Judicial pension and retirement funds protection…they think.
By William Hudson
State Court judges are missing the point- the paperwork is all an illusion in a majority of cases. Instead of being concerned that the bank is filing photoshopped, forged and robosigned documents into the court record, they are more concerned if the homeowner has paid. This is despite the fact that every large Bank in the country has been fined for foreclosure “irregularities”. Too many State judges are refusing to follow basic contract law or scrutinize the documents presented. Presumptions favor the banks in cases where there is hard evidence of fraud. It is now known that due to securitization that the vast majority of mortgage notes and assignments are created-on-demand to provide the impression that the note is valid. You would think that in light of this information that more judges would be concerned that the note is even enforceable.
Former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair wrote…
View original post 1,877 more words
Deadly Clear 
I’ve been doing ‘paralegal’ work on mortgage fraud cases since 2008 & there’s one big problem judges haven’t thought about, because nobody’s been bold enough to bring it up — if you finished law school more than around 15 years ago you weren’t taught anything about mortgage “securitization” because it didn’t exist.
The vast majority of judges, especially on the higher courts, finished law school @ least 20 years ago, most 30 or more. And they probably bought their own home with a traditional mortgage — that’s all they understand. Trying to explain ‘securitization’ to them is like trying to explain ‘derivatives’ to someone who’s never taken a class in Economics. (And of course mortgage-backed securities are derivatives). There are some judges who have really studied the issues & now understand them, but very few.
Of course older attorneys are in the same boat — they can’t argue the points of securitization in court because they don’t know anything about it themselves. Some are learning & hopefully more will, but it’s hard to get someone set in their ways, who thinks they already know everything about mortgage cases, to realize they aren’t dealing with traditional mortgages anymore — this is a whole different ballgame!
AND let’s not forget Sheila Bair, former FDIC Chair, called them NTMs (non-traditional mortgages) in her book Bull by the Horns. There are no laws on the books for non-traditional mortgages or quasi-securities. Our research indicates that the banks had pre-existing agreements in place for the purpose of procurement of homeowner collateral to securitization – without disclosure to the homeowners that they were unwittingly participating in a securities sale before they even signed a document – the sales were Nemo Dat. Some attorneys are becoming brave enough to argue these issues and taking a lot of heat from judges and the bar.