“Participants” in False Claims of Securitization

What do you think the average homeowner would have said if he was told “Look, the actual lender is someone else but we want you to name us as the lender.”

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

see http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/beware-the-lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-operating-as-a-secret-agent/

Bill Paatalo has uncovered another layer of onion skin revealing the emptiness of the claims of participants who say they were involved in either the lending of money to homeowners or involved in the transfer of the obligation to repay the alleged loan. As he points out, some refer to “participants” who are ill-defined and essentially unknown quantities. There are many such entities lurking behind the curtain. The one thing they have in common is that they are all making pornographic amounts of money that ultimately comes out of the pockets of investors who were deceived into buying, hedging or insuring bogus and worthless MBS.

The essential fact is that those mortgage backed securities are (a) not backed by anything (b) issued by an empty SPV (Trust) entity existing only on paper (c) completely unrelated to any actual transaction and (d) completely unrelated to the documentation that was fabricated and executed at the “loan” closing.

GASLIGHT: None of the “participants” are who they appear or claim. What is emerging is that in addition to playing musical chairs with actual entities, the banks have created musical terms to the multiple players who are in constant motion switching roles on paper. Several judges have either mused from the bench or confided their discomfort as to why the servicers keep changing and the ownership goes through so many iterations.

The good news is that this is leading to inconsistencies between their correspondence with the borrower, their pleading in court and their proof — often with last minute Powers of Attorney. It appears that all of them are sham conduits for the the ultimate sham entities — the underwriter (“Master Servicer”) of MBS issued by the empty trust and the Seller of those securities. Revealing those inconsistencies often leads to victory (successful defense) in court. And it often can lead to large cash awards for damages arising from violations of FDCPA, FCCPA, RESPA and common law doctrines like wrongful foreclosure — with aggravating circumstances permitting the award of punitive damages.

The reason for all of this chicanery is simple: the party who gave the homeowner money didn’t even know it was their money on the “closing” table. But the moral and legal view on this is that he who gave the money is owed the money in return (unless it is a gift). This is true regardless of what documents are drafted or even executed by homeowners whose signature was obtained by fraud in the inducement.

What do you think the average homeowner would have said if he was told “Look the actual lender is someone else but we want you to name us as the lender.” THAT is a cause of action for common law rescission and cancellation of the instrument — once the homeowner finds out that he made the “check” out to the wrong person. Since the designated “lender” gave no money of its own and assumed no risk of loss the homeowner cannot be required to give “back” what he or she never received from the fake lender.

Adam Levitin might be right in calling it “Securitization Fail” because the securitization never happened; but it assumes that the intent was to have securitization succeed. This is not the case. The entire business model of the banks, as confirmed by industry insiders, was to take the money out of the securitization chain that had been created on paper.  Actual securitization of debt in residential “transactions” was never intended to happen. It was always supposed to be an illusion to cover criminal and civil theft.

PRACTICE HINT: Assume none of the transactions that are represented, assumed or presumed ever happened. Aim your discovery, motions, trial objections and cross examination at that and you will have the best shot at hitting the bulls-eye. That is exactly how Patrick Giunta and I won our cases.

Feds allow high-profile case against Bank of America to quietly fizzle out

The Department of Justice had until Monday to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its 2012 ‘Hustle’ lawsuit against Charlotte-based Bank of America. The DOJ let the deadline pass.

The Department of Justice had until Monday to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its 2012 ‘Hustle’ lawsuit against Charlotte-based Bank of America. The DOJ let the deadline pass.

 The U.S. government let a high-profile mortgage case against Bank of America quietly fizzle out this week.

Ally $52 Million settlement for “Deficient Securitization”

All of these adjectives describing securitization add up to one thing: the claims were false. For the most part none of the securitizations ever happened.

And that means that the REMIC trusts never purchased the debt, note or mortgage.

And THAT means the “servicer” claiming the right to administer a loan on behalf of the trust is false.

And THAT arguably means the business records of the servicer are not business records of the creditor.

And THAT my friends means what I have been saying for 10 years: virtually none of the foreclosures were legal, moral or justified. The real transaction was never revealed and never documented. The “closing” documents were fake, void and fraudulent. And THAT is grounds for cancellation of the note and mortgage.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

see http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/compliance-regulation/ally-to-pay-52m-to-settle-subprime-rmbs-investigation-1091364-1.html

It is hard to imagine any scenario under which Government cannot know what I have been saying for years — that the claims of securitization are false and the documents for the loans were fraudulent. Government has decided to ignore the facts thus transforming a nation of laws into a nation of men.

