Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale

My confidence has never been higher that the handling of money after a foreclosure sale will reveal the fraudulent nature of most “foreclosures” initiated not on behalf of the owner of the debt but in spite of the the owner(s) of the debt.

It has long been obvious to me that the money trail is separated from the paper trail practically “at birth” (origination). It is an obvious fact that the owner of the debt is always someone different than the party seeking foreclosure, the alleged servicer of the debt, the alleged trust, and the alleged trustee for a nonexistent trust. When you peek beneath the hood of this scam, you can see it for yourself.

Real case in point: BONY appears as purported trustee of a purported trust. Who did that? The lawyers, not BONY. The foreclosure is allowed and the foreclosure sale takes place. The winning “bid” for the property is $230k.

Here is where it gets real interesting. The check is sent to BONY who supposedly is acting on behalf of the trust, right. Wrong. BONY is acting on behalf of Chase and Bayview loan servicing. How do we know? Because physical possession of the check made payable to BONY was forwarded to Chase, Bayview or both of them. How do we know that? Because Chase and Bayview both endorsed the check made out to BONY depositing the check for credit in a bank account probably at Chase in the name of Bayview.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

OK so we have the check made out to BONY and TWO endorsements — one by Chase and one by Bayview supposedly — and then an account number that might be a Chase account and might be a Bayview account — or, it might be some other account altogether. So the question who actually received the $230k in an account controlled by them and then, what did they do with it. I suspect that even after the check was deposited “somewhere” that money was forwarded to still other entities or even people.

The bid was $230k and the check was made payable to BONY. But the fact that it wasn’t deposited into any BONY account much less a BONY trust account corroborates what I have been saying for 12 years — that there is no bank account for the trust and the trust does not exist. If the trust existed the handling of the money would look very different OR the participants would be going to jail.

And that means NOW you have evidence that this is the case since BONY obviously refused to do anything with the check, financially, and instead just forwarded it to either Chase or Bayview or perhaps both, using copies and processing through Check 21.

What does this mean? It means that the use of the BONY name was a sham, since the trust didn’t exist, no trust account existed, no assets had ever been entrusted to BONY as trustee and when they received the check they forwarded it to the parties who were pulling the strings even if they too were neither servicers nor owners of the debt.

Even if the trust did exist and there really was a trust officer and there really was a bank account in the name of the trust, BONY failed to treat it as a trust asset.

So either BONY was directly committing breach of fiduciary duty and theft against the alleged trust and the alleged trust beneficiaries OR BONY was complying with the terms of their contract with Chase to rent the BONY name to facilitate the illusion of a trust and to have their name used in foreclosures (as long as they were protected by indemnification by Chase who would pay for any sanctions or judgments against BONY if the case went sideways for them).

That means the foreclosure judgment and sale should be vacated. A nonexistent party cannot receive a remedy, judicially or non-judicially. The assertions made on behalf of the named foreclosing party (the trust represented by BONY “As trustee”) were patently false — unless these entities come up with more fabricated paperwork showing a last minute transfer “from the trust” to Chase, Bayview or both.

The foreclosure is ripe for attack.

What the Media is Missing About the “Securitization” of “Mortgage” Loans

The Banks called it “The Hustle”. So why is anyone thinking it was anything other than a hustle?

Judges need to reconsider their positions. They need to make the choice between their false perception of a “free house” and a “get of jail free card.”

The plain facts are that those so-called REMIC Trusts do not and never have existed as operating entities. They exist on paper and have no legal significance because they never were in operation. It is not just that the paperwork was fabricated, back-dated and forged. It’s that the presumed transactions never happened. That is why Adam Levitin refers to it as “securitization Fail.”

Schedule A Consult Now!

=================================

Coming soon —- automated direct access to our calendar where you schedule your own consults.

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

Pennymac and CW

http://fortune.com/2012/10/02/countrywide-its-baaack/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/business/an-unfinished-chapter-at-countrywide.html?_r=0

“High Speed Swim Lane,”<<< another term for “The Hustle” which was run by Rebecca Mairone .

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-30/bank-of-america-s-countrywide-ordered-to-pay-1-3-billion

Even investigative journalists are missing the obvious. Either they lack the knowledge to report correctly on the subject or they have been instructed to stay away from Wall Street corruption. The plain facts are that those so-called REMIC Trusts do not and never have existed as operating entities. They exist on paper and have no legal significance because they never were in operation. An empty trust has no legal significance.

