“third party document processor, designed to give mortgage companies plausible deniability for fabricating mortgage paperwork”
Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products
For more information please email us at email@example.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.
NOTE; THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW WILL RESUME ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 6PM EDT
You would think that the purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law. Instead, they have taken the largest economic crime in human history and swept it under the rug. Meanwhile, investors, taxpayers, and borrowers continue to bear the burden of outright theft, forgery and fabrication by banks who (a) have no legal interest in the mortgage loans, (b) have no legal authority to represent the creditor and (c) they are placing orders with third party “vendors” to fabricate and forge assignments and other documents.
So here is the question: if the assignment represented a transaction in which a bank or trust acquired a loan actually occurred, why would you need a fraudulent document to present to a judge who will “presume” that it is authentic, truthful and credible? Even if they lost it, they could reconstitute it with real people who have real knowledge. Why fake it?
The question was posed to me directly by a Federal Judge on Monday when he asked me if I was really saying that one of the largest banks in the world had engaged in a pattern of conduct of first creating a void, and then filling that “void” with themselves, thus reaping the benefits of funds paid by borrowers and reaping the benefits received by investors for the purchase of naked mortgage-backed bonds, that were not backed by loans and were issued by entities that were never funded, didn’t even try to operate the way way the trust document (PSA) instructed, and in fact never operated at all.
The obvious exclusion of mortgage backed securities from securities regulation enacted in 1998 clearly doesn’t apply if the securities were not mortgage backed securities. Instead they are boiler room manifestations of greedy imaginations. I answered the Judge that yes, that is what I am saying, and yes (in answer to his follow-up question) this should be referred to the state attorneys office.
In the article shown in the link above, the author stumbled onto a request made to a former player in the mortgage industry who was being solicited to forge an assignment. It appears that the banks are running out of people willing to commit perjury. Robo-witnesses are figuring at with the layers of plausible deniability.
In the article it seems that a former law enforcement person turned forensic analyst for foreclosures received an unsolicited “out of the blue” request to execute an assignment that he knew nothing about. Apparently the banks are having trouble finding people who are willing to sign the fabricated documentation. My theory is that they are combing their database of people who had been involved in mortgage lending. What is apparent is that the banking industry is continuing to fabricate and forge documentation. And then must. Because if they didn’t they would be required to admit that the underlying transactions never occurred between them and the borrower and that nobody ever funded the origination or acquisition of a loan in the chain of “ownership” upon which they rely.
That leaves the investors and the borrowers — the only two real parties in interest — out in the cold with no documents linking them. The uncontested fact is that the banks are insisting on relying upon hearsay documents talking about transactions that never occurred. If the transactions had actually been consummated the way they want the courts to believe they would show the proof of payment.
Filed under: foreclosure