If you think these pages contain theories and not facts, read the websites of the parties named as "trustees" of "securitized" trusts for "securitized" mortgages

Jan 3, 2023

This is a zero-sum game, but not in a good way. There is nothing on the side of the grantor and there is nothing on the side of the grantee. The trust, trustee, and servicer have nothing. And the attorney has not heard from or been hired by any of them.

Start with the supposition that all assertions or implications of assertions you are receiving from “servicers” or lawyers who say they present a trust or trustee are all lies. If you do that, you are far more likely to win the case than to admit that there is a loan and that it is enforceable because the “loan account” is owned by some trust or trustee and is being “serviced” by some “servicer.”

It is all fact, but as Alejandro Reyes, VP of Deutsch asset management said in a recorded interview, it is all very “counterintuitive.” Think about that word he used. It means that whatever you think you know is wrong.

Start with the supposition that all assertions or implications of assertions you are receiving from “servicers” or lawyers who say they present a trust or trustee are all lies. If you do that, you are far more likely to win the case than to admit that there is a loan and that it is enforceable because the “loan account” is owned by some trust or trustee and is being “serviced” by some “servicer.”

I have several comments

The statement that services are required to initiate foreclosure in the name of a trust or trustee “as the legal title holder of the mortgage,” is extremely revealing. First of all, it appears to be an intentional missed statement of the law. In fact, in most instances, all efforts in the name of any company that was designated as a “servicer” have been rejected by the courts.

Second, that statement constitutes an admission against interest. It is admitting that the trust or trustee that is named in connection with the initiation of foreclosure proceedings has been named as the assignee of title to the mortgage lien without any further interest.

American law requires that all foreclosures and all enforcement actions with respect to security instruments must be conducted on behalf of an interested party, who can demonstrate both the alleged breach and a loss arising from that breach. So the statement can only be interpreted as meaning, that the trust or trustee is serving in a representative capacity and not as a principal. Since it is not a principal, it can’t possibly be appointing any agents, especially any company designated as an “servicer.”

This is corroborated by the next sentence, which states that the trustees role is limited in scope to holding nominal legal title. The statement that the mortgages are securitized is false, unless the underlying obligation was sold to investors. The players’ attempt is to preserve their incoming fees by making reference to securitization of “mortgages.”

But there never is a direct statement that any obligation, debt, note or mortgage was ever sold to any investor in whole or in part. An examination of the securitization documents in virtually every case reveals that investors did not purchase any financial interest in any payment, obligation, note, debt, or mortgage.

Quite the reverse, the intention of the parties is clearly to protect investors from being characterized as lenders, and therefore liable under federal and state lending laws. Accordingly, the reference to the mortgage is being securitize is completely false, and it is difficult to imagine any scenario in which a sophisticated entity like US Bank would not know that.

Any reasonable analysis would result in the conclusion that the lawyers, the company designated as the current, or past “servicer,” the trust, the trustee and any related parties are all acting in a representative capacity for an undisclosed principle. The undisclosed principal is an investment bank, whose sole objective is the sale and trading of securities. The fact that securities were issued and sold does not mean that those securities conveyed any ownership interest in any transaction that was ever conducted with the homeowner.

Their statement further corroborates this analysis that any believe that US bank initiates or manages the foreclosure process is mistaken. This admission means it has delegated functions exclusive to a functioning trustee to unnamed third parties. It also falsely implies that US Bank has any right, title, or interest in any transaction with any homeowner that would give rise to the grant of any functions relating to administration, collection, or enforcement of a financial interest, or right that is neither owned nor controlled by US Bank.

They are right that the securitization of mortgage loans began in the 1970s. In fact, it began earlier than that, and I was there when it happened. I was at the meetings when the seeds of the current crisis were planted. But in the beginning, mortgage loans were actually securitized.

At the beginning, both individual loans and packages of loans were sold to investors in prorated shares. Thus they satisfied the basic definition of the securitization of any asset. It was only later, that strategists later rose to prominence on Wall Street, realized with the help of some attorneys located in Chicago that they could claim that the mortgages were securitized, even if nothing was sold.

You will often get a “letter” that “explains the situation. This letter is sent out by a robot. It is never signed nor is there any human being who is named as a contact person. This violates federal and state law. The letterhead is fabricated and often seen as unevenly placed by manual or electronic means.

The letter corroborates the above analysis. It purports to assert that the letter is from US Bank. A close examination of even a copy, indicates quite strongly that this letter was neither generated nor executed by anyone from US Bank, nor was it authorized by anyone in US Bank. But even if US Bank authorized it, it purports to grant a trustee’s powers to a company that has been falsely designated as a “servicer.”

This is a zero-sum game, but not in a good way. There is nothing on the side of the grantor and there is nothing on the side of the grantee. The trust, trustee, and servicer have nothing. And the attorney has not heard from or been hired by any of them.

In all US jurisdictions, the powers of a trustee to manage the affairs of a trust containing relevant assets are not capable of delegation. That function is not a commodity that can be transferred or sold. The admission that Rushmore makes all such decisions is an admission that either trust the powers have been delegated illegally or that it doesn’t make any difference because the alleged “trustee” (US Bank) doesn’t own the asset anyway.

But not even that admission is true. If Rushmore is not performing any functions that are normally attributed to that of a loan servicer, then Rushmore is not making the decisions either. And in fact, that is precisely the case. The decisions are being made by an investment banker.

And again, I note that the alleged letter is unsigned and without any reference to any human responsible for the authorization, execution or sending of the letter. My guess is that if you were able to secure the services of an IT professional, you would trace the email address to someplace other than US Bank, or it is automatically being forwarded to a financial technology company whose AI technology reads and responds to correspondence.

PRACTICE HINT: WAKE UP!!! This is a huge opportunity for lawyers to make more money than they could make doing anything else.

================

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Posted in Uncategorized |