Tonight! 6PM EDT Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo Talk About US Bank as Straw Man

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Whether you call it a straw man, sham conduit, naked nominee the analysis is the same. Even the term “Trust” is wrong if the Trustee has no Trustee powers, if the investors are not beneficiaries, if the named trustee had nothing entrusted for the benefit of actual beneficiaries. But if that name that includes the word “Trust” in it is not a Trust, organized and existing under the laws of some jurisdiction, then what is it?

Bill Paatalo joins Attorney Charles Marshall today to provide more info and intel re the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust”, rightly considered by Bill to be a straw man hiding the machinations of US Bank to obfuscate chain-of-title issues in loans ostensibly legally connected to US Bank trusts.

As part of our continuing expose on this issue, we will revisit the Wells Fargo v. Riley case, the Florida case in which Defendant Riley was granted in December 2017 a final judgment for Defendant against Wells Fargo. You will find that case in Florida’s 15th Judicial Circuit, covering Palm Beach County, Case No. 50-2016-CA-010759.

See Bill’s further analysis on this LSF9 issue at his Blog for his BP Investigative Agency below:

14 Responses

  1. And securitization? There can be NONE – without being on someone’s balance sheet FIRST. There is NO direct lending from “investors” to borrowers. NONE. Only “Lender” is as stated to borrower. But, that was never the Lender because never on their balance sheet, and, therefore, could NEVER go to off-balance sheet.


  2. Kali — Ok

    Ian — absolutely correct. And, you know the “FUNNY”??? thing is — it doesn’t matter what “trust” you are supposedly in because no one is really there in the first place. Switched around – perhaps dozens of times. It just doesn’t matter to the debt buyers — once a debt — always a debt. Doesn’t matter what “trust/Trustee.” Doesn’t matter what you do. Doesn’t matter what you know. Doesn’t matter whether you were ever told anything at origination. Doesn’t matter how or if a loan is “modified.” It is nothing more than default debt with unknown “debt buyer.”

    I love to say — “the loan has no home.” Because, no accounting.

    Title can never be fixed until that debt buyer shows it’s face. And not happening. Covered up.


  3. @ Anon, Bob G., & Ian (alphabetically)

    Because I am overly multitasking, I am admittedly delayed; so be patient, with an eye for forthcoming e-mail correspondence(s).



  4. ANON- in re: default debt:
    I remember “working things out with my servicer”, being at the time 60-90 days in arrears, and I would catch up and things would be fine for 2 or 3 years, and then same thing again.
    Was I surprised to read PSAs 10 years later, that any loan in the alleged trust was considered in default on the 31st day past the due date. So yes, they were all in default, charged off, insurance or swaps collected .
    Resecuritise them, and collect the same payments ona loan which has been written down to zero.
    But you can only write down to zero if there is a balance sheet….


  5. ANON- you nailed the default debt some time ago, I am in complete agreement on that count. That’s all I want to say right now.
    I’ll email As you suggest.


  6. Ian. Think they want you to email by Bob’s email address. And, again, to your excellent post – the only way that what you describe can happen is when the loans were never a mortgage, but, rather, just transfer of already classified default debt. In effect, just renegotiation of default debt at refinance – whether in default or not. Most likely NOT. Whoops – no one ever told the borrower. Then – trapped. No matter how you slice it. No one there to help. No one in the government. Not one representative. Were they sleeping all these years?


  7. Sorry I meant Kalifornia . Spellcheck at it again.


  8. ANON- are you emailing me as per last post from Kalifirnis?


  9. Will do Bob and Kali.


  10. Yes Ian.


  11. With his Permission and THROUGH Bob G.:

    @ ANON & Ian:

    Check E-mail.


  12. ANON- yes the “trusts” are empty shells. And when you add MERS, backdated assignments, allonges produced when there is enough room on the note to write a novel, ( allonges are therefore void by definition), notes assigned to the “trust” after the closing date, and almost all documents signed by someone on the other side of the country, who knows nothing, it’s pretty obvious that something is amiss.
    The only things that change hands, or ownership, are the Mortgage Servicing Rights, or MSRs. Read Default Servicing News, look through some issues until you see something like “Ocwen purchases 2.8 billion MSRs from Dirtbag Servising Corp” for $52.7 million dollars. You will never see anyone reported as having bought the mortgages and notes.
    So any court action referencing a trust or trustee is a fraud. The servicer keeps the money.


  13. ANON…contact me again at please


  14. Perfect topic. And, please consider addressing that the servicer attaches the trustee name to “trust” in litigation — making it ONE entity. BUT it is not ONE entity. The Trust and Trustee are two separate entities. Trustee is the legal holder. The trust is an “artificial” empty shell. And the investors are only beneficial by pass-through of CASH proceeds. No CASH pass-through — no beneficial investors. No trustee — no REMIC fiduciary trust. This is SCOTUS law.

    Of course, as Neil says — if the trusts were never set up correctly – none of it matters. But, Courts are reluctant to accept that. .



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: