Paatalo Article Reveals Exact Money Trail and the Absence of Phantom/Pretender Lenders

see https://www.wellsfargo.com/com/financing/real-estate/multi-family-capital/manufactured-home-communities/

See

 

Wells Fargo Article: “The thing most borrowers fail to realize about conduit loans is that once the loan has been securitized they are not working with a “lender” anymore.”

[Editor’s Note: And they never were dealing with a “lender.” Wells Fargo glosses over the fact that without the money and the loans going into the trust, the loan was not securitized, they destroyed the security, the Trust is nothing in the eyes of the law, and they made it virtually impossible for investors to know how to collect their money when the servicer chooses to stop making payments to the investors.

But what is clear is that in  virtually all cases Wells Fargo admits that as Master Servicer they are causing payments to be made at least 3-4 months after the borrower stops paying the servicer.]

see Wells Fargo Document – No Lender in Remics

=============================

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not a legal opinion. Get a lawyer.

==============================

see http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/phantom-lenders-dont-be-afraid-they-dont-exist-anymore/

Bill Paatalo just sent me an article he apparently wrote almost a year ago, in which he successfully exposed the real facts and even attached a marketing piece by Wells Fargo in which Wells Fargo corroborates everything Paatalo wrote in his article. Needless to say it also corroborates everything I have written on the subject as well. Paatalo addresses the issues relating to the roles played by multiple parties in a way that is succinct and very clear.

Bill has also written a short eBook explaining securitization that comes from a private investigator rather than a lawyer, like myself, who could appear to be advocating for homeowners, which I am. But that doesn’t mean that my facts, analysis and conclusions are wrong. I recommend you purchase his eBook. Bill and Kimberly have graciously agreed to contribute money to LivingLies from the sale of his eBook . They have named the EBook “Pretender Lenders: How Tablefunding and Securitization Go Hand in Hand”.  Just click on this link for the new EBook and other good stuff: http://infotofightforeclosure.com/tools-store/ebooks-and-services/?ap_id_102

 

28 Responses

  1. — TONIGHT —
    Sorry for the Late gentle reminder – please make an appointment for yourself to join us for Episode [13] of “The Gallant Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe #139335 with your host, greg; TONIGHT, Wednesday evening at 6:45 PM Eastern.

    Since Neil posted that he is skipping his weekly Thursday Night LIVING LIES – FORECLOSURE DEFENSE & ATTACK call until Jan 7, 2016, we’ll just discuss the Paatalo Articles and talk about current events and news and your own Foreclosure Defense experience…

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Because Dec 24th and Dec 31st fall on Thursday, we will be “bumping” our call over to Wednesday for the next two weeks (Dec 23 & Dec 30)

    Details follow:

    1) Neil’s Living Lies Call at 6:00PM Eastern (347) 850-1260… on Blogtalk Radio (resumes 1/7/2016)

    2) Our interactive self-help Q&A call, “The Gallant Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe – begins TONIGHT – WEDNESDAY night at 6:45PM Eastern

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “1#” for guest and/or use your computer to blog/type at http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    6:45 PM Eastern (for 60+ min)

    [Our Calls and Chat Board are recorded for review and sharing…]

    Please use the phone line TO SPEAK; ASK QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE…
    Note that computer access will ONLY allow you to hear and type into the blog (Not Speak)…

    all are welcome!

    if you; or one of your friends; would like to be added and receive email reminders of the call…please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us] with the subject line: “please add me to the goose!”

    If you would like to be REMOVED from the group…please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us] with the subject line: “please pluck my goose”

    thank you.
    greg

  2. both links talks about the , nontraditional mortgage , securitization of mortgages.

    so even back in 2005 2006 they called it non-traditional mortgages.

    so how can we foreclose on anyone using traditional mortgage laws. ? hum

  3. @ djabelanger

    I’m of the opinion that the effect of the execution of the instruments thereafter constituted a “silent partnership” of sorts with the CONDUIT ORIGINATOR acting as a brokering agent. The “silent partner’s” electronic PAYMENT INTANGIBLE was BIFURCATED from the victim’s collateral (the NOTE) as the consideration for the REMIC securitization transaction.

    @ mn

    This round of research is focused on dissecting, differentiating and applying Article 3 & 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, theoretically, to the negotiation of the NOTE and assignment of TITLE through the REMIC securitization transaction, as well as the resulting BIFURCATION thereof. The citations to the UCC are likely different for each state.

    Where I’m building to is the ultimate goal of showing by operation of law who is, and who is not, the PETE (Person Entitled To Enforce) the security instrument — IF the BIFURCATION did not cause the security instrument to become a NULLITY. IF the BIFURCATION of the NOTE from the security instrument occurred by operation of law, then the NOTE is unsecured.

  4. i bought this and another article from Bill & Kimberly’s site and found them generally informative and helpful… i recommend…

    keep in mind this featured article is based around California case law, so you’ll probably need to look up similar rulings in your own state…

    the general information is very good and you will probably find it useful…

    greg

  5. the real issue here is all courts are treating all foreclosures as traditional mortgage transactions.as we know from
    congressional testimonial, that this is not the case , banks did not issue traditional mortgages, instead issued ,
    securities transactions. without the consent or knowledge of the homeowners at closing? to all parties involved in this
    securities transaction?
    as we know they are not traditional mortgage s. these are securities transactions.

    so the question to the courts is how can any court, apply traditional mortgage foreclosure laws,statues, ? to foreclose on a homeowner , that did not know that this was a securities transaction?

  6. Wednesday 23 December 2015

    Kalifornia:

    The issue I have with your response is that it is all conclusory with no
    case cite support. Not a complaint against you because it is not your
    work. I had the same problem when reading the source material. This
    is a result of living in a fact pleading state. Unsupported conclusions
    simply will not fly. Not sure if that contributes to your uncertainty, but
    understandable, if it does.

    Cheers…

  7. For the record, because of the layers of / and complexities involved, even I am uncertain of portions of my own prior positions as written.

  8. …forgot to mention “PETE” (Person Entitled To Enforce).

    This build up in the pleading(s) leads to the ultimate question(s) before the trial court: With all of the BIFURCATION in these CONDUIT TRANSACTIONs that are before the court, the questions presented in no particular order are (1) who is the actual “lender”; (2) who is the true “creditor”; (3) who is the secured party; (4) who are the real parties in interest to the CONDUIT TRANSACTION; (5) who is subject to the statute of frauds; (6) where is my personal property (NOTE); (7) who is the Person Entitled To Enforce?

  9. @ mn

    As an aside, I long for and deeply miss growing up on the Iron Range, Lake Vermilion and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

    You are correct that the court doesn’t want to hear about the underlying Commercial Law transactions which are foundational to standing for tort claims such as, but not limited to, fraud at the inception, statute of frauds, layers of bifurcation of the security instrument away from the collateral obligation, destroyed value of the collateral (the NOTE), and the host of injuries and implications to the title of the real property. The list of claims is mind-boggling.

    No victim that intended to enter into a traditional mortgage, which these were not, was told the TRUTH: The ORIGINATOR is merely a CONDUIT, not a “lender,” and will not loan any of its own monies to fund the transaction.

    The belief was that the transaction was for a “lender” to loan its own monies to the victim, which never happened. Because the “lender” never intended to, and did not, perform with its’ own CONSIDERATION (e.g., its’ own monies), there was no CONSUMMATION by the parties in privity to the transaction. Thereafter, it was the BIFURCATION of the electronic PAYMENT INTANGIBLE from the TANGIBLE NOTE (paper), further BIFURCATING the VALUE of the TANGIBLE NOTE from the SECURITY INSTRUMENT, which as a matter of law destroyed the SECURITY INSTRUMENT as a nullity.

    There is nothing “conventional” or “traditional” about these undisclosed CONDUIT transactions intended to BIFURCATE everything; even the tranches are a BIFURCATION of the loan pool.

    At the end of the day, in the judicial climate at present, in order create an effective judicial record the underlying transactions following the EXECUTION of the NOTE must be adequately BIFURCATED (as to the governing law(s)) and plead for preservation for an appeal. By properly asserting contested questions of fact and law, the trial courts will be confronted with ruling, rightly or wrongly, on the matter(s).

  10. @david belanger

    The electronic “PAYMENT INTANGIBLE” was BIFURCATED from the CHATTEL PAPER (the NOTE), which was supposed to be vaulted under the PSA, but may have been intentionally destroyed — lost note my arse.

    It was the electronic PAYMENT INTANGIBLE that in some cases was RE-HYPOTHECATED (re-securitized) through multiple REMIC securitization transactions, which accounts for why there are instances where multiple REMICs purport to have an interest in a victim’s collateral.

    The BIFURCATION of the PAYMENT INTANGIBLE from the NOTE likely destroyed the value of the NOTE. Further, that BIFURCATION most certainly caused a second layer of BIFURCATION from the security instrument (lien), e.g., deed of trust or mortgage, which as a matter of law makes the security instrument a nullity and unenforceable.

    Now, do not forget the fact that the NOTE is the MAKER’s personal property serving as the BAILMENT collateral for this nonsense, and as a matter of law the MAKER is entitled to know its whereabouts as well as its return upon accord and satisfaction.

  11. the real issue here is all courts are treating all foreclosures as traditional mortgage transactions.

    as we know they are not traditional mortgage s. these are securities transactions.

  12. Tuesday 22 December 2015

    Kalifornia:

    Re Terry v Meyers. That line of approach in a foreclosure case would
    not likely fly because the judge would say borrower obviously received
    consideration in the purchase of a property, and court tolerance for that
    argument would be non-existent. Just an immediate response to
    reading the post and maybe a rabbit hole that would distract from more
    pertinent arguments. Always worth pursuing any thought, however.

    Re the intangible aspect of and the parsing out of payments would be
    plowing new ground. What I am less clear on, or what is not so obvious
    to me is the fact that MERS, as an “electronic” exchange, cannot parse
    out anything from a note, having no interest in same. That being the
    case, which entity strips out payments from a note, and when.

    That line of thinking appears to focus on “e-mortgages,” and I have not
    yet seen any discussion about their existence. Are you of the mind that
    that line of argument would apply to what are considered conventional
    mortgages?

    Have not yet read the UCC link, but will.

    Thank you for your input.

  13. The following is merely “unpublished” FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    Promissory Note Lacking Consideration Is Not Enforceable

    Terry v. Myers (October 29, 2012) 2012 WL 5307912 (Unpublished)
    California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3

    Relying on the UCC, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision that a promissory note was unenforceable because it lacked consideration.

    Terry and Myers both loaned money to a promoter in a real property transaction that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The promoters required that Myers issue a $50,000 promissory note to Terry, as a condition to investing in the scheme. When the scheme collapsed, Terry sued Myers on the $50,000 note.

    Myers’ defense was that the note lacked consideration, because Myers did not actually borrow any funds from from Terry. Terry argued that consideration was presumed. The court held that Terry had not established that the note was enforceable, and Myers had supplied sufficient evidence that the note lacked consideration to overcome the presumption.

    Citing UCC 3-303(b) (specifically, California Commercial Code Section 3303(b)) the Court of Appeal held that negotiable instruments, including a promissory note, are subject to the defense of lack of consideration. Consideration is defined as “any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract.” UCC 3-303(b). (Cal. Comm. Code Section 3-303(b).) While a promissory note is presumed to be supported by consideration, that presumption may be overcome. Myers was able to demonstrate that, under the circumstances of the investment–as to which Myers had no culpability– he had not received consideration for the note. Importantly, Myers did not receive $50,000 from Terry for the note; did not benefit from Terry’s investment in the scheme; and Terry did not rely on the note to invest in the scheme. Under these circumstances, the court of appeal held that the trial court had properly relied on basic UCC contract law to determine lack of enforceability of the note.

  14. CLARIFICATION

    A simplified clarification is necessary related to a NOTE as COLLATERAL.

    The executed NOTE at the purported “closing” of the transaction / contract at issue is the putative COLLATERAL, and pursuant to Article 9 of the UCC, it is defined as TANGIBLE collateral paper.

    However, the undisclosed INTENTION of the CONDUIT ORIGINATOR (“LINO”) in course of the REMIC securitization scheme was to parse out the electronic PAYMENT INTANGIBLE, e.g., monthly NOTE payment (pass through, etc.), thereby further bifurcating the NOTE from the purported security lien (DEED OF TRUST / MORTGAGE).

    Standby.

    More to follow.

  15. kal i like your writings on here
    The sad truth ofvthe matter is SOL has passed for many … now that we ” get it” bad case law aside, unless, tolling may be argued

  16. Sigh.

    Months ago, here, I was force-feeding the know-it-all scientologist (Bob Hurt) with this exact content so that the readers would not be mislead.

    Onward.

    “LINO” definition: Lender In Name Only.

    Restated, before the NOTE was ever executed at closing, at the inception of the transaction the purported “lender” was nothing more than a CONDUIT ORIGINATOR / BAILEE whom already had the MAKER’s / BAILOR’s personal property (the NOTE) pledged in advance as the collateral to back the REMIC securitization scheme,

    As it intended but never disclosed, the CONDUIT ORIGINATOR was, functionally, brokering the collateral in a quick flip for profit into the REMIC securitization scheme, and that was all. The CONDUIT ORIGINATOR never intended to, and did not in fact, lend any of its own monies. Consequently, there was NO CONSIDERATION proffered by a purported “lender” who lent any of its’ own monies; NO PRIVITY with a purported “lender” who lent any of its’ own monies; NO CONSUMMATION with a purported “lender” who lent any of its’ own monies; and therefore NO CONTRACT with a purported “lender.” The facts point to fraud at the inception of the transaction supporting both a common law rescission, as well as a TILA rescission.

    The STATUTE OF FRAUD applies where there were intentional failures to record the NEGOTIATION of the collateral (the MAKER’s NOTE) pursuant to the UCC: 1) from the CONDUIT ORIGINATOR to the REMIC SPONSOR; 2) from the REMIC SPONSOR to the REMIC DEPOSITOR; 3) from the REMIC DEPOSITOR to the REMIC TRUSTEE. Because there were no recordings of the NEGOTIATION(s) of the collateral, there was no PERFECTION of the lien as security for the purported loan obligation.

    Oversimplified, unless and until there is a PERFECTED security instrument, if at all, there can be no PETE: Person Entitled To Enforce.

    Now, everyone take the time to read through and digest a UCC EXPERT’s OPINION at the link below:

    http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2013/02/mortgage-foreclosures-missing.html

  17. i did say this. the loans were already sold prior to any borrower signing docs. the use of the borrower applications,appraisals,etc , etc, and mers,electronics registration systems,inc. mins numbers. already on closing doc, i.e. mortgage. but not the notes.

    What attorneys and judges need to recognize is that securitization begins with the Fannie patented 1003 loan application. Collateral was solicited and procured to fill pre-existing contracts and agreements that the banks already had in place and operating BEFORE the borrower signed the faux mortgage and note documents.

    this is the whole truth and nothing but the trust. BELOW

    The homeowner unwittingly participated in a securities transaction. Without his collateral the entire transaction could never have been completed.

    AS WAS SAID IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. THESE ARE NOT AGAIN ARE NOT- TRADITIONAL MORTGAGES. THESE ARE HYBRIDS SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.

    The incredible people that found the patents in the last decade knew that the securitization system was pre-existing BEFORE signatures ever hit the page.

  18. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    What attorneys and judges need to recognize is that securitization begins with the Fannie patented 1003 loan application. Collateral was solicited and procured to fill pre-existing contracts and agreements that the banks already had in place and operating BEFORE the borrower signed the faux mortgage and note documents.

    The homeowner unwittingly participated in a securities transaction. Without his collateral the entire transaction could never have been completed.

    The incredible people that found the patents in the last decade knew that the securitization system was pre-existing BEFORE signatures ever hit the page.

  19. What attorneys and judges need to recognize is that securitization begins with the Fannie patented 1003 loan application. Collateral was solicited and procured to fill pre-existing contracts and agreements that the banks had already in place and operating BEFORE the borrower signed the faux mortgage and note documents.

    The homeowner unwittingly participated in a securities transaction. Without his collateral the entire transaction could never have been completed.

    The incredible people that found the patents in the last decade knew that the securitization system was pre-existing BEFORE signatures ever hit the page.

  20. Conduit loan servicing: Who’s who and what’s what?
    The thing most borrowers fail to realize about conduit loans is that once a loan has been
    securitized, they are not working with a “lender” anymore. The loans are pooled into a
    securitization called a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC). The REMIC is a
    trust and it has no lenders, only fiduciaries of the “certificate holders.” Once the loans
    have been pooled and securitized, the players are as follows:

  21. Excise Tax on Obligations Not in Registered Form – Audit …
    https://www.irs.gov/…/Obligations-Not-in-Regis…
    Internal Revenue Service
    The tax does not apply to obligations issued in bearer form pursuant to warrants …. Beneficial owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interest … if any, on the debt securities will be made to Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. ….. Unless the certificate of authentication hereon has been executed by the ..

  22. PDF]DTC Operational Arrangements – DTCC

  23. So the debt collectors move in, hmm

  24. Useful info because it is counter to what they did and who the players were in court in their claimed authorized capacities-
    And yes i was bounced out on my derrière and hit the ground hard however the truth is the truth and they know it, and we do now.

  25. Yes. yes. yes. But house still Fraudclosed on.

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: