Deutsche Memos Tell the Story

The obvious import of these memos is that Deutsche wants to be able to claim plausible deniability. But secondarily it places responsibility on servicers to have knowledge that they often disclaim in court. Without that knowledge and the testimony about securitization, there is a lack of foundation that should be the subject of an objection in court and even in hearings.

Without evidence of securitization there is no way for the court to rule based upon the assumption that the proceeds of foreclosure will go to someone who paid value for the debt in exchange for ownership of the debt.

And that’s the rub. Those proceeds are received as revenue. In the chain relied upon by claimants in foreclosures,  there is either nobody who paid or nobody who owns the debt.

The investors did not pay for the debt. they paid for certificates that exclude them from the debt and substitute a discretionary promise from an investment bank to make payments to them. Those payments are indexed on loan data but nowhere does anything actually state that the trustee or trust actually paid for the debt, owns the debt, or even received the debt from someone who paid value for the origination or acquisition of the debt. And that is because no such payment was made.

So the disclaimers and contortions of Deutsche ar easily explainable. They are merely renting out the use of their name to make it look like an institutional foreclosure when the case is neither institutional nor is it actually a foreclosure which can only be for restitution of an unpaid debt to a claimant who paid value for the debt in exchange for ownership of it.

See Deutsche memos and instructions david co db memo 10 pgs

Posted in Uncategorized |