It is not just that the paperwork was fabricated, back-dated and forged. It’s that the presumed transactions never happened. That is why Adam Levitin refers to it as “Securitization Fail.” And that is the whole reason for fabrication, forgery, backdating and robo-signing of documents. If the transactions were real, nobody would have needed to go to DOCx, LPS (now “Black Knight”) et al to create the documents that created the illusion of reality.

The questions that have NOT been asked include but certainly are not limited to the following:

1. How could the Big Banks be carrying bad loans on their balance sheet? AND the corollary question is how they could be the seller of those loans. The answer is that they cast themselves  as the seller of loans so they could book “trading profits” on loans where they were not the lender. In doing so they were asserting positions that were diametrically opposed to the positions taken in foreclosure actions — that the “lender” was whoever is on the note and mortgage. So on one hand the TBTF banks are asserting they made the loans, they own the loans and they were losing money as a result of non-payment by the borrowers and the other hand they are having their puppet players assert that they are the lenders who originated or acquired the loan. Which is it? ANSWER: NEITHER! The banks used the money of all investors from a commingled fund undifferentiated by any of the Trust acronyms, and then claimed whatever was convenient. And nobody is talking about this crime. The investors are the ONLY parties with an equitable claim for payment but are not protected by either the false note or false mortgage — both of which were converted to the apparent ownership of dozens of players who participated in this scheme. In the meanwhile the Banks and servicers are eating away at any semblance of recovery for the investors by asserting improper claims for fees, costs and advances.

If you sit down with pencil and paper you can understand that by hiding a 10% APR loan in a 5% APR portfolio they were able to “sell” the loan to the “trust” — on paper without any consideration — and book a false “trading profit” equal to the amount of the loan. Do the Math. The media is either ignoring the truth or don’t understand it.
Those trusts were never active, never got any money from the sale of their “mortgage backed securities”, never had a bank account and never had a financial statement, which on the reporting trusts would have been filed with the SEC. Instead they filed rule 15 forms saying they had nothing further to report.
They are hiding behind the cloak of another part of that rule that says reporting can stop when the number of investors falls below 300. But these trusts never had more than 300 investors at inception or any other time. They only filed on some of the trusts to give the appearance of propriety when in fact the BANKS were taking the entire proceeds of the sale of the mortgage backed securities issued BY THE TRUSTS and pocketing it. Then they used only as much of the Investor money as was necessary to give the appearance of a loan pool that was originated or acquired by the trust when no such transaction ever occurred. In short the were treating the offering of MBS issued by the Trust as though it was offering of the Bank. The “Trust’ was merely a 100% controlled entity of the Bank existing only on paper and not at law.

2. The same logic applies to the sale of the mortgage backed securities. The banks were not buying them, they were selling them. So the entire “loss” myth is merely a continuation of the fraud the Banks perpetrated on the investors and then the borrowers — violating the law and creating the illusion of a lender who was really not the lender.

That is important because it violates the federal law against the practice of table-funded loans. But more importantly, a party who does not loan money to a borrower has no right to be on the note and mortgage. And parties who make claims based upon the note and mortgage are really pursing their own interests and thus perpetrating a fraud upon the court, contrary to the interests of the investors whose money was procured by trick and deceit.

Lately some court have started allowing discovery to pursue this “theory” of the defense. The Banks are screaming. Enforcement of those discovery orders would reveal the true nature of the largest economic crime in human history. And the assumption expressed by many judges in open court that these are things that can be worked out by the parties later is belied by the fact that the Banks are continuing to steal what is left of the investments.

That “assumption” by the court is legislating from the bench and in direct conflict with Federal and State law regarding lending and property.

That assumption by the courts has opened a door to moral hazard that is wreaking havoc already on the West Coast and undoubtedly will soon be seen on the East Coast — total strangers discovering apparent debts owned by consumers in all sorts of loans, sending the “borrower” notices and then pressing for collection or even foreclosure. That is exactly what was revealed in the San Francisco, Osceola and dozens of other studies. Judges need to reconsider their positions. They need to make the choice between their false perception of a “free house” and a “get of jail free card.”

%d bloggers like this: