Caliber and LSF9 Trust Example of Smoke and Mirrors

The lesson is keep your eye on the ball. The natural human reaction to an affidavit is to assume it is true. We assume that it would not be submitted if the lawyers knew it wasn’t true. And in most cases people don’t lie in affidavits. But they do mislead sometimes by leaving out context. And then there are affidavits and declarations fabricated, executed, filed and even recorded in  foreclosure cases which are mostly lies and virtually all misleading.

To reveal this you must take your time in reviewing the documents and affidavits submitted. They were created so that at a glance everything would seem in order. On closer reading you can see that they don’t actually say anything of value and therefore should not be considered facially valid documents conveying or certifying anything.

==============================
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 or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have 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 or 954-451-1230. The TERA 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.
==========================

Bill Paatalo wrote the following in September 2018:

In 100% of the cases I’ve investigated regarding “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust,” the servicer (most often “Caliber”) provides the exact same type of affidavit. This is all they ever produce, and here, the court says it doesn’t cut it.

“Moreover, Mr. Cantu is not an employee of Plaintiff or Wells Fargo and therefore can not attest to what is in the possession of the Plaintiff or Wells Fargo. As noted above, the copy of the Note and allonge does not contain any endorsement or date which would support that the Plaintiff had possession when the action was commenced. The affidavits of Caliber’s Default Service Officer did not give any factual details of a physical delivery and, thus, failed to establish that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time the action was commenced, and as such Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment. (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Burke, 125 AD3d 765, 766 [2d Dept 2015]; US Bank N.A. v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575, 577 [2014]; Bank of NY Mellon v Gales, 116 AD3d 723 [2014]). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is denied, and it is further”

So what foreclosure mill lawyers are doing is filing affidavits and declarations. That part of it is true. They are filed and sometimes recorded.

But what is in those affidavits and declarations is not supported by anything on the face of the instrument, or what is attached to it, nor even by reference within the instrument to a fact or document in the public domain. So it is wholly useless without resort to extrinsic evidence (testimony and exhibits), which means that it cannot be considered a facially valid document.

Putting this into practice is actually not hard. You simply need to break down the wording so that each phrase or statement is analyzed for the truth of the matter asserted.

The LSF9 Master Participation Trust is but one example. It is named but not described. So where normal custom and practice would dictate that it be named and described, the foreclosure mill lawyers are convincing judges to treat it as though it was described.

When the homeowner is described it is usually with a name, and place of residence or as title owner of certain property. When a Trust is described it is named without a place of residence and with no direct statement that it owns anything. In other civil pleadings, if the LSF9 Master Participation Trust was real, it would say that it was a common law (or statutory) trust organized and existing under the laws of the state of XXXXX with its principal place of business at YYYYYYYY in the City of ZZZZZ.

If you do a thorough search of all cases, you will not find a single instance in which a trust is named as Defendant except certain cases where the homeowners are suing the apparent trust under the misapprehension that it is an existing legal entity. On the finance side nobody refers to the trust much less sues it. There are a few cases in which banks claiming to be Trustees of a claimed REMIC Trust sued someone for delivering improperly underwritten loans, but no case in which the allegation is made that the Trust actually purchased those loans. All those cases settle long before trial.

Back to LSF9:

The lawyers submitted an affidavit that was probably forged. But assuming it wasn’t, the affidavit said nothing that could be accepted as evidence of anything because the knowledge of the alleged affiant, the employment of the alleged affiant and the authority of the alleged affiant were nonexistent.

But it gives the appearance of having facial validity even if there is none. It has a named affiant, a statement  and a notarized signature.

As the court found in New York, the affiant failed to state the basis for his knowledge which could NOT be implied from the affidavit since it did not recite that he was an employee of the Trust, the Bank or any other presumed party in interest.

Consider the following hypothetical extreme example which translates the affidavit:

My name is John Smith. I am an independent contractor for Caliber. I was hired to sign this affidavit. I have no knowledge of anything contained in this affidavit. I was not present in any capacity when any of the events or documents recited in this affidavit occurred or were created. I have never been an employee of any entity whose records are described in this affidavit nor did I have any role or knowledge of the events or the documents or records referred to herein. However I am familiar with the name Wells Fargo and I can see the name “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” on the affidavit prepared for me to sign.

Such affidavits are common place ONLY in one place, to wit: in the courtroom where a foreclosure is pending. And in all cases, except foreclosures, such affidavits are instantly rejected.

Why Fabrications? Why Forgeries?

In an increasing number of foreclosure cases, homeowners are going head to head with the lawyers who file claims on behalf of entities on the basis of fabricated and/or forged instruments that in many cases were also recorded in county records. Lawyers like Dan Khwaja in Illinois are getting clearer and clearer about it. They hire experts who understand exactly how the notes are mechanically created and the endorsements are not real signatures.

The key question is why would the notes have been fabricated and forged when there actually was a closing and a note was actually signed? We’re talking about the financial industry whose reputation depends upon safeguarding all signed documents. If they didn’t safeguard the documents and instead destroyed them or “lost” them, why was that allowed to happen?

==============================
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 or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have 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 or 954-451-1230. The TERA 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.
==========================

So we have a case in Illinois where lawyers filed a judicial foreclosure on behalf of Bank of New York/Mellon (BONY) as trustee (i.e. representative of) “holders” of certificates. The lawyers attach a copy of a note and indorsements. Khwaja hired an expert who found quite definitively that the note and the endorsements were all fabricated (forged). Khwaja has filed a motion for summary judgment.

Here is my analysis:

*
The lawyers who filed the claim have a serious problem. If they cannot convince the judge that they have no need to respond they are dead in the water. They must either pay someone to commit perjury or seek to amend with an actual original note. In view of prior studies that show that most (or at least half) of all notes were “lost or destroyed” immediately following the “closing” combined with your expert on hand, coming up with the original note is not an option.
*
And that brings us to the question of “why?” If there really was a closing at which the borrower signed documents, why do they need fabricated documents? To me, the answer is simple. In order to sell the same loan multiple times they needed to convert from actual to imaged documents. The actual one had to disappear. And the handful of megabanks who had a virtual monopoly on tens of millions of mortgage transactions made it “custom and practice” to use images rather than actual documents. [This practice has spilled over to property sale contracts where neither party gets an original].
*
And we have the additional issue which is presented by the foreclosure complaint. It says that BONY appears on behalf of the holders of certificates. The simple question is “so what?”
*
Being holders of certificates means nothing. It leaves out any assertion that the holders of the certificates are owners of the certificates, or anything that might identify those “holders”. So the proceeds of foreclosure could then go to whoever was chosen by the parties actually pulling the strings.
*
They are asking the court to fill in the blanks. They want the court to draw an inference without ever stating the fact to be inferred, to wit: the holders of the certificates are owners of the certificates who are therefore owners of the debt, note and mortgage. There simply is no such allegation nor any exhibit indicating that is true. The reason is that it is not true.
*
So who is really the Plaintiff? Supposedly not BONY who is appearing in a representative capacity.
*
If “sanctions” were applied against the “Plaintiff” BONY would claim it is not the actual party and that the unidentified “holders” of certificates are the proper party or perhaps an implied trust.
*
So then is it the certificate holders, represented by BONY? But they don’t have any right, title or interest to the subject debt, note or mortgage. The prospectus and certificate indentures make that abundantly clear in most cases.
*
Examining what happens after a foreclosure is “successful” provides clues. Neither BONY nor any certificate holder ever receives the actual money from the proceeds of the purported sale of the property.
*
So who does?
*
As the one party with actual control over the loan receivable, the investment bank that created the “securitization” scheme is the only party that comes close to being an actual creditor. But here is their problem: that loan receivable has been sold multiple times. This not only leaves them with no claim to the debt, but a surplus of funds over and above the amount due on what was the loan receivable. It’s basic accounting and bookkeeping. And if that were not true the banks would not be doing it.
*
So in the real world it is the investment bank that gets the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. But they do it as the “Master Servicer” of an implied (and nonexistent) trust. The money simply disappears.
*
In order to get away with selling the debt multiple times they had to make each sale a non recourse sale. And they did that. So the buyers of the debt, note and mortgage had no actual legal title to the debt, note and mortgage and no recourse to the borrower to collect on the unpaid debt.
*
THAT leaves NOBODY as owner of a debt that has probably been extinguished and reveals the paper issued to buyers/investors as essentially the issuance of cash equivalent instruments (also known as currency). And THAT is the reason the banks, after  two decades of this nonsense, have yet to come to court and simply say “here is proof of our funding of the origination or purchase of the debt, note and mortgage.”
*
If they did, they would be admitting to lying in millions of foreclosure cases over at least a 15 year period of time. Their scheme effectively concentrated the risk of loss on investors and borrowers while literally retaining all the benefits of supposed loan transactions for the sole benefit of the intermediaries, who then leveraged loans multiple times.
*
This translates as follows: the money taken from investors is an unsecured liability of the investment bank. To be sure that has a value — but not a value derived from loans to homeowners. THAT value was taken by the investment bank who cashed in on it already.
*
Note: For certain second tier investment bankers there were transition periods in which they were at actual risk. Examples include Lehman and Bear Stearns. But the top tier was able to sell forward on the certificates and never commit a single dime of their own money into the securitization scheme even in transition. But by pointing to Lehman and Bear Stearns they were able to convince policy makers that they were in the same position. This produced the “bailout” which was essentially the payment of even more money for losses that did not exist.
*
In an odd twist of irony, Wells Fargo was the only party (2009) that admitted to no loss but was forced to take bailout money so that other “less fortunate” parties would not be singled out as weak institutions.
*
In truth the AIG bailout and similar bailouts were merely payments of extra profits to Goldman Sachs and some other players, leaving investors and borrowers stranded with nearly worthless investments and collapsed markets for both homes, whose prices had been inflated by over 100% over value, and a nonexistent market for the bogus certificates that the Fed chose to revive by its purchasing program of “mortgage bonds” that were neither bonds nor backed by mortgages.
*
Despite the complexity of all this, on a certain level most people understand that the banks caused the misery of the meltdown and profited from it.  They also understand that it is still happening. The failure of government to deal appropriately with the existential threat posed by the megabanks clearly played into and perhaps caused the social unrest around the world in the form of “populist” movements. And until governments deal with this issue head-on, people will be looking for political candidates who show that they are willing to take a wrecking ball to the banks and anyone who is protecting them.
*
In the meanwhile, an increasing number of homeowners (again) are walking away from homes in the mistaken belief that they have an unpaid debt to the party named as the claimant against them.

Tonight! Facial Invalidity! Russell Baldwin, Esq. Rejoins the Discussion 6pm EST

SubTopic: What Happens if MBS Are Not Backed by Mortgages? How does that play out in foreclosure litigation?

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Co-Hosted by Neil Garfield and Charles Marshall, Esq. 

with Bill Paatalo, PI

And Special Guest Russell Baldwin

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

Russ Baldwin has some special insights into a continually developing area of foreclosure defense — what if the presumptions are being applied when the document is not facially valid. When the document requires extrinsic evidence to identify parties or their authority and the extrinsic evidence is neither attached nor identified, is the document facially valid?

I say no it isn’t. If you wrote out what appeared to be a check for a sum of money made payable to a party who could only be identified by reference to a power of attorney or trust agreement, the parties would not be defined or identified until you were provided with the power of attorney or trust agreement under circumstances where the agreement or power of attorney was still in force. This sounds more like a private contract than a negotiable instrument. And yes the contract can be proved up by introducing the extrinsic (parole) evidence but no, the instrument itself would not be governed by the laws and rules governing negotiable instruments under Article 3 of the UCC.

If I am correct, then the instrument is not facially valid although the terms could still be proven. But the burden of proving the agreement, consideration, offer and acceptance would be on the party seeking enforcement. They would not get any presumptions applied. They would be required to produce proof of the owner of the debt, the owner of the instrument and the owner of the mortgage. Remember that mortgages and deeds of trust are never negotiable instruments. And also remember that there is no such thing as an owner of the mortgage who does not own the debt. That is under Article 9, UCC.

Russell Baldwin is a practicing licensed attorney in Lincoln City, Oregon. He has his own insights as to foreclosure litigation and we welcome fresh points of view. In 2011 he got the largest jury verdict of nearly $3.4 million and an award of $450,000 in attorney fees. He has wide experience in civil litigation and in City government, having been the interim City Attorney. He was admitted to practice law 30 years ago. Email baldwin_atty@embarqmail.com

Facial Validity vs Enforceability

It is universally accepted that a mortgage or deed of trust may not enforced except by the owner of the actual debt. The debt exists regardless of whether it is in writing or not. While a promissory note might be enforced by a party who does not own the debt (Article 3 UCC), forfeiture of a homestead requires that the mortgage be enforced by the actual debt owner (Article 9 UCC), or someone who can prove the identity of the debt owner and delegation of authority from the debt owner to the party enforcing the mortgage or deed of trust. 
A facially invalid document is neither void nor unenforceable, but it does require more proof to enforce than a facially valid document.
 
If you received the money or payments were made on your behalf, you owe the money simply because of the act of receiving or benefiting from a money transfer. 
 
The debt is normally “merged” (see Case Analysis) into the promissory note if the Payee on the note and the owner of the debt are the same person or entity. If the Payee and Debt Owner are not the same entity the debt still exists even if there is no written instrument that reflects the transaction between the person or entity who advanced their own funds and the person(s) usually designated as “borrowers.” 
 
But the terms of payback can only be determined by reference to extrinsic evidence because the operative note does not name the Debt Owner nor does it show on its face any specific reference of authority on the face of the note to represent the Debt Owner. If essential terms or provisions can only be ascertained through external evidence (“Parole Evidence”) then the instrument is not facially valid. 
 
For these reasons and others, we believe the Case Analysis will reveal that both the note and the recorded encumbrance are not facially valid. The fact that an instrument is not facially valid does not mean it cannot be enforced. It simply means that no factual or legal presumptions can be applied to the instruments. In turn, that means that if someone wants to enforce the note or mortgage or deed of trust, they must allege and prove the origination of the debt by proving the elements of a monetary transaction, the identity of the Debt Owner and explicit authority of the party enforcing the debt, together with the authenticity and validity of the note and instrument of encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust). 
 
For strategic recommendations as to how to use this information, please Order the Case Analysis which looks at BOTH recorded documentation (which is the subject  of the TERA) and court documents, correspondence, statements, notices etc. that were not recorded in county records.  
==============================
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 or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have 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 or 954-451-1230. The TERA 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.
==========================
 

About Legal Research And Fact Analysis

The following article is not a legal opinion upon which you can rely. Hire a lawyer at least as a consultant before acting on anything contained herein.

When people retain us to perform analysis, what we are doing is applying our knowledge of facts regarding the current context of foreclosures, foreclosure defenses and claims based upon wrongful foreclosures. Each case must be carefully analyzed to see which of the many potential weaknesses in the foreclosure process are present. Then we  give consideration to which of those might traction in court (i.e., be persuasive to a judge).

Most lay people are familiar with the application of logic in persuading a judge or anyone else for that matter. To complete the process of persuasion you must  convince the judge to accept your proposition as being supported by case law and statutes, if applicable. Logic and common sense are inplay, of course, but judges are charged with responsibility of following previous appellate decisions in their district unless there is something in the present case that is different from the previous decision.

If you have cases supporting your proposition from other jurisdictions, the judge is not bound to follow them, but they still can be persuasive. If those decisions conflict with appellate decisions in your jurisdiction they will have very little persuasive effect.

So if you have previous cases in your jurisdiction that closely resemble the fact pattern presented then the judge might be bound to follow those decisions even if he or she doesn’t particularly agree with the result.

This is where the presentation of facts in an orderly and persuasive manner makes all the difference and is frankly why people come to us to have those narratives drafted. The narrative must logically suggest the outcome you desire — i.e., your proposition. A simple reading should immediately suggest that you are right and your opposition is wrong. If it doesn’t, then all the legal research in the world is not going to help you.

But without the legal research providing the judge with grounds to rule in your favor, you still don’t win. Too many decisions are based upon vague arguments of law that have no real foundation. That is how the banks have chased so many people out of their homes getting “defaults” on non existing claims.

So what I do, after we have done the title analysis and case analysis which includes the first real draft of the defense narrative, is I distill 2-3 main points that I want to support. I then summarize them like a case note as if they were law. And then I hire a research group like National Legal Research Group to find support in cases and/or statutes that support that proposition and which have not been overruled or overturned.

That provides the basis for a persuasive memorandum of law. In jurisdictions where there is no hearing on the pending motion the memorandum of law is the last time you get a chance to convince the judge of anything. In jurisdictions where there is a hearing in which the judge hears oral argument, the attorney or pro se litigant must be able to persuasively argue the defense narrative and show ways in which the opposition is wrong. And all that must be done quickly.

Persuasive argument does not include snide remarks or “but Judge you don’t understand.” If the Judge doesn’t understand your proposition of fact and law you have lost. Oral persuasion of judges is an entire topic that fills hundreds of books because it is an art that improves with each telling.

While sometimes people retain us to draft the proposition of law and fact that they already know they want to pursue so that the field of research is narrowed down to something very specific, most come to us with what turns out to be mini-projects. Our procedures are currently evolving and we are about to go to the next level of IT in automation, case management, document assembly and client portals enabling us to provide both custom and generic forms quickly and efficiently for the lowest cost possible.

But for now, here is how we work for lawyers and for pro se litigants:

1. Submit registration form filled out as completely as you can. No cost, no obligation and totally private. Information is not used for any purpose other than my speaking with or corresponding with you —  If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM.
2. Purchase our TERA report or submit the equivalent.
3. Purchase our PDR and schedule the consult that is included.
4. THEN we can discuss whether I can be a fact witness, an expert witness, a legal consultant or some combination of those. Note that designating me as an expert witness has its pluses and minuses. As an expert my opinion becomes part of evidence which is good for you usually. But the truth is that most judges put little stock in the opinion of expert witness opinions. Using me as a fact witness makes it far easier to get information into evidence (affidavit or direct testimony) and have it be persuasive to the judge. As a legal consultant my 42 years of trial experience and successes in litigating foreclosures for homeowners put me in a good position to advise on strategy and tactics. (BUT of course there are no guarantees on outcome).
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not if you order PDR)
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR BASIC or more probably the PDR PLUS, or PDR PREMIUM where time is of the essence)
Note we like to use the analogy of a doctor’s office. Nobody expects a doctor to  give a diagnosis or treatment plan without examination and testing. For some reason people seem to think that a lawyer should be able to give answers on their case without doing the examination or testing or analysis. If you want something more than general information you need to provide us with the real information and hire us to work on it.
Or you can go to www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Message to People Who Are Calling and Emailing Us With Requests for Referrals to Attorneys

Yes you should have an attorney, but you also need a plan of action upon which you and the attorney can agree and which makes sense to you and the lawyer. We try to connect people with lawyers but we cannot vouch for them or the outcome in your case no matter how many cases have been “won” by the lawyer.

Each case is different. I agree there is a commonality of facts and law that applies to many foreclosures such that the Federal, State and local governments should have taken action against illegal foreclosures in a meaningful way and not with a minor fine. But it didn’t happen and you are not going to make it happen in your one case. But you can use the knowledge you obtain directly or through vendors to spot the weaknesses in the opposition and emerge victorious or at least satisfied only after a long battle. How you utilize the knowledge of the weaknesses in your opposition’s claims and then create an effective strategy that wins in court is why you need a lawyer.

The way you get an attorney to accept your case is to be able to present the essential facts in a manner that can be quickly skimmed and absorbed by the lawyer. Railing against the evil empire is a waste of time.

There are many ways of accomplishing this. But one way to have a lawyer turn you down is to dump a bunch of documents and emails on the lawyer and expect him or her (without payment) to carefully review and analyze your documents. That’s like the tax client who comes in with a banker’s box of random receipts and statements and expects their taxes to be done for $35. It’s not happening. Someone must do the work of organizing your information and suggesting what can be done with it.

Forensic loan analyses are helpful in this regard. I’m working on our own reports to make them more relevant and useful for lawyers. No report is going to stop a foreclosure no matter what it says inside of the report. There is no magic bullet. There is only persuasion through a process of educating a judge who previously knew nothing about your case. Nothing is automatically true and thus a legal conclusion unless a statute says that the thing is to be regarded as true. The rest is persuasion on why it is right that the homeowner should win and the party named as claimant against the homeowner should lose.

You also should set specific goals; for this you might need assistance or you might not. If you don’t need assistance it is because you have already formulated a reasonable goal based upon facts, knowledge and experience in dealing with the many layers of foreclosure litigation, negotiation, modification etc.

Some people come to me looking for help because the lawyer sent them a proposed modification that the homeowner doesn’t like. First, if an offer is made the lawyer is duty bound to inform you about it regardless of how stupid or insulting it might seem. Second, people get mad when the lawyer sends them an unsatisfactory modification when what they wanted was a “win” in litigation. THAT is because the goals were not shared or clear or both between client and lawyer AND because the lawyer is obligated to inform you about relevant communications regarding settlement.

Third, the most common mistake is in not realizing that to your opposition the case is not about your loan. They don’t care. Their goal is clear: to preserve as much of the gains and trading profits as possible and protect the illusion of status and value of “certificates” digitally issued and sold to investors and trading counterparts. You winning your case is no threat to them, unless it is won with findings of fact (declared by the judge or jury) that expose the raw underbelly of the false securitization scheme.

Lawyers are hired because they remove you from the necessity of fighting directly with your opponent. They also serve to provide you with much better judgment than you have yourself about the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence and the essential elements of substantive law. Like a physician, their judgment is better than yours because they are right more of the time than you would be right on your own. But being right isn’t the same thing as being persuasive.

I do what I do here and on Radio because I am trying to get as much information as possible out to the public at large. We do what we do on lendinglies.com because sophisticated litigants understand that if they are going accomplish anything, they need to get their proverbial house in order, pardon the pun.

We will continue to refer matters to attorneys who we are told by third parties are knowledgeable and active in doing foreclosure defense. But it isn’t easy because many lawyers soured on foreclosure defense. One of the reasons is unreasonable expectations of the client and an unwillingness of the client to actually pay for organizing the case for the war that will follow.

So we’ll keep trying to hook you up with lawyers but you need to do your part as well if you want a call back.

Here is one step you could do as part of your request: fill out our form and then you have at least a partial summary of your case. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It’s free and it’s private. Once submitted it is sent back to you. No obligation.

If you put your request for a lawyer somewhere on the form we can assess where you are and the likelihood that some lawyer will accept the case (spoiler alert — the answer is no if your sale is tomorrow morning and your goal is to stop it, although filing a bankruptcy might temporarily stop it under certain circumstances).

 

 

Tonight! Rogue REMIC Trusts as Illegal Fencing Operations

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Charles Marshall, Esq. and Bill Paatalo, PI

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

In the spotlight: US Bank LSF9 Master Participation Trust

The term “robo-signing” was coined about 6 months after I had concluded that the documents being used in foreclosure were fabricated and executed by people who knew nothing about them or even rubber stamped with signatures probably unknown to the party whose signature was copied for the rubber stamp.

It was a simple process. When I asked for documents for cases that were in litigation or foreclosure, I got a response. When I asked for documents for cases that were not in litigation or foreclosure I received nothing. Crickets. My conclusion was that the documents didn’t exist for loans that were current and thus were created after the decision was made to send the file to a foreclosure mill. When the Rice study came to my attention in 2008 showing that at least 40% of all notes were intentionally destroyed or “lost” immediately after execution, that was the nail in the coffin.

So now I have identified the fact that most so-called trusts do not really exist, nor are they meant to. And so someone who did the same analysis I did has coined the term “Rogue REMIC,” as I have already discussed in a prior article.

The Rogue REMIC is defined by the use of a name that implies the existence of both a trust and that assets including a loan in foreclosure are part of the property of the trust. In fact the trust does not exist and nobody owns the subject loan as part of any trust arrangement. This has created an opportunity for banks, servicers and especially lsawyers to misdirect the court, the borrower, the borrower’s lawyer and anyone else involved with the filing of an illegal, unauthorized and/or wrongful foreclosure.

Bill Paatalo has another worthy Blog Post about how certain rogue REMIC trusts are akin to fencing operations. I would add that money laundering is part of the scheme as well.

Today, we revisit the US Bank LSF9 Master Participation Trust, purportedly located and operating out of and receiving mail in Florida, but in fact set up, to the extent it is organized in a legally and meaningfully manner, in the Virgin Islands. The only reason I can detect and which my sources can tell me is that there is an intent to avoid prying eyes.

Bill will discuss this and related cases, and we will delve into the implications of this situation for pleading practice, impacting both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure cases.

%d bloggers like this: