not do away with the rule “that retention of possession by the mortgagor with power of sale for his own benefit is
    fraudulent as to creditors.” 62 Id. at 28

  21. RE: ” Ha, Ha, Ha…what trusts and when?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Embrace MERS, Embrace Yourself .. Embrace the Trust, don’t fight it… Enforce It. Because you sure in tarnations are not going to enforce a note and mortgage.

    Just My take on things …..

  22. RE: “No one can sue in the name of another.
    Sound familiar?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    And no one has the right to convey your interests in a Trust, except you.

    Dear MERS VP/SEC,
    Who authorized you to transfer Title of my life estate, on MY behalf? Who? Who? Not ME!

  23. It rests not upon seeming ownership because of possession retained, but upon a lack of ownership because of dominion reserved. It does not raise a presumption of fraud. It imputes fraud conclusively because of the reservation of dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.”

  24. Good Morning Everyone,
    After Sol Cal and TU’s posts … I’m a little surprised the subject matter was changed. Don’t get lost in the weeds ….

    It is THE law when it comes to transfers/conveyances…

  25. @ E

    Great they were caught. My provider says they cannot…all BS IMHO.

  26. Poppy, the local internet service provider recently caught two of my neighbors sharing their internet feed. One was a legitimate bill paying client, but he was beaming bandwidth through an antenna to a neighbor’s house a thousand feet away. Busted. But what they did to them was truly amazing. Rather than fine them, take them to court, or whatever other means they have at their disposal, they simply slipped a very nasty trojan downstream into both of their computers. Problem solved. No muss – no fuss.

    I’m friends with the downstream guy….he’s a recently discharged special forces (navy seal – four tours) cryptographer who knows his way in and out of every zero and one on a computer. His PC will recover. The other neighbor now owns an expensive boat anchor.

    Ouch.

  27. There has been some mention of computer compromises here and I feel it is my place to underscore the nature of that. My computer was down for over 30 days and it appears that someone very sophisticated redirected my signal and left me unable to even sign into my email. Files have been corrupted and things are missing, particular to my court filings and finances. Not only has this happened to me, but a friend 3,000 miles away too and she is involved in the same court issues that I am facing. Very curious!!!!!!

    The guy who cleaned my computer stated: whoever compromised my system was very sophisticated, no laymen here…PLEASE be careful, sign out, change passwords, keep an eye out! We are not paranoid enough….

  28. Wachovia Busted Laundering Drug Money
    ……………………

  29. “Thus it remains an issue as to whether or not any of the alleged securitization participants can claim authority to act on behalf of the “trust beneficiaries” when the actual status of the entity (the trust) was ignored by those parties.”

    It’s not an issue.
    No one can claim an authority they do not have.
    No one can convey a property they do not own.

    There are legal maxims for this mess and it was ignored by the courts because, in my opinion, judges didn’t think we would look past them for remedy.

    If ‘your honor’ had been honorable, the situations would have remained their ‘business’, but they didn’t act in honor; presuming the Creator within us is ignorant when all knowledge is available to us if we just seek. External education is not our limitation, we can tap the knowledge of the universe at will.

    This issue is serious and a house cleaning is taking place. What a banker jumps from a building, judges are being arrested for crazy stuff not related to court, but when they mess with the money of the people who set up this system of control, well guess where they are going to go! To the people who woke the rest of us up by being so greedy and stealing what didn’t belong to them just to fake some entries in bookkeeping to cover their gambling, I mean derivative exposures.

    smiling and waving.
    Off topic rant, ignore.

    Woe to ye lawyers and judges. They know you have gone after the trusts in the name of the Creator of the trusts.

    No one can sue in the name of another.
    Sound familiar?

    An act of the court shall oppress no one.
    It didn’t say shall oppress no ‘person’, we know what a legal person is, it says One.

    People have come in as One and been ignored.
    Sure The practice of a court is the law of the court.
    Where does the Creator provide immunity for an action against the Creator? No man can provide an immunity that is greater than the Creator. This is written in the Book of Life. Can’t erase that.
    No man is presumed to be forgetful of his eternal welfare, and particularly at the point of death.

    Watching this unwind and unfold. There is a key conspiracy speaker who is shaking in his boots. He even got rid of that noticeable rumble in his voice as he spoke. He’s saying Leave the U.S. while you still can, appearance is he’s trying to distance himself from something.

    You can learn a lot from visual communication. Something to do with speaking in terms of the present, speaking in terms of the past, and speaking in terms of the future. If you know how to analyze visual communication, you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Yes, they (whoever they are) set it up, and they set up the rules, and they set up the supposed protections for us from what they are doing to us, but all it took was to seek that one organization that is so powerful, it will consume itself while following it’s own regulations. Get it to look anywhere there is fraud and people will roll over on each other and point to the rest of the fraud.

    Lawyers stood in court representing persons without notifying all parties that should be notified in the suit of the person. Who created the person, and were they authorized to act as trustee and dispossess the One while pilfering the trust when the creator of the trust has no knowledge of the transactoin? Where are the docs for the person stored, who is the true holder in due course and the true real party in interest? No the notice to ‘agent’ was not notice to principal in this case. Without formal knowledge, yes it seems you got away with it, but we were never supposed to be enslaved and robbed and exposed to the elements against our will (kept from having shelter).

    Consentientes et agentes pari poen plectentur. Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment

    Judges consent, attorneys perpetrate.

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

  30. “But it is [268 U.S. 353, 363] not true that the rule stated above and invoked by the receiver is either based upon or delimited by the doctrine of ostensible ownership. It rests not upon seeming ownership because of possession retained, but upon a lack of ownership because of dominion reserved. It does not raise a presumption of fraud. It imputes fraud conclusively because of the reservation of dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.”

    – Benedict v. Ratner, US Supreme Court, 1925

    I’ve been saying this for awhile now. This decision effectively brought on the market crash of 1929…because assets were being “Pledged” to trusts and other vehicles without being “delivered”, therefore resulting in a lack of perfected title.

    Why this case (Ratner) is not brought up in every case involving a REMIC is beyond me. It is THE law when it comes to transfers/conveyances…it also caused the creation of UCC 9.

  31. The yellow brick road. We’re off to see the wizard……………………

  32. A pledge is different from a Sale. Pledged loans remain the property of the lending pledging the loan, and not the other party.

  33. I have a 2006-vintage World Savings loan on commercial property. MERS is not present. Did they securitize loans that did not have MERS?

    How can Fannie Mae claim to have acquired the loan?

    Just wondering…….

  34. Ha, Ha, Ha…what trusts and when? Just because they say it, doesn’t make it so!

  35. RE: “So they seem to have the FORM of without recourse but the SUBSTANCE of the transaction is recourse? What is the purpose of such ambiguity? ”

    The Trillion $ Questions…

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: