LivingLies: “Faced with a notice of foreclosure sale from a company claiming to be the trustee on a deed of trust, homeowners in judicial states are forced to defend using well known facts in the public domain that are not evidence in a court of law. This is particularly evident in scenarios like the Chase WAMU Agreement with the FDIC and the US Bankruptcy Trustee on September 25, 2008.
In my opinion the allowance for nonjudicial foreclosure in circumstances where a new party appears under a lawyer’s claim that the new party is the beneficiary under a deed of trust under parole claims of securitization is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional statutory scheme.
All such foreclosures should be converted to judicial and the claimant must prove the essential element under Article 9 §203 UCC that it has a financial interest in the debt because they paid for it.
Forcing homeowners to prove that such an interest does not exist is requiring homeowners to have access to knowledge that is unavailable and solely within the control of the party falsely claiming to have the right to enforce the deed of trust and promissory note.
In my opinion this is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional statutory framework. In plain language it favors expediency and moral hazard over truth or justice.”
Source: Chase-WAMU: Is it time to Declare Non Judicial Foreclosure Unconstitutional As Applied?
Judge Schack thoroughly understood the scam, fought for American Homeowners and died way before his time.
LivingLies: “All those problems exist because the Wall Street Banks got greedy and created the holy grail of investment banking: what if you did an IPO and never had to account for the proceeds of the sale of those securities?
The real question is not why should you give homeowners a windfall over some technical problems with the paperwork; no, the real problem is why would you give the banks and all their affiliates even more revenue through foreclosure than they had already received, which was at least 10 times the principal of the amount of the loans?
The answer to the first question is that no, homeowners should not get a windfall because of technical problems with paperwork. Creditors, real creditors that is, should be able to execute corrective paperworks, affidavits and filings to correct merely technical errors.
The answer to the second question is that if the “loan transaction” was strictly a revenue deal and not a loan of money where someone would lose money if the money wasn’t being repaid, then commons sense and the law (UCC Article 9 §203) clearly stands for the proposition that nobody should be able to foreclose on a home in order to just receive revenue.
There simply must be a debt and a creditor who has paid value and owns that debt. The fact that the banks can’t come up with such a party is evidence that the law is out of whack with the innovations of Wall Street and malfeasance on Wall Street.
But without a party actually getting hurt by nonpayment, why should anyone pay their mortgage? Practice Hint: The problem is that the investment bank who advanced funds for origination or acquisition of the loan sold off everything about the loan. In the end it was left with nothing but profit.”
Source: 2008 Schack Decision Reminds Us How Something “Nefarious” Is Happening
JusticeLeague: “Move over Equifax…
- At just the two biggest U.S. banks — J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America — cybersecurity budgets have swollen to a combined $1.4 billion a year.
- The industry has been employing everything from low-tech reminders about passwords posted in offices to sophisticated data analytics and risk-management programs to stay ahead of criminals.
- “The threat of cyber security may very well be the biggest threat to the U.S. financial system,” Dimon said in an April letter to shareholders.
It’s among the worst fears of any bank CEO.”
via Jamie Dimon’s worst fears for the banking industry realized with Capital One data hack
“People forget that Deutsch issued a directive to all servicers to cease using its name when initiating foreclosures. The investment banks fought back and apparently paid Deutsch more money in fees for the use of its name. That was around 2011.”
LivingLies: “U.S. Bank as Trustee: As Trustee, U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services performs the following responsibilities:
• Holds an interest in the mortgage loans for the benefit of investors [Editor’s note: Not really true. It holds a claim to bare legal title to loan agreement for the benefit of the investment bank]
• Maintains investors/securities holder records [Editor’s Note: Also not true. Only the investment bank maintains such records. US Bank has no access to the names of investors nor any transactions ever conducted with them in the name of any trust in which US Bank is named as trustee.]
• Collects payments from the Servicer [Editor’s note: also not true. US Bank handles no money in connection with any account or any borrower or any servicer and does not disburse them. That is done by the party named as Master Servicer although that term is probably also a misrepresentation.]
• Distributes payments to the investors/ securities holder [Editor’s note: Not true see above.]”
Source: US Bank and Deutsch Agree That They Should NOT be named as Plaintiffs in Foreclosures
LivingLies: “The time may now be coming where the court systems and Federal and State legislatures must come to terms with two inescapable legal facts:
(1) That borrowers who sent TILA rescission notices — and particularly those who sent them within 3 years of consummation of the mortgage — still own the land that was deemed “lost” in foreclosure.
(2) That such borrowers possess valid claims to recover title, possession and money damages.
It was bound to happen and now it has. In one case, a judge is asking the following questions and inviting briefs on the following subjects: What is the effect of the failure to return consideration upon an attempt to exercise the right of TILA Rescission?
What is the effect on rescission if the borrower continues to pay?
Does TILA pertain to refinancing?”
Source: Finally a Judge Asks the right Questions about TILA Rescission and Invites Briefs
LivingLies: “The prima facie case for the homeowner is simply that the notice of rescission was sent, and that the statute makes rescission effective by operation of law, and that the defendants are proceeding as though they still have a right to foreclose or to collect the debt contrary to the method for collection described in 15 U.S.C. §1635.
I think the problem could be that lawyers favor pleading a violation of statute and therefore present TILA rescission as a claim. This is a mistake. It is an event. The pursuit of a foreclosure is not, in my opinion, a violation of the TILA rescission statute. It is the pursuit of a claim that does not exist. The claim does not exist is the right to foreclose. The claim that still exists is the right to collect on the debt.
There is only one party category that possesses the right to collect on the debt under the TILA rescission statute, to wit: it is a party who has paid value for the debt and therefore owns it. Theoretically the party to bring the foreclosure could be owners of the debt, but usually, that is not the case. Usually, they are concealing any information about the identity of the owners of the debt. They can only get away with that if a notice of rescission has not been sent. It is only the notice of rescission that removes and cancels the original loan agreement containing the right to foreclose.
Therefore any pleading, motion or argument from a party whose legal standing was dependent upon the existence of the mortgage or deed of trust must be ignored unless they first establish that they still have legal standing because they paid value for the debt and they own the debt, or because they are authorized representatives of an identified owner of the debt.”
Source: How to Frame TILA Rescission in Your Pleadings
Justice League: “On July 8, Deutsche Bank presented the full details of its latest strategic plan to become a leaner, more profitable organization. These included 18,000 jobs cuts across its global workforce and the closure of its equities business.
The bank wasted no time in firing staff. Deutsche’s chief executive Christian Sewing said of the cuts at the time: “Let me really emphasize that this is the bitter part of our decisions.”
Financial News ’s Nell Mackenzie spoke to a member of Deutsche’s stock-trading team in London who lost their job during the restructuring and agreed to share their account of the day on condition of anonymity.”
via Diary of a Deutsche Bank stock trader: The day I lost my job
LivingLies “In response to the rising number of requests for us to write briefs or narrations for briefs I submit this article which is my recent response to such a request. Here is an uncomfortable fact: most appeals arise because of mistakes made by the litigant in trial court, not the judge. All appeals MUST be…”
Source: What to Think About on Appeal From an Unfavorable Trial Court Decision
LivingLies: “The most salient part of the bill, in my opinion, is the part about retaining risk. It is an official acknowledgment, in addition to other governmental findings that the investment banks and hedge funds who played the unregulated securitizations scheme simply retained no risk or so little risk of loss as to be just a cost of doing business.
This bill seeks to take that issue head-on and prevent “lenders” from (a) hiding their identities and (b) creating junk loan products for the purpose of selling and trading unregulated securities.
I don’t think there is anything more important than the recognition that all or most of the risk of loss has been parsed out into many attributes each of which was sold to different classes of investors using different classes of unregulated security instruments.
None of the buyers or traders in such securities ever purchased the debt of a borrower even they paid money equivalent to a purchase of the debt.
No legal title or right to enforce any debt, note or mortgage was ever conveyed to the holders of “REMIC” certificates nor any other class of investors. Without having technically sold the debt, the investment bank retains bare legal title to the debt, which is an outcome anticipated by the framers of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 §203, adopted in all 50 states as law of each state.
Bare legal title might be enough to enforce a note that qualifies as a negotiable instrument (article 3) but it is not sufficient to enforce a mortgage in foreclosure.”
Source: Stop Wall Street Looting Act of 2019 Introduced in Congress