“This is not a problem caused by the borrowers. It is a problem intentionally created by the banks so that behind curtains they could take or steal the money of investors, covering their tracks by making it appear that there was a transaction when there was none. The fundamental question presented to the courts is whether we are going to allow nonexistent parties to exercise rights in court with respect to nonexistent transactions.” Amen.
In observance of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, my office will be closed Wednesday, September 23. The following article was scheduled in advance:
=======================================
See Anh N. Tran, et al. v. Bank of New York SCOTUS Certiorari_SRCH
READ THE ENTIRE BRIEF SLOWLY AND STUDY IT.
I think we have another case here where the pen of Justice Scalia (if they grant the writ and hear the case) will be dripping with sarcasm , just like we saw in Jesinoski. The New York Law says that the “transfer” to the REMIC Trust is void if it violates the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The problem for the banks is that they MUST rely on the PSA in order to give standing to their trustee and servicer. If the trust does not have the loan, then the trustee has no authority over the loan and neither does the servicer…
View original post 437 more words
Deadly Clear 