WAKE UP AMERICA!

The goal is foreclosure. There can be no doubt that the modification process over the last 20 years has been largely an exercise in futility. That’s because the parties who are asserting the right to collect, enforce or administer residential loans actually have no interest in making the loan a performing loan.

And that is because they do not have any of the loans as an asset on their balance sheets. Allowing a nonperforming loan to be modified would merely preserve a stream of revenue consisting of principal, interest, insurance, and taxes together with fees is attached to that revenue stream.

But a foreclosure results in the sale of the property. This produces a windfall equivalent to the sales proceeds. This windfall is distributed as revenue to all of the players who participated in the foreclosure, including at least one undisclosed player – the investment bank (or the successor investment bank) that started the scheme.

Source: Federal Judge Slams Bayview and Attorneys on Illegal “Modification” Maneuvering

Foreclosure is the civil equivalent of capital punishment recognized for centuries as a drastic draconian remedy. Why would you let that happen simply because someone wants to make more money than they already did off of a transaction in which the homeowner received no disclosure of the true nature of the deal?

Source: Why Standing is Important

A recent decision from the 1st Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals applying FRE 803(6) states the current law — whether you like it or not. Pretending these decisions don’t exist or trying to avoid them is both pointless and highly likely to undermine your credibility in any other narrative or argument. Note that…

“Simply stated the transaction history will be admitted into evidence every time — UNLESS the borrower disputes their content and demands a hearing on truthfulness of the foundation testimony in which the magic words are spoken, as set forth in the Federal Rule and virtually all state court rules.”

Source: Payment History as Exception to Hearsay Rule

We are inundated with requests for help. We will try to get to each request in timely fashion but in the meantime perhaps this post will be of some assistance. Most people start off by bringing to us a case that is already in progress. But for those whose case is just starting this article…

Source: Help! I need somebody! How to convince an attorney to take your foreclosure case

We didn’t see rehypothecation (pledging, re-using, hypothecating) mentioned in my Mortgage or Note, did you? We certainly wouldn’t have agreed to that either.

“Risks and rewards have increased as collateral is rehypothecated, i.e., used by lenders for their own purposes. Such leveraging allows lenders to become borrowers. Mark-to-market practices, shorting and rehypothecation thus increase risks for the financial system. [e.s.]”

see http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/06/financialization-promotes-dangerous-speculation/ This was originally hailed as a brilliant financial innovation as US Fed chair Alan Greenspan believed that CDOs transferred risk from banks to investors able and willing to take it on. But securitization not only increased systemic risks, but also did not reduce risk to the originating banks who had sold off the loans.…

Source: Great Article Summarizing Securitization Risks

“It’s nice to have an attorney who pays attention. It’s not so nice when homeowners have to sue their attorney for malpractice for either (a.) dropping the ball for not paying attention; or (b.) blatantly promising to do something and then failing to do it.”

Lawyers and pro se litigants continue to ignore the basics when mounting a challenge to foreclosures in which US Bank is asserted to be a trustee of a name that is then treated as though it was trust or REMIC Trust. If you look closely, the name is word salad, containing references or names to…

Source: The Truth about US Bank

For those straining to find a way to categorize mortgage loans as securities I offer this based upon my licensing, training and experience as a Wall Street Broker and Investment Banker and as an attorney who has practiced law, including securities law for over 42 years. You are climbing the right tree but you are…

Source: No the Mortgages Are Not Securities, But the “Certificates” Do Not Qualify for Exemption As “Mortgaged Backed”

Total hat tip to Bill Paatalo There are two takeaways of major significance here. Review of electronic records is not review of original records.

Possession of note does not mean that debt was paid for or transferred. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2019/526630.html

We’re getting closer and closer to the truth when the high courts begin to demand and require…

Source: Not all courts are ignoring the law. Some are ruling for homeowners based upon basic premises contained in my articles