Tricks of the Trade: Banks’ Playbook Behind the scenes

For those who are willing to do the work, events after the “sale” of the foreclosed property will probably reveal the puppets and at least point to the puppet-masters.

As you investigate each named party leads to a dead end without any legal entity who is responsible for the actions taken.

I have a client who is in a predicament that is usually the way things go in the world of false claims of securitization and false paperwork, false sales, and transfers after sales of the property. Taking my advice she has admitted nothing and she assumes that whatever “information” is proffered by the attorneys handling the foreclosure is a lie. So she continued to follow the trail even after the property was supposedly sold and a deed was issued supposedly to the trust who according to the foreclosure mill was the owner of the “loan” (or at least the debt.

Part of her problem is that when she looks up the “owner” on the website of the county recorder, a name pops up that was never in the foreclosure, never in litigation and never in the chain of title.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key elements of a scam. If you have a foreclosure or a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

In this case American Home Mortgage Investment Company (AHMIC) suddenly shows up on the website of the recorder’s office at the time when an eviction or unlawful detainer is about to be filed.
*
Note that there is a difference between judicial states where defenses have theoretically at least been tried and decided and nonjudicial foreclosure states where the first time that the “foreclosing party” is forced to  make and prove allegations is in the unlawful detainer action. In nonjudicial states many intrepid homeowners and lawyers have achieved either victory or settlement, in some cases causing the case to drag out for 10 years or more.
*
This gets into the tricks of their trade. They use their corrupt influence with clerks at the office to show whatever name is given to the clerk who makes entries on the website. I have personally seen this in action in a Citi case where the clerk in a corrupt Florida county changed the name of the Plaintiff multiple times without admitting to why she did so and from whom she had received her instructions — because there certainly was no pleading filed that changed the name of the Plaintiff. The corrupt county is the only county government ever audited by the state auditor and which resulted.
*
The website is not the official record although it is usually treated as such. A frequent ploy of the mill lawyers is to ask the court to take judicial notice of what is on the recorder’s website, or what is on the sec.gov website.
*
In both cases the entries are made by the lawyers or the servicers and are entirely self serving. Judicial notice is NOT to be applied just because data or documents appear on an agency website.
*
Judicial notice is an economical way of proving a fact that everyone knows to be true, is not contested and was generated from a credible source which by definition is NOT a party who would benefit from the entry or uploading.
*
The only way AHMIC could be the owner of the property is if one of the following  conditions was met:
*
  1. AHMIC  entered into a transaction with the trust, with Deutsche Bank as Trustee in which the property was purchased for value from the Trust. If a deed exists that says that it is very recent because it did not come to me as part of the foreclosure chain of title.
  2. AHMIC  entered into a transaction with the trust, with Deutsche Bank as Trustee, but signed by Ocwen as “attorney in Fact” in which the property was purchased for value from the Trust. If a deed exists that says that it is very recent because it did not come to me as part of the foreclosure chain of title. Without a power of attorney attached, in accordance with industry standards, or at the very least identified by date and parties, the execution of such an instrument must be further investigated to determine if the execution of the deed was valid and not void.
  3. A person whose employment is uncertain executed a deed to AHMIC on behalf of either the trust, the trustee and /or Ocwen (as attorney in fact — see preceding paragraph on power of attorney). There is no consideration or value paid although the deed may state something like $10 and other valuable consideration. This is the most likely scenario.
    1. If the facts conform to this, then the transfer without value indicates that AHMIC was a conduit or alleged principal (most likely conduit) at the time of the sale. Your opposition will state that the bid by the trust was a credit bid on behalf of a “creditor”.
    2. The transfer without value indicates that the foreclosing trust was only a placeholder for an undisclosed party. AHMIC could not be a creditor unless it had an actual financial stake in the purported loan. In actuality AHMIC is stepping into the nonexistent shoes of American Brokers Conduit, which is merely a fictitious name.

In other words their games, often revealed after the foreclosure sale and mostly overlooked reveal the misrepresentations of fact that were knowingly made to the Judge, the homeowner, and indeed the world through recording instruments that should never have been drafted, much less executed and recorded.

19 Responses

  1. @WellsFargo laughing our hardship smuggled whatever left in our relationship set us up w modification WFB r progressing thieves than previous time when I tried before toward the end process they made condition “you have 5 days only” this time I did not got this chance! Foreclosure as u describe exactly illegally auctioned I tried to buy it thru the auction felt another game then they sold it people live in it and Wells Fargo still calling me to reevaluate the foreclosure what kind of culture is this to throw fragile on the St

    Like

  2. Thank you Roger for the response. Old saying – Fool me once – I am not the fool. Fool me twice – – I am the fool. The people were fooled over and over again. Partly our fault. But there has been no concerted effort to present to government. We needed that. I have said that for years. You can’t fight the battle alone. The power is too great. Needed to be taken to each and every representative on group effort. Never happened. Got killed because did not happen Settlements worthless. In fact – they continued to blame the people. It has been that way since crisis exposed. And, no representative from any state or any party will speak out for the people. None.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. ANON, my two cents:
    Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp,
    aka Norwest Asset Securities Corp,
    aka Wells Fargo Bank, aka Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
    aka HSBC Bank, USA, NA, as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation Home Equity Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2005-2, aka HSBC as Trustee for Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-backed Certificates Series 2005-2 Trust,
    who is it?

    Wells Fargo, the originator, depositor, sponsor, custodian, securities administrator, underwriter, servicer, master servicer.
    Now add an EX-99 Collateral Term Sheet for the Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities 2005-7 Trust, Wachovia Bank, as Trustee, Wells Fargo everything else as above, and Wachovia was subsumed by Wells. That makes Wells Fargo Trustee.

    These cases are prosecuted in the name of the Trustee of the defunct trust to deflect any association with Wells as the real party in interest.
    At this point, most of the crisis-era loans have been converted to debt collections without anyone being the wiser (except the judges who feign ignorance).

    I see these kinky foreclosures coming down the line because I’m a process server. Otherwise, it is obscured by the courts going 100% e-filing and concealing the public records.
    I had OCWEN papers last month with a Steve Nagy rubber-stamped endorsement-in-blank on a blank piece of paper between the Allonge and the note with a little MERS thrown in. This shit flies through the courts only because the judges let it.
    We’ve been fooling ourselves for the past ten years thinking this could be won with truth. Truth can’t beat racketeering by the biggest banks in the world aided by the Government and the Judiciary. Too much (fake) money invested in the debt-base money system this country runs on.

    Like

  4. Kali — good work finding this. My question is this. Who is the creditor a servicer claims to be collecting for when a trust is claimed to be involved? The Trust itself, or the trustee as legal holder, are the creditors? Common practice today is for foreclosure attorneys to just attach the trustee name to the trust – making it one entity, even when the trustee and trust are separate.
    My premise has always been that all the loans in the private label trusts were already classified as in default. Of course, loans can’t be in default when securitized – hence the financial crisis. And, the trusts/trustee never lent any money. Neither did the investors directly lend any money. None of the parties account for loans or “debt.” on a balance sheet. So, the servicer, as debt collector, is collecting for what creditor? And does that entity have to be business formed? How do they show that the debt, if collected, will be forwarded to that creditor/entity? There is no accounting. There are only so called records held by the servicer.

    Thanks, if you or anyone can answer this. . .

    Like

  5. @ ALL

    Attribution to Dave Krieger

    FDCPA CASE PROVIDES CLARITY AS TO THE TERM “DEBT COLLECTOR”

    In a precedential Third U.S. Circuit ruling (Tepper v. Amos Financial, LLC) on August 7, 2018, the Court really went out of its way to provide us with parameters of what constitutes a true “debt collector”.

    https://cloudedtitlesblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/tepper-v-amos-fin-llc-3rd-app-cir-no-17-2851-aug-7-2018_precedential.pdf

    Like

  6. I found a public offering by Wells Fargo bank to some shady investors in Dublin Ireland.

    Looks like Wells Fargo was selling an OPTION TO STEAL AMERICANS’ HOMES backed by thin-air illegal derivatives aka void US securities which Wells Fargo demanded to be registered in the USA BEFORE these securities (REMIC Trust mortgages) are resold or transferred.

    It was NEVER done – so, ALL sales of foreclosed homes are illegal per se since none of them are registered with the Regulators.

    Here is that Wells Fargo said:

    . “Some or all of the securities constituting the Collateral may not have been and will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), or any applicable state securities laws and may NOT be sold or transferred without registration under such Act and applicable state securities law or the availability of valid exemptions from such registration requirements. In addition to such securities laws transfer restrictions on resale, some or all of the Collateral may be subject to additional transfer restrictions, including but not limited to Investment Company Act restrictions and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974″

    “the undersigned is aware of the fact that the items of the Collateral on which it is bidding may not have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), or applicable state securities law and will be offered and sold by the Trustee without recourse, representations, warranties or covenants, express or implied, being made by the Trustee with respect to the Collateral ”

    The offering for most trusts had “Asset Type” stated as “ZERO Factor, which means that here was NO original balance of the pool or tranche that was outstanding as of a given date – because here was NO securities pool at all – but merely an option to STEAL someone’s home in America, with all applicable risks if certain judges will not approve this racket.

    Again, NONE of these securities were ever registered with any regulators when foreclosed properties were resold to new buyers, thus, ALL these sales are illegal and void.

    Here is how most “assets” looked like

    7 04541GWL2 ABSHE 2006-HE2 M5 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,000,000
    8 04541GWM0 ABSHE 2006-HE2 M6 RMBS – Zero Factor 3,567,000
    9 004421UG6 ACE 2005-HE7 M5 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,000,000
    10 00442AAB9 ACE 2006-ASL1 M1 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,000,000
    11 00442AAD5 ACE 2006-ASL1 M3 RMBS – Zero Factor
    12 00442AAE3 ACE 2006-ASL1 M4 RMBS – Zero Factor 1,058,000
    13 004421WB5 ACE 2006-ASP1 M5 RMBS – Zero Factor 3,000,000
    14 004421WC3 ACE 2006-ASP1 M6 RMBS – Zero Factor 4,658,000
    15 004421WT6 ACE 2006-HE1 M3 RMBS – Zero Factor 3,000,000
    16 004421YY3 ACE 2006-HE2 M3 RMBS – Zero Factor 3,000,000
    17 004421ZB2 ACE 2006-HE2 M6 RMBS – Zero Factor 4,000,000
    18 004421UX9 ACE 2006-NC1 M4 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,153,000
    19 004421UZ4 ACE 2006-NC1 M6 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,202,000
    20 00442PAK6 ACE 2006-OP1 M4 RMBS – Zero Factor 1,500,000
    21 00442PAL4 ACE 2006-OP1 M5 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,000,000
    22 00442PAM2 ACE 2006-OP1 M6 RMBS – Zero Factor 5,000,000
    23 040104PV7 ARSI 2005-W4 M2 RMBS – Zero Factor 3,000,000
    24 040104PW5 ARSI 2005-W4 M3 RMBS – Zero Factor 2,000,000

    Liked by 1 person

  7. … and here is the recent ruling from January 2018 dismissing certain counts and allowing the remainder to go forward…

    https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2018-2018-ny-slip-op-31388-u.pdf?ts=1530825937

    Like

  8. Here is the original 188 page (PDF) complaint – which is still working its way through the courts for all to download…

    Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) v U.S. Bank N.A.
    2018 NY Slip Op 31388(U)
    January 12, 2018
    Supreme Court, New York County
    Docket Number: 652204/2015
    Judge: Saliann Scarpulla

    https://assets.law360news.com/0670000/670416/bigmoneyrustlers.pdf

    In here you will probably find info important to your case. It includes much damning evidence against a dozen loan originators, many servicers and US Bank and it’s privies. You will probably find citations, references and background to help you prove what we have all been arguing. Best of luck!

    Like

  9. Absolutely Ian. These were not true sales — they could not be true sales because they were never accounted for on anyone’s accounting balance sheet. Went straight to fake off-balance sheet so called conduit. A major accounting step was simply – skipped. .

    Like

  10. BTW… Investment Firms Sue US Bank Over RMBS Trust Losses
    BlackRock, Prudential and other investment firms have sued US Bank in New York state court, alleging it ignored “pervasive and systemic” issues in the underlying loan pools of 21 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts it administers, which were secured by more than $18.3 billion at the time of securitization.

    Like

  11. no show tonight?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. ANON- thanks- and I forgot- if there were indeed 2 “true sales” of the note in order to comply with NY trust law etc, there would be at least 2 endorsements on the note from the 2 parties which bought the note.
    And this is never the case that I have seen. And the. What about void v. voidable? This lack of endorsements attesting to the two true saleswould make each mortgage void under NY trust law and the PSA. Thereby defective unenforceable paper.

    Like

  13. Ian — well put!!!!

    Like

  14. ANON- yes this would be bankruptcy fraud. Generally speaking, the federal ( bankruptcy) courts have been held to a higher standards as far as proofs of claim, but have sunken to lower levels of proof as this fraud has continued. Max Gardner has an article on his website regarding this very topic.
    Basically the foreclosure documents don’t specify who is the injured party entitle to seek relief. Just large block print naming a NA bank, via an alleged trust. And in these cases, the mortgage may legally be assigned, but the mortgage follows the note, and the note has to be negotiated, for value. But prior to all this, if the mortgage is being assigned, there have to be 2 “true sales” in order to make the mortgage and note bankruptcy-remote from any downstream creditors. This is per NY triust law, IRC (IRS) REMIC rules and refs, and GAAP and FASB sections pertaining to such. Then we have TILA. And a host of lesser-known but equally important laws. The cases arent argued properly.

    Like

  15. This is so true as to what is happening. The “creditor” is never disclosed during foreclosure. And, if a borrower is in bankruptcy – this is bankruptcy fraud.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Just pointing to the fact that on my DOT there’s no proper Conveyance of property to the original trustee , no consideration, no signatures, just my signature in last page.

    Leo Blas

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Totally what is going on with my house ABC to AHM to Ocwen and Deutsche Trust. I am going to the sale to see who bids and who is representing whom.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. FINALLY AWAY WITH ADMIRALTY. NOW, WE ATTACK THE FRAUDULENT BANKS. AND HOW DO WE APPLY?

    https://inteldinarchronicles.blogspot.com/2018/08/war-castles-video-by-anonymous-82718.html

    Like

  19. Our previous home was foreclosed non-judicially by SlS on behalf of BNY Mellon and then a real estate company sold the house to someone. When we asked for the note all that we saw was an affidavit.

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: