Bailee Letter Shows LPS is Central to Data Records

A robo-witness from the servicer lacks capacity as a competent witness to give testimony that is the foundation for introducing “business records” from a third party. In short, the “summary” introduced in court derives from LPS records adn the summary itself is produced by LPS, who chose the party who would be the foreclosing entity in each case.

This letter demonstrates that (a) there is a cover letter with the transmittal of the so-called “original loan documents” and (b) that the electronic records are are kept by LPS. Thus the records produced in court as the records of the “servicer” are neither those of the servicer nor the Trust, if it is named in the foreclosure action as Plaintiff or beneficiary.

The bottom line is (a) ask for that bailee letter and (b) follow up with LPS as to their “desktop system.

Based upon my analysis I concluded years ago that there were (a) no creditors and (b) virtually no actual servicers. The servicers and the Trusts and the so-called beneficiaries under a deed of trust are all manifestations of an illusion created by Wall Street. As I have previously said, we are dealing with multiple layers that appear to be impenetrable.

If you think about this part, you end up with a hub and spoke structure in which LPS (Black Knight) is the hub and the servicers are the spokes. The actual wheel is the group of Banks who sold themselves as underwriters to institutional investors who don’t appear anywhere on the diagram, because after they let go of the money for their “investment” they were shoved out of the way.

The investors’ position was usurped by the so-called underwriters who created Special Purpose Vehicles (REMIC Trusts etc.) and then issued bogus mortgage bonds from the SPV as though the SPV was an operating entity for ANY length of time when it clearly was never operating as a business entity. The SPV never even had a bank account. It is impossible for the SPV to have purchased anything without assets or credit.

The use of the SPV is the same as the use of the name of the named Trustee of a REMIC Trust or the named “servicer.” There is no operating SPV and so anyone claiming authority from the SPV is knowingly claiming authority from a non-existent or inchoate entity. Unless that entity actually purchased the debt, note and mortgage, neither the Trustee nor the servicer have any right to claim authority to collect (i.e., there is an action for  disgorgement) or foreclose.

The only party answering to the description of source of funds is the investor group whose money was diverted and converted from the contractual purpose into an illegal scheme to make investor money become the money of the “underwriting” banks.

Thus the Cabal of underwriting banks that created this criminal scheme control everything through the hub — LPS — using conduits, intermediaries and sham entities to exercise that control. Servicing and change of servicing is merely the change of access to LPS records. Hence the presentation of servicer records or a summary of the payment history from “servicer” records is a false presentation.

Those alleged original data records were created, fabricated and maintained by LPS with the servicer having access. The proper objection should be directed not to the printed summary but to the alleged original records from which the summary was taken.

The only witness that could testify as to the authenticity of the “business records” is thus LPS. Without that foundation, the summary is worthless because it comes from so-called original records that were massaged to fit a foreclosure rather than giving an accurate rendition of how force placed insurance was allocated and triggered thus creating the declaration of default and the ensuing foreclosure. In this case, we are on third try at foreclosure based upon the same alleged non-existent default.

Here is the language [and my comments] from the Bailee cover letter in one of the cases I am tracking. The letter is addressed to a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, is dated, and does not have the usual reference language (“RE:”) nor a salutation.

PennyMac Loan Number: xxxxxxx [note that no specific PennyMac entity is actually named]

Borrower Name: YYYYYYYY

Enclosed are the following documentations: [Whether they intended to avoid the actual word “documents” in unknown. “documentations” is not a word in the English language

ORIGINAL NOTE, ALLONGE TO NOTE, NOTE CERTIFICATION AND ORIGINAL RECORDED MORTGAGE

All above collateral [improper use of the word “collateral”] is to be held by you [note that it does not specify who they mean by “you”] as bailee for the benefit of PennyMac Loan Servicing LLC and subject to PennyMac Loan Servicing exclusive direction and control. [No claim of ownership, no bailee agreement attached, no bailee agreement referenced — all potentially subject to discovery. No reference to “bailor”].

You are instructed not to deliver any above collateral [??] to any party without written consent from PennyMac Loan Servicing, LLC. [No statement of PM’s authority, control or ownership. It is all implied allowing for room to claim plausible deniability]

By Accepting the above Collateral, you consent to be the custodian, agent and bailee for PennyMac Loan Services, LLC. PennyMac Loan Services LLC requests that you acknowledge receipt of the enclosed documents and this letter by signing below. You are also required to upload an image of the signed bailee in the LPS desktop system and also to mail a copy to Deutsch Bank National Trust Company. [In this case the parties are claiming there is no trust. But right here the bailee “requires” the law firm to send the bailee letter to a trustee (i.e., there is knowledge of the law firm that a third party trustee is involved despite the protestations of Citi and PennyMac to the contrary.) (e.s.)

If you have any questions please contact:

Grace Hennings (866) 695-4122 x 8785

Posted in Uncategorized |