In plain English the decision was made to let the chips fall on borrowers, who were victims of the double blind fraud, despite clear and irrefutable evidence that the banks malevolent behavior caused the 2008 meltdown. The choice was made: based upon information from the birthplace of securitization fraud, Government decided that it was better to artificially prop up the securities markets and TBTF banks than to preserve the purchasing power and household wealth of the ordinary man and woman. The economy — driven by consumer spending (70% of GDP) — had the rug pulled out from under it. And THAT is why the effects of rescission are still with us 8 years after the great meltdown.

The fact that there are 7,000 community banks, credit unions and savings banks using the exact same electronic payments platform as the TBTF banks was washed aside by the enormous influence exerted by a dozen banks who controlled Washington, DC, the state legislatures, and the executive branch in most of the states.

The American voter came to understand that they had been screwed by their representatives in Government. They voted for Sanders, they voted for Trump and they voted for anyone who was for busting up government. But they still face daunting challenges as they continue to crash into a rigged system that favors a handful of merciless bankers who have bought their way into the Federal and State Capitals.

Chipping away at the monolithic Government Financial complex individual homeowners are winning case after case in court without notice by the media. It isn’t noticed because in most instances the cases are settled, even after judgment, with a seal of confidentiality. Most people don’t fight it at all. They sweep up and leave the keys on the counter believing they have committed some wrong and now they must pay the price. THAT is because they have not received the necessary information to realize that they can and should fight back.

Happy Thanksgiving from LivingLies

Happy Thanksgiving 2017

Wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving 2016

Homeowners denied mortgage reduction program accuse Bank of America of fraud

Homeowners denied mortgage reduction program accuse Bank of America of fraud

by Jade Isaacs, St Petersblog

Twenty homeowners are suing Bank of America for fraud after the bank denied them a program that would lower mortgage payments.

Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was designed to help homeowners affected by the market crash in 2008. The program would reduce monthly mortgage payments to 31 percent of the borrower’s pretax monthly income.

Eligibility for the program is based on five factors:

— You struggle to make mortgage payments due to financial hardship

— You are delinquent or in danger of missing payments

— Your mortgage was set before 2009

— Your property isn’t condemned

— You owe less than $729,750 on the property

Mortgage companies across the nation took part in the HAMP program.

In April 2009, HAMP was adopted by Bank of America. In exchange, the government provided the bank with hundreds of millions of dollars, says the suit.

Bank of America never trained its employees on the proper procedure for handling HAMP applications. The company contracted Urban Lending Solutions to help sort through the thousands of HAMP applications received.

According to multiple sworn declarations from past Bank of America and Urban Lending employees, a fraudulent scheme was enacted by the institution.

Employees were instructed to delay HAMP applications by telling customers they were still under review even if they were not. The company then began a procedure they called a “blitz.” Blitz’s occurred nearly twice a month. During a blitz, employees would deny all files over 60 days old. These “old” files were caused by employees not submitting them promptly and had nothing to do with borrowers slacking on turning in forms. Forms that were filed correctly went through Urban Lending. Underwriters looking over cases wouldn’t know to check Urban Lending’s database to find the forms and would presume that the application wasn’t ever completed.

One declaration said employees had quotas to meet for placing homes into foreclosure. They could be terminated if they did not meet the quota. Incentives, like gift cards and bonuses, were given to those who met the quota.

Many homeowners who did not receive the modification lost their homes to foreclosure.

A plaintiff in the suit, Rafael Paz, lost his home after his HAMP application was denied. Paz attempted to file the application and subsequent documents to the bank four times. Each time, he would be told the documents were either not received or were incomplete.

On one occasion, Paz was informed by a Bank of America employee that to be approved, he should default on his payments. He did as he was told, and later the employee verbally informed Paz that he was approved to begin making trial payments. Paz was never actually approved, and the trial payments he made went to other fees the bank claimed he had to pay.

By 2012, Bank of America foreclosed on his home. Each of the 19 other plaintiffs have similar stories.

In its March 2011 HAMP Performance Report, Bank of America had a conversion rate of about 30 percent. A conversion rate it the percentage of borrowers who converted from Trial Payment Period modifications to permanent modifications. Other lenders, like Wachovia Mortgage, had an 89 percent conversion rate.

In a 2013 class action against Bank of America, the Massachusetts District Court deemed it should be up to individuals to sue the institution.

Repackaging and Re-Remic: Who’s on First?

They were “aggregating” paper not debts or loans. And the courts are presuming that where there is paper there must be a transaction somewhere in there even if there isn’t.

Starting around 2007, the empty trusts were said to have been repackaged into new special purpose vehicles which also turned out to be mostly trusts. It’s the same game as creating multiple assignments to give the illusion that an original transaction took place, from which all future instruments derive their value. But if the “originator” did not actually loan any money to the alleged “borrower” none of the instruments have any value or utility. They are void.


No amount of assignments can create the asset and no amount of repackaging will bring the trusts alive.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
Deutsch Bank is bracing for a huge fine for selling bullcrap to managers of investments funds who were induced to purchase fraudulent mortgage backed securities. It was fraudulent because the securities they bought were issued by a trust whose only claim to existence was on paper. The trust was and remains empty.
The banks knew that they were selling a holographic image of an empty paper bag — which accounts for the fraud charge. But on the ground millions of homeowners were being forced out of their homes based upon assumptions arising from the same fraudulent paper and nonexistent transactions.
Banks compensated for the lack of anything real by pretending there was a reality and then producing evidence that dozens of entities participated in the chain of “ownership” of the “loans” when in fact the paper was as worthless as the securities issued by the empty trusts. Somehow, this double-blind fraud worked. The Banks got the money from investors and are settling for pennies on the dollar there while at the same time they are getting judgments that seal the doom of homeowners based upon fraudulent representations of who funded the loans and who bought them.
They cover it with assignments, endorsements, powers of attorney and servicing agreements etc. All of those documents require, as the premise for their validity, that the fraudulent trust entered into a transaction (not just an agreement) to purchase a pool of loans that includes the mortgage upon which they claim to be foreclosing.
Now that the sham nature of the trusts has been revealed for all to see, Banks like Deutsch are covering those up with more paper just like they covered up the sham loans with more paper. What is scaring government so much is that a huge edifice of nearly 1 quadrillion ($1,000,000,000,000,000) dollars has been built upon this fraudulent foundation. It is without precedent. Everyone knows that mot of the shadow banking market is stated in “nominal” dollars but nobody knows how much is real and what will happen if it collapses.
So to “save civilization” the Banks get away with relatively minor fines, no criminal prosecution anywhere, and the homeowners lose their homes in false foreclosures. The price of this policy is that around $18 Trillion in household wealth was sucked out of our economy thus slowing the purchase of goods and services — skewing our GDP to the point where they are measuring transferring paper on Wall Street as being nearly half of GDP. Economists seem to think that this makes up for the fact that fewer people with less money and less credit can buy real goods and real services.
The repackaging of old REMIC Trusts that only existed on paper is just the same s–t in new wrapping. It still is not worth anything because none of the parties under existing law could ever be called creditors or lenders. They were “aggregating” paper not debts or loans. And the courts are presuming that where there is paper there must be a transaction somewhere in there even if there isn’t.

Title Insurers Wary About Nonjudicial Foreclosures

As expected, the title insurers are now walking back their prior wave of title policies where the property is (a) faulty at inception and (b) acquired by illegal use of nonjudicial process. The problem is simple: if the methods or means of foreclosure was illegal, States like Hawaii say the sale is void and title is restored to the homeowner.

“Investors” who buy property at foreclosure auctions are making claims arising out of their attempts to resell property acquired at auction. The title is either clouded or nonexistent leaving them to claim compensation from the title insurer who issued the title policy.

It all started when according to very high placed sources I have in the title insurance business, the decision was made that both the original title policy and the policy issued at foreclosure auction was probably bad. They attempted to include exceptions to coverage, essentially saying that the policy did not cover fraud.

The title companies were in a double bind, not unlike the double blind fraud on MBS investors and home buyers. If they refused to issue title policies then their business would dry up and the banks would go start their own title companies. But if the claims started coming in and it was determined title insurers had to pay, they would all go bankrupt.

see http://homeequitytheft.blogspot.com/2016/11/controversy-over-non-judicial.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHomeEquityTheftReporter+%28The+Home+Equity+Theft+Reporter%29

%d bloggers like this: