White Paper Asserts Sham Transactions

Oct 29, 2012

Disclaimer: This came into my hands some time ago but I just got around to reading it. While my conclusions are virtually identical to those of the author neither one of us used the material or methods of the other.

Editor’s Comment: In an article apparently intended for publication for November, 2012 (I believe the 2002 year designation in the footnotes is a typo error) Robert Marshall, Research Desk, Producers Management Trust, took a look at securitization. He was appalled by what he saw and wrote an article, a draft of which appears on the link below. His conclusion: “The Deed of Trust executed by the borrower/Trustor did not create an irrevocable trust by surrendering his property rights to intentionally hidden Beneficiaries in an undisclosed securitization process.”

This comes as no surprise to those of us who have been studying the subject for years. What is astonishing is that the paper may have been started in 2002!. His further conclusion: “The deed of Trust was, in fact, a sham transaction which included such dishonest acts as identity theft of the borrower, breach of trust by the purported trustee, who aided and abetted the destruction of the mortgage and theft of the beneficiary/ investor’s money through the common, although questionable practice of “Tier 2 Yield Spread Premium.”

As stated on these pages many times, you don’t need a statute in order to have a cause of action or even to arrest and prosecute a crime. The author agrees: “Until this practice is legislated into criminal activity, it remains a crime under the Common Law.”

In other words, it simply isn’t true that the criminal acts of Wall Street players could not have been prosecuted, although the statute of limitations is probably starting to run out on some of those crimes.

Marshall goes on to state that the elements of a constructive trusts could be imposed, a receiver, accounting, and the real story about how the money was diverted from the REMICS (trusts) and how the documents were diverted from the borrower and the REMIC trusts causing worldwide panic and chaos in the financial world.

As for the homeowner’s obligation: “The evidence gleaned from the constructive trustees [i.e., the Master Servicer, Underwriter and affiliates], may well prove that the investor was in fact paid in full with TARP money and insurance proceeds, thus leaving the homeowner’s obligation fully satisfied.

I would suggest that the article be attached to every expert declaration, report and analysis. For the lawyers, I strongly urge you to consider challenging and denying that the money paid by your client went to the right people (the creditor(s), and that the money used to fund the loan created a common law obligation that was undocumented —- because the documents that were used contained three major defects: (1) they identified a party that neither loaned nor purchased the loan on the note and mortgage and (2) they provided for terms of repayment that differed from the mortgage bond pledged to the investor-lenders in the REMICs (Trusts) and (3) the use of procceds of receipts and payments directly conflict between the note, the mortgage bond and the actual pattern of conduct employed in diverting (i.e., stealing) money from the money stream to the detriment of both the investor-lenders and the homeowner borrowers.

I recommend you study this article carefully:

Deed of Trust Commentary 11-12-02

Tags: Producers Management Trust, Robert Marshall
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |