The Third Rail — Validity of the Loans, Notes and Mortgages

SEE This is it! WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE

The strategy of distraction is easy. Simply point the finger at paperwork mix-ups and you avoid the underlying problems, liability and consequences of a deformed, twisted title problem. “We’ll fix it” is the message, but how. Who is now going to appear in court and say that the loan was assigned and endorsed and delivered as per the requirements of the PSA and the REMIC statutes? Where the media is failing us is in its failure to connect the dots. Just how difficult is it, step by step? —-

• If we are willing to admit that the foreclosure filings are faulty, how hard is it to question whether the mortgage and loan filings were faulty?

• If we are willing to admit that the foreclosure filings are faulty, how hard is it to question whether properly dated and executed assignments and endorsement and delivery of the loan documents even exist?

• If we are willing to admit that the investors (the real lenders in these transactions) were defrauded, how hard is it to conceive that the homeowners as “borrowers” (purchases of unregulated securities) were defrauded in the same way with the same false premises?

• If we are wiling to admit that there were faulty servicing processes, how hard is it to question whether there were faulty securitizing processes?

• Why does anyone make the assumption that the loans are in “pools” when all evidence is to the contrary? Why are we taking self-serving statements (“reports”) from investment bankers who cheated investors, homeowners and taxpayers as anything other than an illusion?

• If we are willing to admit that the banks’ collective profit constitutes ill-gotten gains, how hard is it to question how the losses should be allocated?

• If we are willing to admit that there were trillions of dollars paid or advanced in loss mitigation, how hard is it to question how those funds should be allocated to investors and homeowners?

• If we are willing to admit that there is a pattern of conduct using fabricated forged documents in satisfactions of mortgage and in the pursuit of foreclosures, how hard is it to imagine that there were fabricated, forged documents in the origination of the loan?

• If the origination of the loans were faulty, sold on false premises, and defective according to law, why should the obligation be considered secured?

• If the originator was paid in full, why should the obligation be considered due and payable?

• If we are willing to admit that the legal requirements of the obligation were not met and cannot be fixed at law, then how hard is it to imagine that there might be an equitable remedy that a real party in interest might be able to prove with real evidence? And if there is no such party or no such evidence why are we pretending that foreclosures in favor of entities that never paid a penny toward funding the loan could ever be conceivably proper or legal?

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |