Are we not yet clear on the distortion of nemo dat? Lay the ground work and pop the $11 Trillion dollar question. “Is this loan encumbered by (a GSE) either Fannie, Freddie and/or the U.S. Treasury?” None of which have appeared before the court or the homeowner in any form since the inception of the loan or their engagement in participation. Deception runs deep as the servicer has, in many cases, stated to the homeowner, “sorry, you can’t get a HAMP modification because you are not a Fannie or Freddie loan” …when in fact it is.

A securitized trust operates from the basis of an electronically transferred “mortgage loan schedule” spreadsheet in a computer file. Not a physical cardboard box of papers. The trust is not a physical store, it’s a computer file.

The attorneys filing the foreclosure for the trust are hired by the servicer(s) who work for usually Fannie or Freddie. The foreclosure attorneys know that the GSEs select and approve the attorneys the servicers hire and that they front for the GSEs. The attorneys hired by the servicer know that the GSEs are intentionally concealed. They also know there are back room rehypothecation agreements with the trusts, and they also know that the trusts may no longer exist or have been paid off.

The reason the trusts are still fronting for the GSEs and/or the Treasury is because the paperwork surrounding the loans and property titles are a mess. And because the fraud on the courts and the debt is so massive that the GSEs and Treasury don’t want the taxpayers, shareholders or Congress to get a grip on the overall debacle.

Reportedly, America has “$11 TRILLION” in MBS debt” – $5 TRILLION is said to be held by the GSEs and the rest by the Treasury. How, when the universe of mortgaged American homeownership is only about 100 million properties – much of which is in “affordable” housing, did the debt become so exorbitant? Do the math.

Good advice.

Here is a map where the majority of states allow you to record phone calls with only one party (you) knowing that the call is recorded. https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/is-it-legal-to-record-the-banks-phone-call-or-conversation/

It’s much easier to write your follow-up letter if you have a recorded conversation to work from – and most attorneys advise to write the servicer a follow up letter, especially when a recording might not be admissible in court. Keep all your correspondence, including statements organized. If you are unorganized in everything else in your life, make your mortgage loan your priority in organization. The correspondence you keep, may save your home.

Just a side note: There are more efficient ways to deal with foreclosure rather than use the bankruptcy courts.

Every time that Tom Selleck reverse mortgage runs, we ask each other “doesn’t he have any personal ethics, or is the money he makes from the commercial more important?” Other people must be asking too, because the issue is addressed in the commercial.

It appears the homeowners were victims of a nationwide predatory mortgage lending scheme, a complex confidence game – as most homeowners were, that led the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to file suit against Bank of America, et. al., its former and current subsidiaries and partners, on October 24, 2012. USA v. BofA, et. al., USDC Southern District of NY, 12 Civ. 1422 (JSR) (Oct. 2012). Due to the nature of the DOJ case, documents were originally sealed, some were released, though many remain sealed today. The overall DOJ case did not completely resolve until May 23, 2016. The case publicly unleashed the secret that prime and subprime loans by large mortgage companies such as Countrywide and New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NC”) sold and pledged their procured loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises (“GSE”):

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase single-family residential mortgages from lenders” (DOJ Intervenor Complaint, ¶18). “GSEs buy single-family mortgages from mortgage companies and other financial institutions [. . .] then either hold the loans in their investment portfolios or bundle them into mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) that they sell to investors.” (DOJ Intervenor Complaint, ¶27)” (emphasis added).

See also the book RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.

In most cases, the issues are really “fraud on the court” and “fraudulent concealment.” The wrongful fabricated assignments were supposed to have been removed from the land records offices according to the National Mortgage Settlement and several other federal agency consent orders. National Mortgage Complaint (NMS), Case 1:12-cv-00361-RMC filed on March 14, 2012, in the USDC for the District of Columbia. The Consent Judgment had a Settlement Term Sheet (“NMS Consent Order”) filed on April 4, 2012, and specifically identified the terms under which the banks and servicers must comply.

The real interesting issues that are just now surfacing include the intentional concealment of Fannie or Freddie (GSE) as the “Real Party in Interest.” They stay hidden until after the bank sale and somehow magically appear as a buyer. GSEs buy originating loans – not defaulted bad debt. So, something appears really fishy when a GSE, or GSE/Treasury troll gets involved AFTER a foreclosure sale.

It appears from the inception, FANNIE/FREDDIE’S ROLES WERE INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED. Pursuant to Fannie’s 2008 Servicing Guidelines:

“Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in Fannie Mae’s portfolio or whether owned as trustee, for example, as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described below” (emphasis added).

Failure to disclose all parties of interest upon filing the Complaint is an omission so material in nature that not only does it void the judgments, in this case it is intentional fraud on the Court. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., [322 U.S. 238 (1944)] (This motion asks this Court to utilize its “historic power of equity to set aside [a] fraudulently begotten judgment[]” in order to uphold the “preservation of the integrity of the judicial process”).

Fannie & Freddie (GSEs) had servicing guidelines during this period of time that required servicers to conceal them as the real party of interest as the GSE’s known debt was out of control.

Over the years the GSEs changed their policies because the courts have rejected the notion that an action could be brought in the name of a servicer. See In re Viencek, 273 B.R. 354, 357, 59 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2002) (requiring that servicing agent amend a proof of claim to identify the owner of the claim), In re Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 at 767, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (finding that servicer was not the real party in interest), Bank of New York v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280 [2d Dept 2011], (“The foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt”).

When researching home loans on the GSEs’ database, loans in GSE securitization pools will not show up on their website “loan search.” Again, this is another example of hiding debt. MERS® System, for example, was created to specifically track investors and ownership, allowing GSEs and banks to remove debt-related assets from their accounting, while still tracking the asset.

Who does this hurt? ANSWER: GSE investors, taxpayers, homeowners, and probably the judges that have mutual funds that contain GSE (MBS) shares, for example, Vanguard, PIMCO.

BTW – Homeowners have wanted to pay and more often than not were induced by the government HAMP program that advertised calling the servicer for a modification. That program was a scam – see the book BAILOUT by Neil Barofsky, Chapter 8, Foaming the runway. Once homeowners were sucked into the default process the majority had a difficult time getting back into a payment program. The homeowners were not allowed to make payments – it appears the banks, GSEs and Treasury wanted foreclosures rather than long term payment programs because liquidity is essential.

This is research – this is not legal advice. Contact an attorney to see if you have an alternative action. Closely research and dissect your documents. Ask if, for example, a Rule 60(b) and/or FRCP 60(d)(3) is an option.

If you can find a jury that would “feel sorry” for the banks, good luck. It appears this was originally a HUD deal and the agency isn’t structured as a “for profit” entity. It is structured to enable affordable construction of low-income housing. When the 2008 crash hit (and continues) as a result of the corrupt unregulated derivative scheme, the construction industry was, and still is, devastated. Construction, construction materials, labor & housing were the 2 driving wheels on the truck of the economy – and have been flattened due to the illegal antics of the past 20 years, and particularly the last 10 years. If a debtor, or any homeowner is capable of making payments pursuant to a reasonable plan – for the sake of the economy, the plan should move forward.

After TRILLION$ paid out by the banks in bailouts, fines, settlements and compensation for corruption and illegal activities, banks don’t deserve the benefit of doubt – or gifts from the courts. “Our courts should not be collection agencies for crooks.” — John Waihee, Governor of Hawaii, 1986-1994.