CA Lawyer Charles Marshall Return to Talk About Rescission Tonight on Neil Garfield Show 6PM EDT

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 24,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.

California Attorney Charles Marshall Returns for Talk on Rescission and Foreclosure

Charles Marshall returns tonight to delve deeper into the non-judicial cancellation of loans (TILA Rescission). We are getting reports of seminars across the country devoting a large part of their presentation to rescission. The Banks know they are in trouble — rescission levels the playing field and will force the disclosure of the identity of the true creditors. The answer is likely to be they are unknown because investor money was (a) never delivered to the trusts that issued the certificates that investors thought they bought and (b) investors money was never segregated into separate accounts, never subject to the control of the trustee or its trustee, and was all mixed together from thousands of trusts. There is most likely no way to determine whose money was used to fund any loan.

Rescission could clear the path to solutions for homeowners and Federal, State and Local governments deprived of revenue by entities that existed only on paper to obscure the real transactions and avoid taxes, fees and costs.

Musical Chairs: The music is slowing down — HSBC Goes Down in Flames in Florida

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

This is not a legal opinion on any case. Get a lawyer.


see Parent Company Cannot Pretend the Subsidiary Doesn’t Exist

The devil is in the details. The article in the above link is by Brendan Sweeney. His point is that the existence of corporate entities may not be ignored. You would think that any large bank with a huge legal department would understand that, and you would be right. But they have a strategy that is working. Their strategy is to pick an entity that has no connection with the loan transaction, either in origination or in acquisition. This ensures that the records of that entity cannot be used to blow up the failed securitization scheme. And then by using a Robo witness from an entity that is referred to as a servicer, they can be sure that the witness knows nothing about the origination or acquisition of the paperwork and certainly knows nothing about the money trail.

Over the last 10 years the courts have disregarded or overruled the objections and defenses of borrowers that rely on the application of existing law. One of those things has been that the names on the documents don’t match up with the names used in the foreclosure. Most judges, believing that this is an inconsequential error, and also believing that a bank like HSBC would not be attempting to foreclose unless they actually had the right to do so, thus rule against the homeowner who is gratuitously described as “The borrower.” Of course just referring to the homeowner as a borrower prejudges the entire case.

Now the courts are starting to take a closer look at these transactions which appear to be facially valid on paper, but nonetheless do not exist. Simple application of black letter law is all that is needed for a borrower to win in foreclosure, if the judge is willing to apply the law in a proper fashion. In this case the party chosen to be the foreclosing party was HSBC Bank. But the paperwork whole pointed to a subsidiary of HSBC Bank.

The homeowner argued that the subsidiary was not the same as the parent and that therefore the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdictional standing. HSBC argued that they owned all of the subsidiary and that it was the same thing, knowing full well that there was no legal support for their position. If you form a corporation it creates what is known as a corporate veil. In fact had HSBC Bank been successful in this case it would have provided the groundwork for Discovery and claims against parent companies and affiliated companies — something that none of the securitization players would allow or want.

Court in this case simply decided that simple law should be directly applied. So it wasn’t up to HSBC Bank to initiate a foreclosure action, Based upon the paperwork in the court record, then it should’ve been done in the name of the party to whom the paperwork was assigned or endorsed — and not in the name of any other entity, even if the other entity was the parent company.

The Court stated that Florida law is clear in that “[a] parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are separate and distinct legal entities. . . . As a separate legal entity, a parent corporation . . . cannot exercise the rights of its subsidiary.” Wright v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bus., Inc., 872 So. 2d 333, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Despite this, HSBC Bank put forward two documents to establish standing: (1) an Assignment and Assumption Agreement from HSBC Mortgage to HSBC Bank; and (2) a Secretary’s Certificate (dated after the commencement of the action) from HSBC Mortgage indicating that HSBC Bank is the sole shareholder of HSBC Mortgage. The Court concluded that neither document could be utilized to demonstrate that HSBC Bank had standing.

Illinois Indictment for Recording Back-Dated Instrument: The Key to Future Indictments?

It is always the cover-up that gets people in trouble for what they did. It’s time for DOJ and law enforcement across the country to pursue crimes being committed hundreds of times per day in our court system and recording offices and in correspondence between a false servicer and a clueless homeowner who thinks they are bound by an illegal defective loan contract. recording false instruments is a crime.



For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

This article is no substitute for a legal opinion from an attorney licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. Get a lawyer.



CHICAGO—A former clerk for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds accepted a $200 cash bribe in exchange for preparing and agreeing to record a back-dated deed on an Oak Park home, according to a federal indictment announced today.

The indictment was returned Thursday in U.S. District Court in Chicago. It charges Taylor, 59, of Chicago, with one count of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud. Taylor will be arraigned before U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis on Sept. 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.

According to the indictment, Taylor offered and agreed to prepare a false quit claim deed that added the purported relative to the deed of the Oak Park property, which was allegedly owned by three deceased individuals. Taylor told the undercover agent that she usually charges $500 to prepare and record the fraudulent documents, but that in this instance she was willing to charge only $200, the indictment states.

This indictment opens up the area of inquiry that homeowners have been raising for years. In many, if not most cases, the assignment of mortgage has been back-dated. That is the equivalent of “uttering a false instrument.” It is a criminal act carrying pretty strong penalties under state law. The ancillary charge is even worse for the perpetrator: using the US Postal Service as part of an illegal scheme (mail fraud) or using the banking system to commit a crime (wire fraud).

There might be many false instruments recorded and there may be more than one recording clerk that allows it and even assists in the process. The judges in foreclosure actions don’t seem to be interested. But it looks like the FBI may have different ideas and perhaps the local prosecutor’s office might also want to look at this. Certainly, considering the scale of the problem (millions of false instruments recorded including assignment and even satisfaction of mortgage), the DOJ and the state Attorney General SHOULD be looking at these crimes as they are having widespread negative effect on the community at large.

Filing a report with law enforcement is the first step. Making sure you have all the paperwork in order so that law enforcement is not required to get documents that you could have otherwise given to them. If the charge is brought there is an argument to say that there is an intervening criminal act involved and that the act of foreclosure is in equity; courts generally do not grant equitable relief to a party with unclean hands — one of the many reasons we have seen the game of musical chairs with Trustees and servicers.

But the real issue is getting convictions. This will inhibit anyone from executing an instrument they know nothing about (robo-signor) at the instruction of people who know the instrument is wrong, back-dated or otherwise false. A good prosecutor will get several indictments and several convictions from each event. In my opinion this criminal behavior is ongoing, not barred by any statute of limitations and if prosecuted, would do more to stabilize the economy than many other policies.

The inquiry could go on to include “modification” where the false “servicer” reports that the investor rejected the modification; in nearly all cases, no presentation of the modification is ever made to the investors. Representing to the Court that the modification was rejected by the investor is perjury, suborning perjury or simply fraudulent misrepresentation to the court by the attorney.

My reason for saying “false servicer” is that in virtually all cases, the “servicer” has no legal authority to act and knows it. The trustee for the alleged REMIC Trust has no authority to act and knows it. The Master Servicer (Investment Bank) sits in the background calling the shots. But none of these entities actually have any relationship to a particular loan — if, as seems to be universally true, there )a) was no consummated loan contract or (b) the “loan” never made it into the REMIC Trust.

Unless the servicer, Trustee or other “representative” has some OTHER valid contract allowing them to service or enforce the alleged “loan documents” they have nothing. If the loan wasn’t purchased by the Trust, the trust doesn’t own it. And the Trust does not own it in most cases. The assignment is false, not supported by consideration (a false claim frequently found in assignments), and is void, if it was not purchased and certainly void if performed after the cutoff date. In virtually all cases the REMIC Trust exists only on paper — never in the real world of the marketplace. A trust without a business, assets, liabilities, income and expenses is no trust at all — it lacks the “res.” That is Trust talk for lack of consideration.

So you can see that in ALL cases, the truth of the document lies in the money trail. AND THAT is what should be relentlessly pursued in discovery and on appeal.

The Real Problem in the Wall Street Crisis

see Anh N. Tran, et al. v. Bank of New York COMMENTARY Mortgage Securitization and Lender’s Ability to Foreclose_SRCH

A fairly well written and well-reasoned article. But absent from the article is the fact that homeowners are not just asserting some technicality. If the Trust actually paid real money for a legally binding loan contract with an enforceable promissory note and enforceable mortgage then it would seem to be the kind of internal affair that some courts have tried to fashion by reading the word “voidable” into a statute that clearly says “void.”

But if there was no transaction and the Trust stands to lose nothing by losing a case in which it had no standing, ab initio, then you would find the same courts — that are looking for a way out of the void transaction — instead accepting the idea that the whole thing was a sham transaction. Yes, the cutoff date is important, but more important, especially in a court of equity, is whether the Trust can prove it paid consideration for the alleged “loan” transaction. It is ONLY THEN that one argue the “free house” myth that the banks have been advancing against the homeowners. The truth is the reverse; if the Trust never paid for the contract, then why should it get the house?

The real problem is that nearly everyone is still drinking Wall Street Kool-Aid. Wells Fargo and the remaining mega banks have successfully convinced almost all the people that there was a lender in these transactions who consented to put their money into a guaranteed losing proposition. Worse, Wells Fargo and the other mega banks have convinced almost everyone that somehow the bank lost money on defaulting loans and the bank lost money on “defective” mortgage backed securities. The banks were not funding or buying mortgages or mortgage backed certificates; they were SELLING them.

As long as the current myth is perpetuated, we will never drill down to the real solutions. We will continue to process and handle solutions to nonexistent problems. Wall Street traders are laughing all the way to their employer banks. They have actually succeeded in making enormous “profits” based upon intentionally induced losses incurred by the use of Other People’s Money. It is the ultimate con game.

These transactions cannot be explained as loans. They can only be explained by theft and dumping some of the proceeds on disadvantaged people, waiting patiently for the rolll-back. The banks made money coming and going while the rest of the world went into a tailspin, deprived of cash liquidity that was siphoned not only out of our economy, but every economy.

Think of it this way: if the “loan” transactions were real, why did the banks need to resort to fabrication, forgery, perjury, robo-signing and robo witnesses? Even defective loan documents can be cured through a variety of legal procedures. Why did the banks need to resort to illegal means?— unless the transactions they were claiming to exist were in fact absent?

Homeowners didn’t receive loans; they received the proceeds of an illegal scheme, and then were prevented from being in communication with the pension funds whose money was stolen. The banks created a vacuum and then stepped in to fill the void with false representations to the U.S. government, to the public, to the investors and to the homeowners. There is no creditor or debtor in these transactions — only victims.

The real solution must include as a core principle that the current group of “servicers” and “trustees” have no standing to service anything nor any right to represent the investors. That right could only have come from a Pooling and Servicing Agreement, which doubles as the Trust instrument for REMIC Trusts that never entered into any transaction in which the Trust acquired or originated a loan. If the transaction with the homeowner did not result in a loan contract that was acquired by the Trust then it follows that the Trust lacks any legal standing to assert any rights.

If such a transaction did not occur then there is no loan, there is no loan in the trust, there is no servicer, and there is no trustee.  Without a disclosed lender there is no loan contract. If the Trust owns nothing, the Trustee of the REMIC Trust has no authority or rights to the so-called loan. And it follows logically that a “substitution of trustee” on a deed of trust cannot be valid because it was authorized by persons who neither owned the loan nor had any rights to represent the victims who are called investors. None of the successors qualify as beneficiaries under a deed of trust except by self-proclamation. And the same logic holds true for successors who try to cast themselves as mortgagees through the use of fabricated illegal documents.

The real solution should be cast as restitution bringing the pension funds and the homeowners together under a new infrastructure that excludes any of the mega banks or their current army of “servicers.” We should not be looking for creditors. We need only find the victims and the perpetrators.

City of Oakland Sues Wells Fargo for Discriminatory/Predatory Lending


My first suggestion was in 2007 that governmental units sue the big banks for what they were doing to their constituents and government budgets. Nobody was interested. They were all listening to Greenspan and Paulson saying that this was nothing and that it was contained. How do you warn people about the tidal wave when they have turned their back to it?

Had the lawsuits began then, the number of foreclosures would have dropped sharply as the predatory practices and fraudulent practices were revealed — the servicers and trustees would have been revealed as emperors without clothes, and governmental agencies would have taken over the process of cleanup instead of allowing the “servicers” and “trustees” to walk off with the money and the property.

But I now renew my OTHER question: Why would anyone spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting loans that were guaranteed to fail? And the corollary question: Why would anyone spend hundreds of millions of dollars (remember DiTech and Quicken and the Lending Tree?) promoting loans that carried an interest rate of 2.5%???? At that rate, there is a guaranteed loss from inflation even if the borrower pays!!!

The answer is obvious but few people have really drilled down on this stuff and fewer still have done anything about it.

The answer is that no sane person would want those loans much less promote them through surrogate “originators”.

So the next question is if nobody would do that, how did it get done?

And the answer to that is also obvious,  and we all know about it now — other people’s money (OPM). The big banks were making a fortune buying and selling mortgages they didn’t own with mortgage bonds they didn’t own that were sold as guaranteed, insured, high-rated mortgage backed securities, when they were neither securities nor backed by mortgages.

AND THAT is the beginning of why eminent domain is completely appropriate to seize the loans, share the benefit with investors and kick the servicers and trustees out of the picture. Since the Trusts have zero assets anyway, the Trustee and servicer are legally empowered to do NOTHING. None of them have standing to challenge eminent domain.

Pope Francis on Consumerism

In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love in the cradle of American Liberty, Pope Francis addressed our obsession with consumerism. 70% of our economy is driven by consumer purchases. Most of those purchases require the consumer to acquire more debt. I don’t think there is any other way to interpret that except to say that the consumer cannot afford those purchases. Most of the consumers consist of workers whose wages have been stagnant and whose expenses continue to rise.

By replacing wages with offers of money that are irreconcilably tied to the acquisition of debt by the consumer, we have transformed our society from a nation of savers to a nation of borrowers. The servicing of that debt by the consumer is a hidden expense that reduces the actual wages of the worker. Looking at all of the additional expenses that people are now required to pay for cell phones, Internet service and debt service, it is not difficult to perceive the increasing demand for more debt.

In plain language we have replaced wages with debt. And that places the wage earner between a rock and hard place. It is virtually impossible for the average wage earner to scale down when he or she cannot pay for their household expenses without acquiring more debt. Consumers have been fooled into purchasing items that appear to be discounted in order to fuel another impulse purchase. When debt service is factored into the purchase, the item immediately loses its discount, and instead, the item comes with a hidden surcharge.

But I think that Pope Francis was raising a more basic issue. Anyone who has seen the video from Black Friday or any of the other days in which in the illusion of discounts draws thousands of people to stores, must come to the same conclusion as the one drawn by Pope Francis. We are part of the civilization that is obsessed with purchasing things, whether we need them or not. Not only are we looking away from a life with meaning, but we are doing so while we are digging our own graves.

It is a popular notion to blame consumers for getting in over their head. That means that they cannot service the debt load of their household. And there can be no doubt that consumers have become obsessed with the acquisition of things while utilizing the various debt products that have come to litter our marketplace. The Pope addressed the issue of those who are the purveyors of debt and who see the general population as a nonhuman mass of resources whose existence is only justified by the ability to transfer what little they have to the Titans of industry and finance.

The imbalance between those who have too little to survive and those who have too much is often justified by the Darwinian concept of the the survival of the fittest. It is interesting to note that many of the people who promote this concept argue vociferously that Darwin was wrong and that evolution is a failed theory. I suppose that is just one of many instances that demonstrate the paradox of being human.

40 years ago, when we started pulling the plug on public education and students failed to learn history, much less the lessons of history, we set the stage for our present condition. Pope Francis obviously has been a very good student of history. He gave good spiritual reasons and some good worldly reasons to turn away from our worship of money and the acquisition of things. But he obviously was not in a position to suggest the outcome of allowing our present condition to determine our future.

What he did not say, and I don’t fault him for this, is that if we continue to permit the present imbalance of wealth and income to exist and even allow the inequality to grow, there is not one instance in all of human history where that pattern has not resulted in massive changes to government and society, frequently accompanied by unimaginable violence. But to paraphrase Pope Francis, we are on a very long and heavy train traveling above the speed where the train can be controlled; and so Pope Francis is right that without all of us getting involved in this process, the brakes won’t work, and we will be watching the train wreck on a television we should not have purchased in the first place.

Farce Behind the Force: JPM and WAMU

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

This article is not a substitute for getting the advice I’m an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.



The banks are counting on the fact that the claims of securitization are so complex and convoluted that nobody will be able to state a claim with clarity. Foreclosure defense lawyers across the country are seeing constant fabrications, forgeries, uttering false instruments (assignments, Powers of Attorney), and perjury. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of J.P. Morgan Chase claiming rights in connection with it’s acquisition of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual (WAMU).

At this point J.P. Morgan Chase has taken so many different positions that are inconsistent with each other that you can find a brief or pleading from J.P. Morgan Chase to support virtually any position that you want to take.

You really need to drill down into these articles and decisions in order to see the fundamental error and illegality of the reporting by the major banks and their actions seeking to enforce defective mortgages despite blatant irregularities at closing and nonexistent transactions where JP Morgan Chase, like other banks, claims to have acquired a particular loan or that a nonexistent or nonperforming trust somehow acquired a loan.

If you look at this article in the link above you will see that JP Morgan Chase has taken multiple inconsistent positions on exactly the same issues. Despite clear language to the contrary, they wish to escape liability for the defective and predatory loan practices directed at unsuspecting homeowners and borrowers; and despite clear language to the contrary, they wish to assert ownership over loans that were already sold into the secondary market and then subjected to claims of securitization that in most cases were false claims.

Josh Rosner wrote an article asking whether the false claims of securitization and violations of the prospectus and PSA would make might dwarf the “Lehman weekend.” The answer is yes. From my perspective it appears that most of the money that went through the banks that were too big to fail, was it illegally and fraudulently collected and then hidden offshore. Many trillions of dollars have been advanced to these Banks that are too big to regulate.

TARP was initially created to prevent massive Bank closings related to losses on mortgage loans. But that didn’t work out because the losses on mortgage loans were not sustained by the mega banks. So they expanded the definition to include mortgage-backed securities. But those losses were not sustained by the mega banks either. So they expanded the definition to include virtually anything in an excuse to pump money into the same banks that had caused the crisis; very few critics were allowed to speak. The critics knew that pumping money into banks that were falsely reporting losses what is going to cause an even greater negative impact on the economy. The economy is driven mostly by consumer spending. This was not rocket science. Countries like Iceland simply reduced household debt and threw the bankers in jail. The result was a robust economic recovery. The cost of reducing the household that would simply accomplished by forcing the banks to absorb the loss that they themselves had created.

The problem we have in our country is that the banks have purchased the government. And those politicians who have not been purchased, Have been scared to death with the prospect a complete failure of government, society and economies. The entire premise of such a crash is completely wrong. While the immediate impact of such a policy inevitably leads to volatility in the securities markets, those movements even out as the outcome becomes clear. More than 7000 Banks and credit unions currently use the exact same backbone four electronic funds transfer and payments; all the banks use the same technology and all of them have access to that technology right now. The fall of the mega banks would simply result in a correction in the marketplace where certain banks have become too large to regulate at had become far too influential with people who call the levers of power in all three branches of government.

The other part of the problem is that we seem to hold those with his enormous wealth in high estimation without regard to their actual character. Most of the people in the mega banks are completely contemptuous of the citizens of our country and the politicians that we have elected. In my opinion, it is urgent that we begin to separate normal commercial depository functions of a bank from the risks taken by investment banking departments. And when those risks turn to wrongful, illegal or criminal behavior the individuals, not just their companies, should be held strictly accountable.

Taking down the mega banks is much simpler than it might appear. The extent of our continuing economic problems is equal to the liability of these banks for damages and to repurchase both loans and alleged mortgage-backed securities that were neither securities nor were they backed by mortgages. If the securities and bank regulators actually performed the due diligence and audits that they were supposed to perform, It would be obvious that the mega banks do not have the assets that they claim to have, and that’s the mega banks have liabilities that are far in excess of what they have reported. In short, the mega banks are insolvent which is exactly why we have the FDIC. An orderly transition of the function of the mega banks to smaller banks that are more susceptible to regulation would end our current crisis and ensure a recovery of our economy.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,090 other followers

%d bloggers like this: