Katherine Ann Porter, Author of 2007 Study Revealing the Destruction of Notes, Is Running for Congress

Ms. Porter was the first person who broke through the ruse of securitization and confirmed what I thought, in 2007, leading to the creation of this blog. As a Professor at the University of Iowa she conducted a study that revealed that, at a minimum, 40% of all executed notes were destroyed shortly after the “closing” of a home loan. Negotiable notes are the equivalent of cash. I was left with the question “why would anyone shred money?”

Now in California, this former protege of Elizabeth Warren is running for Congress. I think she deserves all the support she can get. She is one of the few people running for public office who understands the mortgage meltdown and who will keep fire to the feet of fellow legislators as the country continues to sort out fraudulent loans, fraudulent “meltdowns,” and fraudulent foreclosures.

Ten years ago, when I was a lone voice in the wilderness, she was there to help. Now it is our turn to support her candidacy. Her election to the House of Representatives will benefit all Americans — not just those in her district.

The Intercept (by David Dayen): An enemy of the Wall Street foreclosure machine is foreclosure machine is running to unseat a GOP lawmaker in California

New York Times (by Gretchen Morgensen):  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/06mortgage.html?mcubz=1

Original study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1027961

Washington Post: Emily’s List backs Elizabeth Warren acolyte in California congressional race

SacBee: Elizabeth Warren protégé runs for Congress in Orange County: ‘Katie is a fighter!’

see https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/kp18?refcode=header_donate

 

North Carolina Bans Conflict of Interest on Deed of Trust

On August 30, 2017, an amendment to North Carolina’s foreclosure statutes took immediate effect.  The amended statute, Section 45-10, concerns substitute trustees under a deed of trust.  As amended, Section 45-10 now prohibits an attorney who serves as trustee or substitute trustee from representing the noteholder or the borrower while “initiating” a foreclosure proceeding.  Before the amendment, a lender often could rely on its counsel simultaneously to conduct the foreclosure and represent its interests.  With the new amendment, the takeaway for lenders is that non-judicial foreclosure under the power-of-sale provision in a deed of trust now requires two parties—a substitute trustee and lender’s counsel—and this may increase the time and expense of foreclosure.

Non-Judicial Foreclosure and Substitute Trustees

There are three parties to a deed of trust:  (1) grantor (borrower), (2) trustee, and (3) beneficiary (lender).  Typically, the first step in foreclosure is to replace, or substitute, the trustee under the deed of trust.  The substitute trustee initiates the foreclosure through a special proceeding before the clerk of court.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-foreclosure-hearing-just-got-more-73757/

The legislature of North Carolina finally caught up with a piece of the puzzle that has driven homeowners and their attorneys to near madness. Virtually all documetns filed as “Substitution of Trustee” consist of one simple premise — substituting an impartial Trustee on the Deed of Trust with a party with an obvious bias. This results in unquestioning obedience to the “new” self-proclaimed beneficiary.

Any such trustee on a Deed of Trust has a duty of fair dealing and a duty to ascertain whether the facts given to him/her/it are true. Otherwise they are probably negligent and perhaps grossly negligent after years of being appointed by parties whom they know, when challenged, have often lost cases based upon the fact that they were not a new beneficiary.

I have long encouraged people to record an objection to the substitution of trustee on the basis of false premises and lack of foundation. Objections are probably a good idea as to the notice of default and notice of sale. This sets the record for the application for a TRO. But it also creates a problem about which I have previously written.

Assuming the “substitute trustee” was “appointed” by a party that did not meet the statutory definition of a beneficiary, then the appointment is void. If the appointment is void, the original trustee on the deed of trust probably has a duty to set the record straight. But in any event, the void substitution of trustee results in a situation where there is no change for the original trustee, who simply remains as Trustee on the Deed of Trust despite the “wild deed” masquerading as a substitution of trustee.

If the original trustee receives notice of improper activity from the filing of the false substitution of trustee, then the original trustee probably needs to file an action called interpleader — in which the “new beneficairy” and the homeowner square off and must plead their cases — something the banks definitely don’t want to do. By pleading their case they must prove it. By failing to file the interpleader the original trustee may be admitting that it too is a controlled entity of the fake new beneficiary.

 

The Implied “Trust” and Discovery

If you look closely at the NOD, NOS, foreclosure complaint, and correspondence you see two things that are fairly constant — (1) they ALWAYS refer to the case as “US Bank” (or some other bank) and (2) they often don’t actually name a trust although it is implied.

This is classic misdirection. The Judge is thinking “U.S. Bank” when the case presented asserts that the Bank is not party to the action except as trustee for the “real party” which is not named and most likely doesn’t exist.

As an example of how to confront this, see below.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

We also edit and draft documents

https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

So faced with an unlawful detainer action by a trust that does not exist but whose name was used as the source of a credit bid at auction one intrepid homeowner has been keeping the “bank” and the “Trust” and the “servicer” at bayt for around 10 years. Each step of the way the judges were effectively bamboozled into thinking that this was a case of Lending Bank versus Homeowner who doesn’t pay his bills. The reference to being a “Trustee” was merely to imply the existence of a Trust without ever actually saying the trust exists.

And before I get started, take note: If I pay the fees I can file fake articles of incorporation or a fake trust instrument with the SEC. Once that is done, I ask for judicial notice of the corporation and the judge, along with the foreclosure defense lawyer, will most times agree that the entity exists. Our analysis here of the chain of title clearly shows that in many if not most cases, the at least one of the entities involved never actually existed. This is particularly true of so-called REMIC Trusts.

Look at the wording very carefully. It is their Achilles heel:

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-EMX4

Do you see any trust named?

Here is the wording I suggested to my client, subject to checking with local counsel:

Attorneys for the putative plaintiff have filed an action for unlawful detainer against this defendant. The action is brought in the name of an implied trust, for which US Bank is designated as trustee. An implied trust cannot be Plaintiff or Petitioner or party to any legal action. Besides lacking legal standing it lacks legal existence. And without an existing trust, the mere naming of oneself as trustee does not create or refer to a trust unless a trust actually exists.
 *
The attorneys referenced the action as U.S. Bank versus Edstrom. But U.S. Bank is obviously not a party to this action except as an agent, trustee or representative of the implied trust.
 *
Defendant has raised defenses that include but are not limited to whether the implied trust actually exists, whether U.S. Bank has any legal authority in a representative, agency, or trustee capacity and further whether the self-proclaimed servicer for the implied trust has any legal authority to administer the putative subject loan.
 *
Based upon circiumstantial evidence and disclaimers published by all the parties who seem to think they have an interest in foreclosing the subject property, the answer to all of the questions is “No.” This accounts for the obfuscation in discovery which would reveal the truth quite easily and simply.
 *
Accordingly, defendant served discovery upon the attorneys for the putative plaintiff. Simple logic dictates that if the trust does not in fact exist or if the trust exists but never acquired the putative subject loan, then the plaintiff does not exist, (or it has no legal standing), the attorneys do not have a client, U.S. Bank has not stated a basis for being named in this action, and the self-proclaimed servicer is deriving its apparent authority from a nonexistent trust.
 *
Or the claims of ownership or authority arise from a party or trust that never entered into any transaction under which such a party or trust purchased the putative subject loan nor any transaction in which such a party or trust purchased the rights to enforce the debt, note, or deed of trust.
 *
Despite numerous attempts by the defendant to obtain compliance from the putative plaintiff, defendant has been unable to obtain any actual answers or verification of even the evasive answers.
 *
The verification submitted by counsel for the putative plaintiff is signed by an employee of Ocwen loan servicing. It states that Ocwen is the attorney-in-fact for the putative plaintiff. Despite numerous attempts by defendant, the attorneys for the putative plaintiff have been unable or unwilling to reference or provide an actual document in which Ocwen is appointed attorney in fact, much less the scope of authority of the so-called attorney in fact.
 *
The alleged “verification” does not state anything with respect to the truth or accuracy of the response to defendant’s request for production of documents, set one. Instead, it is signed by an individual who claims to be a senior loan analyst for Ocwen, and evades the language of verification. The document plainly states that the verification is based upon information and belief and not personal knowledge. It also fails to state that the response is coming from the records of the putative plaintiff.
*
The response to defendant’s special interrogatories, set one contains the same defects. The same is true to the response to defendants form interrogatories – general, set one.
NOTE: The reason for the absence of language indicating that the records of the Plaintiff were examined is that this would cause the signor to commit perjury, inasmuch as the trust does not exist and has no records, has no bank account, no assets, libailities and no business.
*
Based upon the apparent unwillingness of the alleged attorneys for the putative plaintiff to comply with the requirements for a response to discovery, defendant seeks an order from the court compelling appropriate responses to defendants discovery together with appropriate verification in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
 *
Defendant requires an actual answer from an actual party in order to prove the lack of standing and lack of authority to represent by the attorneys, the named plaintiff, the alleged trustee, the alleged servicer and the absence of any actual power of attorney or even access to records of the named plaintiff, if it even exists. Defendant can think of no better party to  give the asnwers than the Plaintiff if it exists, and no worse party than Ocwen or any other servicer whose compensation is rooted in foreclosure not administration of loans.
 *
The many trevails of Ocwen as set forth in published cases and news reports, the settlements admitting or indicating that they failed to perform basic accounting functions and misled homeowners into foreclosure forms of cloud of incredulity in which if Ocwen seeks to assert itself in some way it must proove its assertions without any legal presumptions which are normally used in lieu of facts that are widely known to be accurate and uncontested or admitted.
 *
Based upon 10 years of work as a forensic analyst and investigation into dozens of other cases in which these parties have asserted nonexistent rights to purported loans, defendant believes that the trust does not exist, that no transaction ever occurred in which the name of the trust was used to purchase the alleged subject loan, that US Bank has no authority as trustee or agent for anyone who does own the alleged subject loan, and that Ocwen possesses no right, title or interest in the subject loan nor any right of administration of the loan on behalf of of any party meeting the definition of an actual beneficiary under a deed of trust.
 *
The opposing group of parties are the only parties that have access to the actual evidence that would prove defendants defenses. There is no way to obtain such evidence without getting compliance from those parties.
Defendant hereby challenges the authority of opposing counsel in that it appears to be claiming to represent a plaintiff that does not exist.

 

 

David Dayen: How America’s Biggest Bank- JPMorgan Chase Paid its Fine for the 2008 Mortgage Crisis—With Phony Mortgages! Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.

1496335358115-wallstreet-1

JPMorgan is a criminal Racketeering Organization

 

by David Dayen, for The Nation:

“You know the old joke: How do you make a killing on Wall Street and never risk a loss? Easy—use other people’s money. Jamie Dimon and his underlings at JPMorgan Chase have perfected this dark art at America’s largest bank, which boasts a balance sheet one-eighth the size of the entire US economy.

After JPMorgan’s deceitful activities in the housing market helped trigger the 2008 financial crash that cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and life savings, punishment was in order. Among a vast array of misconduct, JPMorgan engaged in the routine use of “robo-signing,” which allowed bank employees to automatically sign hundreds, even thousands, of foreclosure documents per day without verifying their contents……….

To continue to The Nation click here: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/

The West Coast Radio Show with Attorney Charles Marshall: JPMorgan Chase & its Witnesses who know Nothing

To listen to archived show

Charles Marshall Logo_001

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall.

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult! https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

A Witness to What?  Fake documents, affidavits and depositions rule at JPMorgan Chase.

See: McCormick Deposition

See: Objection_to_Notice_of_Errata_Martin Deposition JPMC

Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California attorney Charles Marshall on the West Coast Foreclosure Show, and continues his ongoing analysis of the Washington Mutual/Chase ‘merger’ that appears to be little more than an elaborate ruse to keep homeowners and the courts from recognizing that the emperor has no clothes.

In April 2017, California Attorney Ronald Freshman of Newport Beach, California deposed Chase witness Rosemary Martin.  Ms. Martin inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.  Martin had been coached poorly and the plaintiff’s attorney, Ronald Freshman, annihilated her testimony.

Chase witnesses, or ‘persons most knowledgeable’ universally testify that they don’t know when the endorsements were/are placed on the notes, or by who, and that they are unaware of anyone up the corporate chain of command who could answer questions regarding the notes, assignments and investors.  Yet, this information is in the “DOCLINE” database and reports, as testified by Chase witness Rosemary Martin.  Martin said, “”AO1,” this was in 1-24 of ’07. That’s when Washington Mutual still had the file. So I don’t know what their codings are.”

Martin’s typical and pathetic responses included:

“I think I’ve done possibly one or two (referring to an affidavit).”

“I’m able to understand different screens and different documents that we use in regards to normal bank practices with loans.”

“When this specific document was entered into

our system, I do not.  I do know that I did see it in

our system.”

Eventually the witness surrendered that they had no knowledge of anything of importance.  The Chase litigation strategy is to play coy and hope the judge won’t catch on.  The Martin deposition reveals that the codes and names of the ‘investors’ do exist in Chase’s ‘LISA system’ database, despite JPMorgan Chase’s attempts to claim ignorance.

And that folks, that is how a poorly coached bank ‘witness’ is permitted to steal your home. The Martin deposition is 200 pages documenting a witness’s attempts to come off credible while failing spectacularly.  Meanwhile, the bank’s attorney objects constantly to prevent the admission that the witness can read a computer screen, but knows nothing of value regarding the loan.

Livinglies recently received a copy of an Errata motion filed by JPMorgan Chase.  The motion was a request to remove sections of former JPMorgan Chase in-house attorney, Michael McCormick’s deposition. Not because there was en error or ‘Scribner’s error, but because Chase attempted to use an Errata motion to censor information that was potentially harmful to them- not because it contained an error.

An Errata (“error”) motion is typically used to correct minor errors or omissions in a pleading such as the late submission of a missing exhibit or page from a declaration or motion, or a replacement page that is necessary by a glitch in photocopying.  By filing a Errata motion, Chase attempted to ‘get around’ opposing counsel’s ability to challenge the motion.  Fortunately the judge refused to grant the motion.   Chase use of an Errata motion was an underhanded strategy to remove potentially harmful information contained in its former attorney’s deposition.

It isn’t just low-level employees that are coached-up by Chase prior to a deposition, but also prior in-house attorneys too.

Former JPMorgan Chase in-house counsel Michael McCormick provided a deposition that confirmed that the “AO1” investor-designation refers only to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) ‘loans’, and yet, JPMorgan Chase has adamantly denied that this code refers exclusively to WaMu loans.

Despite working for JPMorgan Chase for five years (2011-2016), McCormick stated he knew nothing about the systems he was supposed to be trained to operate.  Despite this lack of knowledge, McCormick was the attorney submitting and approving affidavits and loan verifications, but knew nothing beyond what he read on a computer screen or was coached by Chase attorneys to parrot, “Chase is the investor, Chase is the investor…..awk…Bank owned. Bank owned.  Polly wants a real backer.”

Furthermore, JPMorgan Chase is in violation of the National Mortgage Settlement consent judgment that required Chase to stop it’s illegal practices including forging endorsements, manufacturing documents, filing fabricated documents in county recorders offices and providing false testimony.  Former FDIC team-member Eric Mains has encouraged homeowner who have been harmed by an unscrupulous loan servicer to file FOIAs with their state Attorney Generals offices in order to determine compliance with the consent judgments, and if that fails, to contact the ACLU.

McCormick’s deposition has been used in other cases investigator Bill Paatalo has been involved in, to document that ‘AO1’ is an investor code designating WaMu loans, and that Chase relies on speculation and imagination instead of facts, real documentation and hard evidence to convince the court they are valid creditors:

  1. As an example, attached as Exhibit 6 is a transcript of JPMorgan Chase’s witness taken from a deposition in “comparable case #2.” (Note: Per Bill Paatalo, this case involves two WMB loans with “Investor Codes ‘AO1’” that JPMC denied belonged to WMAAC.) The witness, Michael McCormick, a former in-house attorney for JPMC, testified that he had never seen the “original” note (P.114, L.13-16), that he had seen different images of the same note (P.115, L.20-24), that he had seen a copy of the 2005 WMB note without the endorsement in 2011 (P.117, L. 13-25 & P.118, L. 2-5), and that he had no knowledge of who placed the endorsement upon the note and when (P.119, L. 17-19, P.121, L. 8-12, & P.123, L. 18-24). However, when asked if there was a way to find out when the notes were endorsed within the servicing system(s), McCormick responded, “perhaps.” And when asked if he knew where to look to find that information, McCormick responded, “sure.” (P.123, L. 18-25 & P.124, L. 2-6).

-and-

  1. In hundreds of cases I have investigated involving WMB (WaMu) endorsed notes proffered by JPMC, or an assignee from JPMC, no witness has attested to, or has been willing to attest to anything specific regarding the endorsements and/or allonges; who endorsed the notes and when? Answers are much like that of McCormick; evasive, with no knowledge or recollection. With McCormick, he testified that he knew of no one at JPMC who could answer the questions as to the endorsements. Yet, he personally knew where to find these answers but deliberately chose to play coy.

JPMorgan Chase’s strategy is a plausible-deniability defense where there is no one (not even counsel) that can confirm nor deny the securitization process, the purchases, sales, transfers, assumptions- or anything else.  Therefore, Chase’s use of compartmentalization keeps everyone ignorant of the real truth.  In fact, by now, the only ‘evidence’ of ownership Chase can provide on acquisition of WaMu loans is the account number listed on a computer screen.

Attorney Stephen Wright in Connecticut did an exemplary job of digging deep and providing a plethora of evidence damning to Chase.

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall
Fax 866.575.7413

Bill Paatalo
Oregon Private Investigator –
BP Investigative Agency, LLC

BofA Coerces Homeowners Into Keeping Quiet About Their Victory

Most lawyers, most judges and most homeowners are under the mistaken impression that they cannot win a foreclosure battle. They don’t hear about all the homeowners who were successful. There are tens of thousands of them. Any news, like the $45 million verdict described in the article below, is squelched.

This time the Judge is not so interested in accepting the settlement that includes a news blackout. He thinks the world should know just how brutal BofA acted in flagrant disregard of law, procedure and basic decency.

Homeowners who won are silenced through coercion — in order to get the fruits of their victory they feel they must sign an agreement in which they will be restricted by total confidentiality (blackout) of any news or information about their case. Their attorneys understandably advise their client to sign the agreement because that is the safe thing to do for their client. The impact on millions of other people facing foreclosure is not taken into account.

The sqelching is achieved through coercion and domination by entities with limitless resources against a homeowner who has been drained dry by the financial, mental and emotional impact of defending their home against people and entities that use the foreclosure system as part of a larger fraudulent scheme.

So the rest of us go on thinking that we don’t have a chance and that the law favors the banks. Not true. The law favors perseverence.

,see https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/2017/10/04/bofa-judge-isn-t-warm-to-erasing-foreclosure-abuse-ruling

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

The additional reason for the confusion is that common sense dictates that when you accept a loan, you need to pay it back. There is no rebuttal to that simple proposition. And THAT is how the banks played a “gotcha” strategy.

They knew that the borrower didn’t understand the real deal because they withheld all of the information necessary to understanding the deal.

The banks knew that all judges would rebel at the idea that once you get a loan there is some scenario under which you don’t need to pay it back. That gives the homeowner a free house, or so the story goes. Like all magicians know, the essence of their craft is in misdirection.

The strategy of the banks started off with this premise: “What if you could separate the lender and the borrower so that neither one knew about the other?” The answer is that the intermediary parties could claim ownership and rights over the loan even though they had no such rights. The beauty of the idea is that by creating the fiction that the intermediary bank owned the loans, it could then sell the loan without ever having loaned any money.

In fact loans could be sold multiple times because the only place where any “information” (i.e., fraudulent representations) could be found was in the sole care, custody and control of the intermediary bank who assumed whatever role was necessary on paper to keep control.

One of the main vehicles was the illusion of the creation of a REMIC Trust. The basic trust document was a Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The Trust was never created — it was merely printed words on a page. No business activity of any kind was actually conducted with real money or value in an account belonging to the “Trust.” In truth virtually all of the “REMIC Trusts” were nothing mroe than ficitious names — i.e., BofA d/b/a XYZ Trust.

So in this example BofA has a PSA printed out and then claims the “Trust” is in operation when it knows that the trust never started. Then BofA causes certificates to be referenced on computer reports and then convinces investors that their money was used to buy the certificates. Those certificates are completely worthless artifacts from an inactive nonexisitenttrust that holds nothing “in trust.” The money is mostly used not to buy mortgages but to originate them through back channels that the borrower and closing agent know nothing about, leaving barely a hint of a clue.

The lender is unfortunately the investors, but they don’t know it. The borrower thinks he/she is borrowing money from the originator when in fact the loan is being funded from an enormous slush fund controleld by BofA. BofA is not the lender. The originator is not the lender and knows it. The lender is a group of investors nearly impossible to define because the slush fund, in order to avoid detection as a fraudulent scheme, contains the money from investors for multiple trust illusions. But the world thinks that BofA is operating legally.

The foreclosure is an important part of bank strategy. A foreclosure judgment and/or sale is the first legal document in the entire chain. Even though it was procured by fraud, the judgment stands unless vacated. The sale stands if not challenged. When a Judge puts his signature on anything resembling a final order or judgment, he/she is in actuality ratifying dozens of illegal acts that previously occurred. The judgment and /or sale starts with the legal presumption that everything that transpired previously was legal.

When these fake derivative products most fund managers did not take the time to “peek under the hood.” Those that did take the peek despite the representations of an insured investment of the highest quality found the truth — that if they put their money in the scheme it would disappear like quicksand. No deal, they said.

Borrowers were completely unaware that their name, private information and financial reputation were going to be used as commidities with the sole benefit going to banks like BofA. Borrowers were completely unaware that banks were manipulating housing prices far above housing values. Borrowers were completely unaware that there was a guaranteed crash in which BofA and similar banks would benefit in the largest economic crime in human history.

The real victims were the investors and the homeowners. Removal of the “intermediaries” would instantly provide an opportunity for investors and borrowers to work out loans without foreclosure.

BOA Continues to Defraud REMIC Investors, Homeowners and the Courts

People forget to ask the question “why?” Why would a mega-bank lose or claim 20 times to have lost documents relating to modification — a workout that is or was standard practice for the industry? Common sense tells us the bank would be better off with a mortgage loan that is performing than one which is foreclosed — and later abandoned under the instructions of the “bank.”

And if the banks were supposedly acting on behalf of real trusts with real beneficiaries, then the same would be true for them. So the only logical conclusion is that the bank doesn’t care about the loan; it cares about something else involving far more money than the alleged loan.

And it doesn’t care about the performance of the loan except that the bank would rather see all the loans go into foreclosure regardless of whether or not the alleged loan is declared to be in default.

Common sense tells us to look to future consequences  whereas the game being played by the banks is meant to obscure the fact that all the money they ever wanted to make has already been collected; they merely want to keep it regardless of whether or not that money was procured by outright fraud.

The answer is that the bank has already made its money and doesn’t want to lose it. THAT is the central theme. It is not about principal and interest and it never was starting with the origination and refinancing of tens of millions of alleged loans.

The bank retains far more money by misleading homeowners into foreclosure than they would make if the loans were all modified. That is because the bank made a whole lot of money even on small loans by “trading” in securities — a practice that obscures the fact that the bank was selling the same loans multiple times.

By keeping settlements and veridcts for the borrowers secret and minimizing the number of bank failures in court, the bank is able to cover up the story of how it stole money from investors, defrauded investors, and then stepped into the shoes of “beneficiaries” or “holders of certificates” using a non-existent trust which amounts to nothing more than a ficitious name under which the investment bank was operating.

There is sleight of hand at work here. People look at the individual case of one home in foreclosure when they should be looking at the entire class of homeowners in foreclosure who would have welcomed the opportunity to modify their homes.

By holding out that hope and making carefully worded statements over the phone (and never in writing) millions of homeowners have been herded like cattle over the edge of a cliff in which their financial death meant a windfall for the banks (that had already been collected) could be retained because some judge put their stamp of approval on the entire series of fraudulent actions without realizing it.

It’s the complexity or apparent complexity that leaves lawyers guessing or even assuming that the loan recited in the note, endorsement, mortgage or assignment was real. Lawyers don’t like cases where they perceive themselves as using thin technicalities to get a windfall for their client and perhaps themselves. This is a civil rights issue and lawyers would see it and know it if they did the research and analysis.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-comeuppance-for-bank-of-america_us_597d2675e4b0c69ef70528c5

%d bloggers like this: