Tag Archives: REMIC

THIS SATURDAY: California Foreclosure Relief – Defense Seminar

(BREAKING NEWS) — With an anticipation of an estimated 300,000 upcoming foreclosures in the Golden State (California), Redondo Beach, California attorney Al West has launched a Foreclosure Relief – Defense Seminar, slated to be held this Saturday, January 28, 2023. See the details below:

The CloudedTitles.com website registration has now been activated. There are still seats available for the upcoming seminar. You can access the Syllabus and the Registration Form below (as well as on the website itself):

Currently, there are 13,539 active foreclosures in the State of California. Currently, there are over 2,800 active foreclosure sales scheduled in the State of California. Many of these foreclosures involve REMICs and their connective mortgage loan servicers (who are really doing the dirty work in an attempt to unjustly enrich themselves). This is not an uncommon scenario and you can anticipate that with the current election cycle behind us (not the “Red Wave” you were expecting) and the challenges thereto, there will be more political infighting as well as a serious uptick in foreclosures across the entire nation as inflation causes mortgage loan defaults and subsequent foreclosures; thus, it’s time to prepare NOW, BEFORE you go into default (or are in anticipation of being in default soon).

The material discussed in this workshop regarding the Homeowners Bill of Rights is specific to the State of California; however, the balance of the material discussed can apply to all 50 states. Based on the low cost of attending this Seminar, you may wish to consider attending. There are only 150 seats available for this event, classroom style. You can look for future discussion of this event on the Republic Broadcasting Network and The Power Hour.

If you wish to reserve a seat in this 1-day event, you should contact Dave Krieger directly at (512) 718-9604 after 1:00 p.m. (CST) Monday-Friday and reserve your seat with a credit card or go to the Clouded Titles website and click on the link to register through the shopping cart. The basis for attendance at this Seminar is first-come, first-served. For those concerned with COVID-19 restrictions, there are none at this workshop (no jabs or masks or social distancing required). There are restaurants in the host hotel and you get a free, made-to-order breakfast with your hotel sleeping room booking. For a more detailed explanation of the event, please read through the attachments on this post before contacting us about attendance arrangements.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, INVESTOR END-GAME STRATEGIES

When Spokeo rears its ugly head

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED)–The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to trial attorneys and covers this case in his book, The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, an in-depth analysis of the paradigm shift in debt collection and foreclosure defense litigation strategies. DISCLAIMER: The opinions and case analysis expressed are that of his own and do not constitute legal advice.

Available at CloudedTitles.com

Here we go again … another case in federal appeals court … another recognized attempt by a homeowner that failed when applied to the Spokeo v. Robins case handed down by the United States Supreme Court, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). See the case below:

While the case specifically denotes cases applicable to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it has been judicially recognized in all 50 states as being the benchmark for proof of injury and raises the bar for such.

The case in chief is Foster v. PNC Bank, N.A. and wouldn’t you know it … Spokeo got tossed in for good measure because the homeowner (Foster) relied solely on his affidavit and couldn’t prove causation. See the case below:

To get to the nuts and bolts of Spokeo and how it was applied to this case, see pages 10-11 of the Foster ruling.

Page 11 of the Foster ruling clearly identifies that Foster lacks standing because the injury he is trying to prove happened is not fairly traceable and under Spokeo, it has to be an actual injury-in-fact! There’s no getting around this if you want Article III standing to pursue such a case.

It looks as if this case could have been done pro se. Most pro se cases fail because of 3 reasons: (1) lack of understanding and application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) lack of understanding of how case law should be applied; and (3) evidence based on emotion and not facts supported by evidence. Once you clearly read this case, you might understand why the author of this post thinks that way.

NOW … Why can’t Spokeo be applied to foreclosure cases?

Why can’t homeowners make the bank or REMIC Trust prove it suffered a concrete injury-in-fact under Spokeo? That question posits multiple answers because there is specific contract law involved.

Based on paralegal-level research, bringing any kind of claim against a creditor should be entertained BEFORE the real problems begin (like getting a notice of default). This author blames homeowners for not constantly checking their public land records for suspect documents, especially in the cases of REMIC trusts, wherein third-party document mills generally crank out manufactured documents that attempt to memorialize when a particular loan (mortgage or deed of trust and note) was actually conveyed into a REMIC trust pool. Sadly, most of the documents creep their way into the public record just before the foreclosure starts. And no one finds that just a little suspicious?

Even more unfortunate, because of the way the deck is stacked in court, judges don’t like giving homeowners free houses just because they come running and screaming into court with a two-dozen (or 200) page complaint, filled with emotion, conjecture and nothing concrete to back it up with, or, in the alternative, attempt to use all that wasted space to try to educate a judge towards their point of view with no attached exhibits or any other evidentiary process to back it up. This author has seen this in hundreds of cases he has reviewed, even by attorneys who thought they were good foreclosure mill attorneys (they miss stuff too)!

The key here, especially in REMIC trust cases (most of which are formed in New York or Delaware), there are commonalities that typically get overlooked and case law can and should be applied whenever possible to support whatever argument is being made. Unfortunately, many pro se litigants miss that opportunity and just continue to rant because they think they were unfairly treated by their mortgage loan servicer, who is the real party behind the foreclosure … not the closed REMIC. What? The REMIC was closed? When?

Does anyone bother to read the REMIC’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus and attempt to tie information into their cases? This author hasn’t seen much evidence of that lately because attorneys dealing in foreclosures believe the judge doesn’t care what happened to the loan if it went into a REMIC trust. This is where knowing how to pick your battles makes all the sense in the world. The Prospectus analysis in of itself can be extremely daunting and time consuming, unless you know where to look. Then you have to apply what you’ve discovered to your discovery to make sure what you think you know can stick in a court of law. It’s called securitization failure.

The bottom line however, is whether the REMIC settled with its investors at any point in time in its history or whether the mortgage loan servicer actually performed under the Prospectus agreement and made the payments of principal and interest as identified under the ADVANCES section of the REMIC’s own governing regulations. If the payments were made by the servicer (whether the Borrower paid them or not) … then who has suffered actual Article III concrete injury-in-fact under Spokeo. There’s the rub.

If the servicer has been paying the certificate holders and the action is being brought on behalf of the certificate holders based on borrower default … how’s that possible? The servicer has paid the monthly payments to the certificate holders, so where’s the concrete injury-in-fact? The borrower isn’t in default if this is happening, are they? Who brings that up in court? Who asks the court to determine an injury-in-fact? Hmmm.

Because the bank is trying to foreclose, the courts automatically assume they own the loan; otherwise, why would they be filing a foreclosure action in the first place?

There’s the other rub. If the case involves a REMIC trust, this author believes with a certainty that the mortgage loan servicer is playing “lender” and claiming it has the right to foreclose when it can’t prove actual concrete injury-in-fact based on contract law because it doesn’t have a contract with the homeowner. Yet, bank’s attorneys come into court and misrepresent those facts all the time in an attempt to create standing for a fictitious plaintiff (one that no longer exists in most cases).

Yep, none of this seems fair, does it? But, as any good paralegal can tell you, all of our collective work is research and if you don’t take the time to do it, you can’t prove anything and your case is dead in the water before you even get started.

Then there’s the other faux pas … suing everything under the sun because they’re identified with the REMIC. Example: MERS. Big waste of time. MERS is owned by the same company that owns the NYSE. Where do you think you fit into that financial scheme of things. MERS has more money than any pro se or attorney-supported litigant out there and will outspend you and give you nothing. Besides, from a paralegal’s standpoint, it adds well more to the costs of processing a case because of service issues, actual service of process, filing responses and memorandums for every single defendant named. So what if MERS was used to electronically facilitate the transfer of securitized mortgage loans. Case law on MERS is so diverse and scattered among the states and federal circuits even the U.S. Supreme Court won’t entertain looking at MERS-related cases 99.9% of the time.

Declaratory Relief Actions

This is why this author likes declaratory relief actions. While these types of actions are discretionary at the federal level, state court judges will normally entertain them. You’re asking for a determination on a question, not a final ruling. To get to the final ruling, you have to have your questions answered, enough to prove your allegations contained a factual basis, as determined by the court. This paralegal and consultant always sees better results when dec relief actions come early and go after specific targets and not just a bunch of ballyhoo on paper. Since most judges are being ordered to clear dockets, does your case really belong in foreclosure court where all the judge sees you as is a deadbeat? Or would it be better if you were in a county court of law where the judge wasn’t occupied with foreclosure as the main issue? This author has seen successes with the latter of the two modes.

Yet homeowners wait until everything is “around their ankles” before they act. The author blames this on the lack of legal education. Spokeo (since its 2016 ruling), has been wielded like a two-edged sword, mostly in favor of the lenders. In closing, this means one would have to spend serious time doing research and digging up the facts to build an actual case. Spokeo is law. Spokeo is not emotion. People would do themselves a big favor by studying the law, especially tort law. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Edition would be a great start.

The author is also nationally-syndicated talk show host on The Power Hour.

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

Nationwide foreclosures are up over pre-pandemic levels

(BREAKING NEWS/OP-ED –) Attom Data (which supplies information to RealtyTrac®) has released a fairly comprehensive report which indicates that foreclosure starts are up 167% from a year ago! What’s worse is that the average time to foreclose nationwide has decreased 4% from a year ago, which can only mean that the banks and their mortgage loan servicers have become more aggressive in their foreclosure processes.

California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and New York led the pack out of 233 metropolitan statistical areas. Markets seeing a lower decline in foreclosure starts were Tulsa, Kansas City, Birmingham, Minneapolis and Cincinnati. In sum total, 92,634 properties had foreclosure filings, whether it be default notices, scheduled auctions or bank repossessions. Lenders repossessed 10,515 properties from American homeowners during the third quarter of 2022. The reason, according to an Attom Data spokesman, was because borrowers were leveraging their equity and selling their homes and downsizing rather than risking an equity loss due to foreclosure.

The report is here:

ANALYSIS: Now, let’s figure out why there is an uptick in foreclosure activity.

The foregoing figures are only for the third quarter of 2022; thus, we have to factor in similar amounts for the first two quarters and the last quarter, which, taking into consideration the average third quarter numbers, the total figure for the year would be somewhere around 370,000 homes this year. If you look at the rates during the 2009-2016 foreclosure crisis, which totaled 10.2-million homes seized, the total foreclosure numbers are coming in at around 4.45-million that can be expected over the next 7 years. That’s nearly 50% of the previous total of homes seized during the first foreclosure crisis. And you can bet that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street (major institutional investors) will be buying these homes up and converting them into rental properties. How’s that for turning this country into a nation of renters? Clouded titles and all.

What has happened to the U.S. economy since the beginning of the decade?

Up until January of 2021, America had it good. We were energy independent. Gas prices were low. Grocery prices were low because the cost of shipping goods to market was lower. The supply chain was functioning at about 50% due to the pandemic but largely because people were too afraid to go to work because of media fearmongering. They would have rather stayed home and lived off the government dole than go back to work, post-pandemic. So, in short, it would appear the “chickens are coming home to roost” (as it were.

When the pandemic actually hit (March 17, 2020), Americans bought into the government’s crap hook, line and sinker. It became impossible for many to go to work and some were able to make arrangements to work from home. Many lost their jobs out of fear they would catch COVID-19 and die and didn’t bother showing up for work. Foolishly, state governments bought into the lies about mask wearing, social distancing, business closures and finally the jabs (delivered by and through the media, which promoted it as a vaccine, when in fact they weren’t). Over 220-million Americans received at least 2 jabs before many in that population either suffered adverse effects or death. I would anticipate that not only did the hospitals get rich (at $300,000-$600,000 per patient) due to government incentives, but Americans who refused the jab due to government mandates lost their jobs and thus, were unable to pay their mortgages. Despite the moratoriums, those days of grace would soon end and the foreclosure mills were all too happy to jump on the foreclosure bandwagon.

Unfortunately for most Americans, they continue to remain ignorant as to the fact that most of their mortgage loans were securitized. One of my associates has been fighting his foreclosure for over 13+ years and when ordered to pay attorney’s fees to the other side’s lawyers, he wrote a specific payment check to the REMIC (an acronym for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit), which is what accepted all of these securitized loans, allegedly, and also very untimely. Here’s the attorney’s fees check:

Notice anything interesting about how the checks were made out? They have yet to be cashed … because the REMIC is closed and has been since 2007. If this isn’t proof in the pudding, I don’t know what is.

The Court agreed that since the Plaintiff was the REMIC, the check should be made payable to them, for in turn, the REMIC would turn around and pay their customary attorney’s fees for litigation expenses. Unfortunately, one can’t cash a check that has a restrictive endorsement when the payee doesn’t exist.

This is what the bank’s attorneys don’t like … a real smart ass. And I mean he’s smart. He’s done his homework. The attorneys in his case were clearly retained by the mortgage loan servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., who has no contract with the borrower. You see why they’re frustrated with this case? Wells Fargo isn’t the only mortgage loan servicer committing fraud on the courts, filing on behalf of the closed REMIC either.

I am currently working on a California bankruptcy case which has posited similar research results. In that case, the REMIC trust settled with the investors, which means that no one suffered a financial loss and it’s clear the servicer is trying to steal the house from the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy judges do not like fraud on the court, especially by officers of the court. The only way that this case has a good outcome is if the owners can defeat the motion to lift stay with enough factual information and witnesses to overcome the other side’s objections. Because I managed to conjure up witnesses (an attorney and a former bank lawyer who handled foreclosures for a major financial institution), things might not go well for the other side’s lawyer.

I still do chain of title assessments and consult trial attorneys on foreclosure matters. The foregoing issues are certainly playing into the statistics seen above. But what’s worse, when these people are being served with notice, rather than fight to stay in their homes until they can come up with a Plan B, they just pack up and move, just like they did during the first foreclosure crisis in 2008. And herein lies the rub.

History does indeed repeat itself. Only this time, homeowners may be getting smarter.

For more information, you can visit the Clouded Titles website.

Please email us through the site if you’d be interested in attending a foreclosure defense workshop later this year.

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

The Justice System has FAILED us!

(OP-ED)–The opinions expressed herein are that of the author’s only and should not be construed as legal advice.

It is unfortunate that the conservative thought process has to be jarred by liberalism … and just when we were starting to get ahead.

It’s even more unfortunate that the manner in which we conduct ourselves in the legal realm has been totally obliterated by the justice system, made up of elite oligarchs who only look out for their own pensions and care not about the people that can’t afford justice. These judges will listen to the banks before they listen to the people affected by the contract they signed.

My latest machination involves the affidavit that was issued by a “special agent” from the federal whatchamacallits, which was totally redacted by the justice department, which has sought to (indirectly) attack every Christian conservative in the name of liberalism. When one can forum shop for a judge to get a warrant signed … a warrant that would further divide America because of its very nature in attacking a former president who actually did produce positive results, (despite all of the attacks against him during his tenure in office), this justice system has failed us.

The higher elites in power have seen fit to find a Trump-hating judge to do their dirty-work in an attempt to keep Trump from running for office again. If the warrant is proven to be nothing more than hearsay, which I suspect it is, then the judge sitting on the Trump case is no better than the robed types that sit in foreclosure courts across the country, listening to banks’ attorneys, who don’t possess the note, say, “Take it from me, Your Honor, we own the note.” at face value and give the banks whatever they want, when in most cases, the lender (a REMIC trust), no longer even exists.

Foreclosure defense attorneys haven’t helped matters much. Half of them don’t even know how to argue a foreclosure matter or a forcible detainer action, half of them don’t understand that the REMIC’s investors may have been paid in full, which means the servicers are double and triple dipping on homeowners (borrowers) by claiming they represent the REMICs when they know too damned well, the REMICs are closed and were closed one year past their start-up date. These attorneys are also “officers of the court”. They know how to behave when in the “temple”. Singing Judas’s.

The attorneys that do know foreclosure defense are equally flustered because borrowers come to them, stating, “Hey, I’ve got a great case! You should represent me for free!” This kind of entitlement behavior, coupled with that of judges who just want to shove their size 9 (example) shoes up the foreclosure defense attorney’s ass every time he/she comes into court, has caused a number of the good attorneys to either stop doing foreclosure defense or quit practicing law altogether. Many wonder about the other half of the foreclosure defense attorneys and what makes them so special when they play “the delay game”. The judges know it. The attorneys know it. The borrowers don’t get it.

This is false hope. To think these attorneys can’t tell the court that the other side hasn’t proven it has standing to foreclose because the other side hasn’t proven the Plaintiff (and its investors) have been harmed, is beyond belief.

The simple question of … “If the house is sold Your Honor, who gets the proceeds?” goes right by the wayside. Or, in the alternative (as we know by example), you get a smart-ass judge that answers that question for the bank (or the servicer’s attorney), as “Pay me, I’ll figure it out.” This is when you know the court is corrupt because the judge has turned out to be an asshole.

Ever been to a rocket docket? I have. It’s pretty damned scary. Mar-A-Lago raid or no Mar-A-Lago raid, a whole courtroom of homeowners gets cleared out (totally foreclosed on) with maybe 2 cases held over for trial out of all of the 300 cases coming before that court on its weekly docket. The judges have been ordered by their superiors to “clear the docket”, no matter who they shit on. That, does not make them a great judge. In fact, it makes them a shitty judge. When a judge rules against a homeowner based on emotion and hearsay from the lender’s attorney and its fully-trained lying witness, you have bad justice.

This is why this go-round of foreclosures is going to be even tougher of a nut to crack … all because the justice system has been perverted by the entitled elite, the crooked banks whose noses are clear up the judges’ asses and the good ‘ol boy club (the Bar) who threatens attorneys with disbarment for standing up to a judge.

Any judge that will sign an affidavit based on hearsay and then allow the affiant’s name to be redacted from view of those whom he has accused, speaks ill of not only the affiant, but the prosecutor and the judge as well. Mar-A-Lago is only the tip of the iceberg. Trump is not in foreclosure. Trump has not been screwed over by the banks. The raid gave him impetus to run again because nearly 80+ million voters to attempted to return him to office a second time now feel disenfranchised. Judges won’t hear a majority of the fraudulent election claims and that puts the entire system into a quandary.

Here’s a final thought … what would happen if you wrote a check to the REMIC for the full amount you owed and made it a restrictive endorsement only to the REMIC? Chances are, it’d never get cashed because the REMIC no longer exists. A borrower in Florida did just that, twice, and his check (for attorney’s fees), paid to the REMIC itself using a restrictive indorsement, as directed by the court, still hasn’t gotten cashed. Makes you wonder why more folks haven’t used that tactic.

What would the failed justice system do to “fix” that to “out” the very entities that will screw them in the process?

The C & E on Steroids! is a must if you’re NOT in foreclosure YET, but you suspect some shady shit going on in the land records.

3 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

Discovery you can’t afford to miss: the SEC!

(OP-ED) — The opinions expressed herein reflect those of the author and should not necessarily be construed as legal advice; however, the material has been vetted by an attorney who loves the thought process behind what is expressed here.

While everyone is getting the “rope-a-dope” from the banks and their mortgage loan servicers, no one’s looking to the enforcement arm of Wall Street … the revolving door into the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“USSEC”). The author will abbreviate this agency, who is supposed to enforce violations of securities laws; however, seemingly, apparently hasn’t been doing so to the extent that We the People need them to.

The author of this post held off posting this article for the sake of clarification, insomuch that jumping the gun and sending the readers of this post on a wild goose chase for nothing would have been totally discrediting and thus, non-productive. Now that clarification has been achieved, it’s no holds barred.

The author devised a set of discovery, which was then turned into more productive aspects of a means to an end. That discovery revolves around the USSEC, who has the goods you’re looking for if you happen to be facing a REMIC trust, which most of you are since most of your loans were securitized.

This concept and thought process involves a two-pronged attack on the USSEC. Here’s step one:

If you’ll visit sec.gov, you’ll notice the search box in the upper, right-hand corner of the website.

Type in ONLY the REMIC trust’s “Series Number” (for example 2004-NC3, which I will reference in this post as the example). Do NOT type in the entire trust’s name and gobbledygook as you’ll end up with non-descript stuff you can’t use. Once the actual REMIC’s name appears below the search box, make a note of the “CIK” number by whatever means possible because this information will become part of your discovery request.

Rule #1: You cannot serve discovery on a non-party to a lawsuit!

Don’t even try it. You will be wasting your time and money. Instead, the attorney the author spoke with zeroed in on the fact that if you make the USSEC a third-party defendant in your case, the courts will most likely throw them out (dismiss them from your suit) at the first opportunity, much to the objections of the mortgage loan servicer (who’s bring the foreclosure against you trying to reimburse its own coffers), who will then figure out what you’re trying to get at. Thus, the attorney suggests getting a subpoena issued straightaway against the USSEC, asking for certified copies of information directly related to the REMIC trust you’re dealing with. Here’s where the concept attempts to get results:

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on April 12, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on May 3, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of April 16, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on June 2, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of May 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on July 1, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of June 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on August 3, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of July 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on August 27, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of August 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on September 28, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of September 27, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on November 1, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of October 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on November 29, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of November 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 3, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of December 27, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of November 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of October 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of August 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of September 27, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of July 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of June 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of May 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the SEC Form 15-15D, known as Suspension of Duty to Report [Section 13 and 15(d)] of 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 26, 2005.  

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the 10-K, known as Annual Report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405] of 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on March 31, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of March 7, 2005.

EXPLANATION OF WHAT’S BEEN REQUESTED THUS FAR …

From the pull-down menu at sec.gov (when you’ve retrieved the REMIC’s files), print and save the list of all of the documents that have been filed with the USSEC on that particular REMIC. This should not be considered as over broad and burdensome to the USSEC since all of these files are contained within the USSEC’s database. They can easily be retrieved and the fee for sending it all to you is $4.00 in postage.

In this particular example, the pull-down menu, which was printed out in full, contained 19 documents, all of which became part of the request for production under subpoena.

You can either ask for all of these documents (that are contained within the USSEC’s files on the REMIC, which in this case was 19) outside of a lawsuit if you wish to get an advance look-see at everything. That’s an option if you don’t want to subpoena the records from the USSEC. However, there’s more to the story than what we’ve covered so far. This is where the subpoena comes in with the double whammy. A lot depends on the timing of the request and whether you’re attacking the servicer ahead of the foreclosure. You’ll want to depose someone with direct, first-hand knowledge of the REMIC you’re going after.

And here’s step two:

Get the court clerk to issue a subpoena to the USSEC to get them to produce someone with relevant knowledge of the documents that can verify and validate any violations of the governing regulations of the REMIC trust. (Again, this is framed as a suggestion and not given as legal advice!)

Inside of the subpoena, you can demand the USSEC check ALL of its records and produce whatever it has, in certified form, for the following (and this is just a sample):

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of all notes, memoranda and agreements for any certificateholder settlements known to the USSEC for  2004-NC3. 

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of all known litigation filed by any certificateholder, known to the USSEC for  2004-NC3. 

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of all known USSEC-related prosecutorial actions taken against 2004-NC3. 

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of the mortgage loan documents which name the Plaintiffs as the Borrowers that demonstrated that the trustee of 2004-NC3 received the documents described on Page S-75 of the 2004-NC3’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus according to the stated governing regulations. 

Submit a complete and true certified copy, if any you have in your possession or control, of any document that demonstrates the negotiation or transfer of the Plaintiff’s mortgage loan and all related documents therein, which specifically identify the date these mortgage loan documents, including all assignments of mortgage (or deed of trust) thereto, that were documented as part of the transfer from the Depositor to the REMIC trust by the trust’s Cut-Off Date.

You’ll want to review all of the trust’s “FILED” documents first, because the Amendments inside of those REMICs may reveal changes in the number of certificate holders receiving the 8-K’s and 10-K’s and may further reveal the actual “condition” of the REMIC before and after it closed. You’ll need this information for the next step.

Rule #2: You cannot depose a non-party to the suit without relevant cause!

This is a great way to get the mortgage loan servicer’s attention because if the REMIC trust settled out with all of the certificate holders, then the mortgage loan servicer, the real party bringing the foreclosure, has no standing because it can’t prove concrete injury-in-fact required under Spokeo v. Robins. Thus, it has no standing to pursue a foreclosure. And it’s going to fight you tooth and nail to keep its position in the suit because it wants to steal your property.

Don’t expect the mortgage loan servicer and its attorneys to sit idly by while you depose someone with knowledge of the particular REMIC trust. They’ll have their attorneys in the deposition, so you’ll have to craft your questions in such a way so as to expose the bad behavior on the part of the servicer’s employees when it comes to having the USSEC deponent examine the recorded assignment(s), specifically for:

  1. Who prepared the assignment? (Was it the law firm or the servicer’s employees?)
  2. Who executed the assignment? (Was it someone who wasn’t really who they said they were?)
  3. When was the assignment executed? (Well after the Cut-Off Date of the REMIC trust?)
  4. When was the assignment recorded? (Well after the Closing Date of the REMIC trust?)
  5. What do the governing regulations for this particular REMIC state about Assignment of the Mortgage Loans? (Is it obvious to the USSEC deponent that the regulations were violated?)
  6. Has the USSEC ever been notified by anyone to investigate this particular REMIC trust?
  7. Does the USSEC have any records of whether or not a credit default swap counterparty paid the certificate holders in full?
  8. Does the USSEC have any records of whether or not any default insurance policies paid the certificate holders in full?
  9. Does the USSEC have any records of whether or not there were any settlements wherein the certificate holders were paid in full or in part; thus settling any future payments due to them?
  10. Has the USSEC ever investigated this REMIC for any securities violations or irregularities?

In other words (and this is just a smattering of all of the questions to be asked of your USSEC deponent) … you’re trying to get the USSEC deponent’s attention to the fact that he/she can testify as to the fact that none of the governing regulations for the REMIC were complied with and that under New York Trust Law, they are void. Any question relevant to violations of the REMIC’s governing regulations would require a statement from the USSEC deponent that could be inferred to be a conclusion of law and the other side will object, but the comment will still go on the record, where the judge can see it.

This is a direct way to get someone in authority to see the assignments as fraudulent and to initiate a potential investigation, both civil and criminal, which may force the mortgage loan servicer to back off rather than run the risk of an exposed criminal prosecution.

You want the judge to see the REMIC for what it is and what the servicer is actually trying to do. Because most judges think they’re pensions are tied to these REMICs, to discover that the REMIC has been closed and the certificate holders paid would mean that the servicer (who has no contract with you) can triple-dip by stealing your home and that the judge doesn’t have to worry about his pension is going to be affected by making the proper ruling and kicking the mortgage loan servicer out of court.

If the investors (certificate holders) settled the case with the REMIC and accepted payment in full, how then can they come into court and claim they were financially harmed? They can’t … that’s the point. They’d have to prove they were damaged and if they got an insurance settlement and were paid in full, they weren’t damaged; thus, the mortgage loan servicer would be potentially committing fraud on the court to attempt to introduce evidence to the contrary.

Remember, in order to issue a subpoena, you have to file suit. You can use the SEC’s own forms to request all of the documents contained in the REMIC’s file for the shipping fee and they will send them certified (outside of the litigation); however, that takes time and doing it outside of litigation means the court has no control over the outcome of the request for anything from the USSEC. The fees for deposing a single party or entity these days is $3,000 – $5,000 depending on where the deposition takes place. However, if you’re trying to protect a million dollar property, no stone should be left unturned.

Again, this isn’t legal advice. It’s just plain common sense.

2 Comments

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!