BANKS ARE STEPPING UP ATTACKS ON THIS SITE

Oct 28, 2020

The banks employ a fairly large army of people whose job it is to discredit meritorious foreclosure defenses. Their job is to convince the public and lawyers and judges in general to accept the notion that the “loans” are real, that documentation alone is sufficient to win a foreclosure even if it is challenged, and that the specific facts reported on this blog and others are merely “conjecture” or “hypothetical.”

Such comments are meant to provoke a certain reaction and the banks have been successful at it — 96% of all homeowners served with foreclosure papers walk away from their biggest and maybe their only asset. Unlike myself, none of them worked on Wall Street in any capacity except writing for the investment banks. Unlike myself and the dozens of lawyers across the country that have defeated foreclosures, these “commentators” have no experience in law, trial work, forensic auditing or anything else. they serve only one master — the myth that are directed to propagate.

In effect, they are conveying the erroneous and false impression that lawyers like myself could not possibly have won cases in state and Federal courts because all we have is conjecture and no proof of our irrational “theories.” But our strategy is no theory. If someone is named as the claimant in a foreclosure case the law requires them to have paid value for the underlying obligation. If they haven’t paid value they fail (i.e., they don’t get the foreclosure order or sale) for two reasons — (1) non compliance with condition precedent in Article 9 §203 UCC and (2) noncompliance with constitutional requirement that only injured people can bring claim for relief.

These shills post comments on this blog and social media to drive consumers away from their only path to relief from illegal, wrong, immoral foreclosures.

Mostly I ignore them. Most of them, like Bob G below, have no credentials in finance, law, accounting or lending. I, on the other hand, have extensive (50 years) academic degrees with highest honors in securities, accounting and law along with licensing in securities trading and analysis. See my bio. I also am a real live licensed attorney (43+ years) who has won most of the foreclosure cases referred to me and I have extensive experience representing both lenders and borrowers since 1977.

The latest bit of pure silliness comes from Bob G, who, writing for the banks, says

The trustee doesn’t have to buy anything. [EDITOR’S NOTE: TRUE BUT THE TRUSTEE MUST RECEIVE SOMETHING THAT HAS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED VALUE FROM SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT THE ASSET, IN THIS CASE A LOAN]. Only needs to have the beneficiary convey property to the trustee that the conveyor had a legal interest in. [EDITOR’S NOTE: NONSENSE. BENEFICIARIES ARE THE RECIPIENT OF AN INTEREST IN THE ASSET THAT WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE TRUSTEE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND]. Now, I can also give you a quitclaim deed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. I may or may not have a real property interest in the White House. But that doesn’t matter. I can still convey the deed to the trustee. Whether it turns out to be a real asset is another matter to be determined by a court. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THAT DEED WOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE ACCEPTED AS FACIALLY VALID. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS, THE DEED IS VOID. NO PROPERTY INTEREST CAN BE CONVEYED EXCEPT BY SOMEONE WHO OWNS IT.

In the cases that interest folks here, there is a real owner of the mortgage note hiding behind the curtain. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. THE CASES OF INTEREST ARE THOSE THAT INVOLVE FALSE CLAIMS OF SECURITIZATION OF LOANS. IF THE LOANS HAD ACTUALLY BEENS SECURITIZED THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A SALE OF PRO RATA SHARES OF THE LOANS TO MULTIPLE INVESTORS. NO SUCH SALE OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS A REAL OWNER HIDING BEHIND THE SUGGESTED CURTAIN THE PROOF IN FORECLOSURES WOUDL COME FROM THAT PERSON, WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW. INSTEAD THE FORECLOSURE PLAYERS SKATE PAST THAT REQUIREMENT BY RAISING LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS FROM THE FAICAL VALIDITY OF FABRICATED, FALSE DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO OWNER BECAUSE TEHRE IS NO LOAN ACCOUNT HELD AS ASSET (I.E., OWNED BY) ANY COMPANY. THE LOAN ACCOUNT IS EXTINGUISHED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY IWTH ORIGINATION OR ACQUISITION OF THE DEBT.]

Original REMIC trusts are a different matter. There, there is a PSA or trust agreement. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THERE IS ALWAYS A TRUST AGREEMENT WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN BE NO TRUST. PROFFERING THE PSA AS TRUST AGREEMENT IS MISLEADING THE COURT. THE TRUST AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT THE TRUSTEE OWNS NOTHING OF LEGALLY RECOGNIZED VALUE AND THAT THE BENEFICIARIES ARE NOT THE INVESTORS BUT RATHER THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT STARTED THE SECURITIZATION SCHEME.] There is also a named seller and depositor. [EDITOR’S NOTE: COMPLETELY UNTRUE. COMPANIES ARE NAMED AS POTENTIAL SELLER OR POTENTIAL DEPOSITOR FOR FUTURE VENTS. NO SALE IS RECITED IN PSA]. If you try and use arguments propounded on this site to win your case, you are not going to have much success, in my opinion. [EDITOR’S NOTE; BOB G’S OPINION IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE HE LACKS ANY KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE TO OFFER AN OPINION. IT ALSO FLIES IN THE FACE THAT MANY LAWYERS, INCLUDING MYSELF HAVE WON THESE CASE FLAT OUT WITH SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE JDUGE THAT THE “TRUSTEE”, THE “TRUST” AND THE “SERVICER” WERE NOT AUTHORIZED WITH RIGHTS TOE FNORCE GRANTED BY ANYONE WHO OWNED THE UNDERLYING DEBT. JUDGMENT FOR HOMEOWNER].