Category: originator

The irrefutable logic at the foundation of all successful foreclosure defense narratives

February 2, 2023

The mortgage lien is designed to protect against financial loss — not to promote financial gain. If Wall Street wants to protect the financial gains it created from its crazy scheme using weapons of mass financial destruction, then the least it should do is share a little of that with homeowners, consumers, the government, and investors. * I continually get the same question, mostly because neither the homeowner nor the “investigators” understand anything about being a licensed, educated, experienced investment banker, lawyer, or accountant. If they were any of those, they would not ask the question. * The latest question

How Could This Not Be a Loan?

December 3, 2021

if the investment bank paid the homeowner as an incentive payment rather than as a loan, then there is no debt any more than salary or wages can later be called a loan. The fact that the consumer/homeowner thought or even wished it were otherwise makes no diffeerence. If I pay you money and you think it is a loan but I paid you for services you rendered, the substance of the transction is “fee for services” — not a loan — and there is no legal or ethical or moral obligation to pay it back. I think the one

Here is How Wall Street Smoke and Mirrors Works

December 1, 2021

The idea that some company bearing the label of “servicer” is performing financial functions and accounting on behalf of an investor, a trust, a trustee is completely false from end to end. Such companies do nothing and were never intended to do anything except act as a buffer, in name only, to prevent liability attaching to investment banks who had entered the lending marketplace without any intent to enter the business of lending money for profit. But when the homeowner admits that such labels and narratives are true, the law of the case becomes the false narrative and labels. As

The fallacy of construing negative decisions as bad decisions for homeowners

November 29, 2021

It’s not the job of courts to save litigants from their own admissions. Here is a simple rule: if you admit the existence of the loan account receivable and you admit the rights of the servicer and the currently named claimant, you have no viable basis to challenge standing or enforceability. “Yes, but” doesn’t count in court. Here is the other rule: if you challenge the existence of the loan account receivable and deny the rights of the servicer and the currently named claimant consistently, starting with the first notices and correspondence that you receive after the apparent “closing” the

DO WE REALLY WANT TO LOSE CREDITORS IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS?

December 15, 2020

ALL EXISTING LAW AGREES WITH MY MAIN POINT: There is no basis for claiming you are a creditor unless you own the debt or represent someone who owns the debt. Since 2000 and maybe before that we have abandoned real creditors and steadily transformed administration, collection, and enforcement of alleged debts to include virtual creditors who neither own the debt nor receive the proceeds of collection. And there is no basis for claiming you are a servicer if you (a) maintain no custodial accounts and (b) you are not paying the money you collect to a creditor. I HAVE WON

How and Why to Litigate Foreclosure and Eviction Defenses

December 2, 2020

[contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Message” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form] Wall Street Transactions with Homeowners Are Not Loans * I think the biggest problem for people understanding the strategies that I have set forth on this blog is that they don’t understand the underlying principles. It simply is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a “loan” and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an

Why Antitrust Legislation Should be Applied Against the mega banks

October 9, 2020

Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it I believe there is a very strong case for applying antitrust legislation against the big winners in the securitization game because they could and did apply multiple incentives to borrowers to accept loan products that were clearly losers from a business perspective. This blocked competitors who wanted to make real loans with real lenders and raised the risk of loss to consumers without any disclosure to the consumer, to government regulators or anyone else. All of

Just like I said: Megabanks are doing just fine despite economic downturn — at the expense of investors, taxpayers and homeowners.

July 21, 2020

Major banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley used massive trading revenues to beat profit expectations despite the continued struggles of the United States economy during the coronavirus pandemic. Those trading units tend to perform best when markets are volatile, helping to guard the major banks against economic struggles. see https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/17/without-big-wall-street-trading-arms-regional-banks-lean-on-mortgages-and-fees-to-beat-earnings.html Way back in 2006 and 2007 and when I first started publishing articles about the mortgage meltdown (before most people realized there was a meltdown) I reported that the major banks were siphoning off much of the wealth contained inside the U.S. I said that these mega banks were parking ill-gotten gains off-shore in various

Who is PennyMac and Why Was It Needed by Wall Street Banks?

July 17, 2020

I received an email from one of my most prolific contributors that I am republishing here because virtually everything in it is entirely correct. I especially approve of her point about the fact that servicer advances are funded from proceeds of public offerings of stock that were all purchased by the Wall Street banks who did the underwriting. Substance over form: the banks were giving PennyMac the money to make servicer advances. The banks were using the investor sourced money supply to buy the fake stock offering. None of it was real. The end result is that all roads lead

It's time to reassess the role of investment banks, originators, servicers and other players claiming "securitization" before the next foreclosure tidal wave.

July 10, 2020

Since foreclosures are about to start another meteoric rise, this would be a good time to write a new article on what went wrong the last time, what is going on now, and what is still likely to go wrong this time. * I know that some of the rantings on the internet seem like the spillage of conspiracy theorists and some of them are just that. But overall they are right. * The bottom line is that back in 1993, investment banks latched onto a scheme that had been partially developed by Michael Milken, who went to prison. The new

Coming this fall! A new wave of illegal foreclosure claims. Will we get it right this time?

July 1, 2020

Some have pointed to some articles indicating that the securitization ponzi scheme collapsed already. It might be more accurate to say that the scheme was reorganized rather than collapsed. But even if it collapsed the Wall Street banks will continue sending servicers and foreclosure mills into the field to file foreclosures. After, all, it’s free money if they win, and there is so far, a statistical certainty that in nearly all cases they will win simply because of the erroneous belief by homeowners that they have done something wrong and that they have a moral obligation to leave the house, once they stop

Has any homeowner transaction ever been sold to investors? No? Then why are we accepting the bank myth that it was securitized?

June 26, 2020

Bob gives me a mortgage and I sign a note for $300k. Bob assigns the mortgage and note to Steve in exchange for “certificates / securities.” Bob retains the note and pledges to Jim in a collateral assignment to raise money to fund more loans. (i.e. WaMu and the Federal Home Loan Banks). I stop paying and soon Steve declares a default and tries to foreclose. My defense is that Steve doesn’t have the note, never took the note, and the note was collaterally assigned elsewhere before Steve filed the foreclosure action. If so, we can make that same defensive

HELOC Securitization Analysis — Why Are There Two "wet ink" Signatures? What Rights Does MERS Possess?

June 25, 2020

“a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it” “because MERS was never the lawful holder or assignee of the notes described and identified in the consolidation agreement, the corrected assignment of mortgage is a nullity, and MERS was without authority to assign the power to foreclose to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to show that it had standing to foreclose.” The writer of this article shall remain anonymous. He sent me the following. I concur with his analysis: I came across your June 17th post about the mortgage exec

What is Real in "Securitization"?

June 24, 2020

The first thing to remember about securitization is that it isn’t real. No Investor ever bought any debt, note or mortgage on residential property. That makes all the documents used in foreclosure of “securitized” loans totally fake. And that is why there was a 50 state settlement and hundreds of other settlements with regulators, attorneys general and investors. What was left out of all those settlements was any means by which illegal foreclosures could be stopped and any credits earned by homeowners or any credit which reduced the amount owed by the homeowners. As it turns out — nothing ever

Why Reformation Makes Sense as a Response to Illegal Claims of Servicing, Collection or Enforcement of Homeowner Mortgage Obligations

June 18, 2020

In the world of pretend REMICs, there can be no debate that investors who buy “certificates” are unsecured creditors of the investment banks and that investment banks are not legally creditors of homeowners. So why are we allowing investment banks to administer, collect and enforce homeowner obligations? This has been my point from the beginning in 2006 when I started writing and appearing on TV and Radio. The “Securitization” never happened. Investors became unsecured creditors of the investment bank (IB) not secured creditors of homeowners. In turn the investment bank also wanted to avoid accountability and liability as lender so

Regulatory Capture and Monopoly of Residential Lending by Wall Street

June 16, 2020

It is simply not true and has not been true for 20 years that lending is subject to free market forces or that lenders are subject to regulation. all of this has resulted from extraordinary illegal Market Control which has resulted in the complete inability of small financial institutions to compete with lending practices sponsored by investment banks on Wall Street. As a result consumers are negatively affected. Contrary to the requirements of law they do not have the right to choose the party with whom they are dealing, they do not have the protections of the truth in Lending

How to Use the Real Deal On Securitization to Homeowner's Advantage

June 15, 2020

Like citizenship in this country litigation is not easy. We keep banging our heads against the same wall expecting a different result. We need a strategy that directly addresses the inescapable realities of every homeowner transaction and every securitization cycle. My substantive analysis of the transaction is that the homeowner was drafted into a securitization scheme which in my opinion clearly triggers quasi contract and quantum meruit — the only possibility for inquiring into the adequacy of consideration. Lawyers and litigants have shied away from this because of its complexity and because they don’t know how to approach it. * In simple

Are Lawyers Missing the Boat Again on Foreclosure Defense?

June 12, 2020

The problem is that while most people think everyone has been bought off, and to a certain extent that is true, the real problem is that the clever plan of securitization is so counter-intuitive that nobody believes the truth that is in plain sight. The reason for fabricated documents is that there were no transactions, so the documents had to be fabricated to fit facially with the requirements of law for administration, collection and enforcement. To anyone who is not conversant in the language of finance, that seems impossible, unlikely, or just plain wrong. So rather than keeping an open

The Best Article Yet on Illegal and Immoral Practices by Investment Banks Making False Claims About "Securitization of Debt" by Francesca Mari on Aaron Glantz Book "Homewreckers"

June 8, 2020

Francesca Mari in the JUNE 11, 2020 ISSUE of The New York Review of Books, has written a truly excellent piece on a book called “Homewreckers” by Aaron Glantz. If you ever had any doubt about whether homeowners have the moral high ground and whether the investment bankers have no moral or legal grounds for what they did, you should read the article and buy the book. ( I get nothing from sales of the book and I have not met either author — although I will contact them for interviews on my show). The only point that I think

Could IRS Enforcement of REMICs Bring Wall Street Into Line? Yes but they won't do it. Investors and homeowners continue to suffer as victims of fraud.

May 14, 2020

The most obvious places to look for correction in the illegal conspiracies masquerading as securitization of residential debt were the IRS , the SEC, the FDIC and the FTC and probably later the CFPB. Qui tam (whistleblower) actions were regularly dismissed because the agency that lost money due to false claims rejected the notion that it was a false claim or that anything bad had occurred. Sheila Bair lost her job as head of the FDIC for protesting policy set by Presidents Bush and Obama that failed to hold the line. So here is a 2014 article that talks about

The Curious Distraction of Applying "Adverse Possession" Rules to Foreclosures that are Time Barred by Statutes of Limitation.

May 1, 2020

The reference to “adverse possession” in any of these cases is not about legally changing title due to the statute of limitations enabling adverse possession. I know what that looks like. Possession that is adverse is not the legal definition of the statute governing “adverse possession”. Not even close. In this case the court was using the words “adverse possession” loosely. An adverse possession claim is procedural and substantive. * For adverse possession to even be an issue that a court could adjudicate one would need to file a complaint alleging that the Plaintiff did NOT have legal title but had possessed

This will probably get me in plenty of hot water with lawyers. Homeowners should be winning foreclosures most of the time. The reason they don't? — Ineffective Counsel.

April 24, 2020

Sign Petition to Change the rules to Protect Homeowners from Fraudclosure. The problem is not the judges. The problem is the lawyers who walk into court believing that the loan is real, claimant is real, the claim is real and that they are only looking for technical ways to get their client out of a valid deal. The problem is exacerbated by magical thinking — that by pointing out bad acts by the foreclosure mill or servicer they will automatically cancel the mortgage, get quiet title and somehow the “debt” will disappear. Is it any wonder that judges are responding

The Problem With those Powers of Attorney

April 22, 2020

Just because a power of attorney appears to be facially valid doesn’t mean that it IS facially valid, nor that it is substantively valid. Sign Petition to Change the rules to Protect Homeowners from Fraudclosure. Powers of Attorney are part of the strategy engineered by investment banks on Wall Street. Here is the problem with the POA or LPOA strategy. In summary it is merely part of a larger strategy that seeks to create the illusion of real claims by real parties when in fact no such claim exists and no claimant exists. the claimant never gets the proceeds of

Why Homeowners Lose Their Homes to Crooked Banks

April 21, 2020

The first and foremost thing about this is that where any loan is subject to claims of securitization, that claim is false. So no investor ever bought any loan, debt, note or mortgage. Not ever. All documents claiming to memorialize such transactions are false. So the designated claimant has no claim. To win these cases you must be realistic about what you are up against. The justice system doesn’t care about the merits of any claim, defense or denial unless it is properly and timely presented in accordance with the established rules of procedure and laws of evidence. It is