Tag Archives: securitization failure

POINT – COUNTERPOINT: SECURITIZATION FAILURE EXPLAINED

“JANE … YOU IGNORANT SLUT!”

(As exclaimed by Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtin on Saturday Night Live …)

Sorry … I had to do that because you can’t say that to opposing counsel in foreclosure court … as much as you’d like to!  Still, I’m not an attorney, I can’t render legal advice, but I have been listed on at least one attorney’s “expert witness list” for upcoming trials! 

My blood boils when I’m consulting at a foreclosure trial and I hear the bank’s attorney claim that the borrower has nothing to do with the PSA because I know damned well that the borrower (nor his counsel) has a comeback that they can waylay on the bank’s attorney in point-counterpoint fashion, which is why I went with the opener that I did.

The bank’s attorney doesn’t want the borrower opening up the subject of securitization failure, because in so doing, the REMIC finds itself without standing to foreclose.  End of story … because the last attempt is always (when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t involved) the use of MERS (through servicer fraud) “assigning” a note a mortgage years later into a REMIC trust. Securitization failure may look obvious on paper (what’s recorded in the land records) but it cannot account for the path the note didn’t travel.

The last trial I attended, I saw the bank’s attorney “step in it”.  You could hear her tiny little heels squish in the pile of dung she just sunk into asking the expert witness (who understands securitization) about the “closing date”, then suddenly realizing that she opened Pandora’s Box.  Sadly, the foreclosure defense attorneys need to climb on board with this thought process, as elaborate as it might be.  I’m going demonstrably put it into as easy a graphic as I can, using various scenarios (“submitted for your approval”, as the Twilight Zone‘s Rod Serling would say from the grave). You have to educate the judge!  You have to!  I don’t care if the other side jumps up and down with objections, you have to keep on keeping on.

FEW ATTORNEYS REALLY “GET IT”

First, let me share a pdf with you, written by (in my book) one of the most brilliant attorneys on record:

charlies-wallshein_securitization-fail-part-one-001

The foregoing even has “affirmative defenses” included in this paper, if you know what you’re looking for.  Thanks to Charlie, I used a chunk of his explanation and diatribe in a Texas Rule 736 motion I drafted for use by counsel, which, when coupled with a Rule 12 motion by the attorney (a motion demanding to know who the law firm was representing in its Application to foreclose), the law firm “non-suited” the foreclosure case (made it go away)!

I shall further elaborate, as I do in chain of title assessments where the last party to allegedly have the note and mortgage transferred to them is the REMIC … years after the fact.  The borrowers and their attorneys focus on the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and miss the whole enchilada completely.  It’s not just the PSA we’re talking about here folks!  It’s the entire “sales pitch” … I’m talking about the 424(b)(5) prospectus (and none other than).

The PSA does NOT contain your loan number!  The prospectus contains your loan number!

The prospectus contains well more of the governing regulations than the PSA, all neatly signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act!   When the bank’s attorney says the Borrower has nothing to do with the Assignment, why then are you stumped?  Why can’t your attorney object?  It can’t be because of ignorance, right?

However, just because your loan number is listed within the prospectus doesn’t mean that your loan is actually in the pool (or made the pool before the cut-off date).  Look at it in the simplest of terms:

  1. Why do lenders use the MERS® System?  

The lenders use the MERS® System as a means to register and securitize mortgage notes within the secondary markets.  However, before the note (and its accompanying electronic paperwork) can be traded (transferred, sold, resold, multiple times over), it has to be digitally uploaded into the MERS® System, which was created for the purposes of electronically transferring the note!  

This is why (when you look at your loan on the MERS® Servicer ID page, the loan reads “ACTIVE”.   That means, it’s “actively” being transferred (potentially multiple times over) from one entity to another while the Servicer’s name remains constant.  When you see the word “INACTIVE”, it means the loan is no longer being traded, most likely because it is NON-PERFORMING!  Who could get away with selling non-performing loans?  Only in the securities market can you get away with that!  This goes back to the late Judge Arthur Schack in the HSBC v. Taher case, which was reversed and assigned to another judge, because the powers that be (the Appellate Department) said Schack went too far (in vetting the truth about robosigning using parties claiming to be officers of MERS). So, as long as the note doesn’t end up in its “final resting place” (as claimed by REMICs in millions of foreclosures), we have an “ACTIVE” note trading within the MERS® System.

2. The servicers who subscribe to the MERS® System purposefully abuse it!

The MERS® System, as I have previously noted in other posts, as well as in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION, allows servicers and their minions and subordinates within their default divisions or their contracted third-party document mills, to “manufacture” standing by creating assignments out of thin air, utilizing the name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., accompanied by what is proclaimed an “official title”, with only flimsy, non-notarized proclamations by William Hultman or his “successors” within MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. potentially attached to the pleadings as a means of “verification” of the use of the title by the “nominee” (who also thinks it’s a beneficiary, which it’s not).

Regardless of their “signing authority” or other Limited Power of Attorney proof of anything (as Limited Powers of Attorney can be falsely created to reinforce a claim by the REMIC that certain servicers are covered to do exercise certain powers under the power of attorney), there is nothing in the MERS Rules of Membership that forces the users of the MERS® System to “play by the rules”.  In fact, all of the users of the MERS® System have to “indemnify” MERS and its parent of any liability in connection with the creation of these documents, which means it’s “open season” in the fraud department in the creation of these documents.

   3. Parties outside of the MERS® System are allowed to participate with the servicers in creating the documents employing the use of the MERS® System! 

During the Osceola County Forensic Examination, my team discovered (in hundreds of assignments) the use a law firm in the creation of the assignments.  Many times, the assignment itself contained the words, “Prepared by:”, with either the name of the law firm, a law firm attorney or a non-lawyer working for the law firm.  My take here is that this is where you have RICO issues because the servicer, a law firm, a notary and multiple employees of both, are tasked with the creation of the document.  We are not just talking civil RICO issues here, but also criminal RICO, because the document is generally created under the direction of the law firm handling the foreclosure (in mortgage states), or in the alternative, a document processing company (e.g. LPS, CoreLogic, etc.) being involved in engineering the “proper parties” onto a piece of paper that is going to be relied upon in court to foreclose on the property.  The law firm handling the foreclosure will then rely on an assignment that it was involved in creating to steal the home, knowing full well that the assignment contains multiple misrepresentations which are not provable because the assignments clearly show the note and mortgage were transferred into the REMIC years after the Cut-off Date!

This is why I intend to write a follow-up paperback aptly titled, “How To Screw MERS!” (or something like that), to explain how to circumvent the MERS®System in your dealings in real estate (part of your due diligence before you buy a piece of property using a “MERS Member”, which is false, because the alleged “MERS Members” aren’t really “members”; they’re user-subscribers of the MERS® System, through the use of an executory contract with MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (which is nowhere to be found on your note, your security instrument or the assignment).

4. The “Electronic Tracking Agreement – Warehouse Lender” clearly shows who the “players” are … and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. is one of them!

If you look at the attached: eta_warehouse_template_v6-mers-and-borrower4, you will see what I am describing here, as to who the “electronic agent” really is. Is this disclosed to you at closing?  Hi there boys and girls, can you say “Truth-in-Lending Act violations right out of the gate?” … sure you can!  (playing on Mr. Rogers’ voice).

Do you see where your “name” is inserted as to “Borrower”?   Didn’t think so.  That’s because you’re not the Borrower, the originating lender or mortgage broker (like that pesky “Rocket Mortgage” and other digital online services that make it so easy to “get approved in minutes” for a mortgage loan).

Notice in the third paragraph where it says, “the Borrower is obligated to pledge the Mortgage Loans to the Lender”?  Notice the term used “Loans” is in the plural?  That’s because the “Borrower” in this agreement is the originating mortgage broker/lender and the “Lender” in this agreement is the “Interim Funding Lender” (like Countrywide, WaMu, IndyMac, etc.).  Look who the “Electronic Agent” is:  MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.!   What is an agent?  (hint: a nominee)

Then why isn’t MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (the parent of MERS, the entity with all the money) plainly stated on your loan paperwork, including your Note? Where is the Truth-in-Lending Act when you need it regarding non-disclosure of the real “truth”.  It was hidden from you at closing?  That might even bring about suspicion for a RESPA violation as well.

Notice within Paragraph 4 of this agreement where it says that the “Lender and the Borrower desire to have certain Mortgage Loans registered on the MERS® System (defined below) such that the mortgagee of record under each Mortgage (defined below) shall be identified as MERS;”   Did you ever sign a paper like this at closing?   I’ll save you the time looking for it.  You didn’t.  That’s because the “Borrower” in this agreement, involving the placement of your loan into the MERS® System IS NOT YOU!  Did you agree to that?   Didn’t think so.  But it sure the hell explains how your loan got “registered” on the MERS® System, doesn’t it?

This was all created to be part of the securitization process.  This is why the entire process is flawed … and why it needs to be eliminated … and why the parties who created it need to be in prison!  The MERS®System is the platform through which the RICO acts were committed.  Indemnification or not, the platform is there … and it’s knowingly being abused.

YOUR NAME AND ORIGINAL LOAN NUMBER IS ON THE ASSIGNMENT!

This begs the question: How can you NOT be involved?  The assignment is talking about your very loan and mortgage (or deed of trust) being conveyed by the employees of the mortgage loan servicer (who can’t get the originating lender to do it because it’s more than likely defunct), whose employees create the document out of thin air, under the instruction from: (a.) one of the major title companies; (b.) the foreclosure mill attorneys involved in the litigation; and (c.) a third-party document mill tasked by the servicer to keep the transaction at arms length to avoid suspicion.  In any case, the document is a fraud.  They know it. And you know it.  But the judges don’t know it because no one knows how to tell the judge a thing or two about the real aspects of securitization because they know that 99% of these assignments are fraudulent and by ruling against the bank on securitization failure, they would open up a “three-ring circus” in their courtroom while jeopardizing their political futures.

The servicer uses its own “loan number” which generally does not match yours.  But when the bogus assignment is drafted (and many times backdated for a purpose) by the servicer’s employees or that of the law firm or third-party document mill, your original loan number and name is on the assignment.  Why not simply ask the judge to take your name off that document (since you’re not involved in it) and we’ll call it a day?   You know how that will end up, right?

You first have to object to the attorney’s comment that you’re not involved in the PSA, because technically, the PSA talks in general about operations within the REMIC itself.  If you’re going to enter the PSA as evidence, you’re shortchanging yourself and your case.  What you should be entering is the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus.  It still costs $4.00 a copy from sec.gov on their forms page.  They have a contract with United Parcel Service to ship it to you at no charge.  You pay $4.00.  Get the whole prospectus.  The front end of the prospectus is what contains the cut-off and closing date, not the PSA.  Have you ever noticed that, or did you just take someone’s word for it?

exhibit-9_occ-asset-securitization-comptrollers-handbook

Notice the foregoing “Page 8” and where it came from … the 1997 Comptroller’s Handbook issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  This handbook was issued before MERS Version 3 came into being.  Notice how the first paragraph below the diagram talks about the Borrower being a party to the securitzation chain?   Do you understand why?  Because in simple fashion, in order to make the chain work (the whole system), the Borrower’s payments facilitate the income stream to the investors, who received non-recourse bonds on the Closing Date (or Start-up Date, according to IRS terminology) of the REMIC.

That is, unless securitization failure occurred at the Start-up Date.  This begs the use of an expert witness at trial to can testify as to the facts, followed by the use of depositions of the parties creating the document (the assignment) to reinforce the fraud being plied on the court.

Actually, securitization failure occurred BEFORE that!  It occurred at the Cut-off Date!

It couldn’t have happened because after the note and mortgage was uploaded into the MERS® System database (owned by now-MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.), I believe the original paperwork was no longer needed and was shredded.  My forensic examiners and I have heard this on more than one occasion, right out of the mouths of the bankers!  Thus, when the Borrower went into default: (a.) the servicer handling the loan dummied up an assignment, knowing already that it didn’t have the original loan; (b.) the servicer went into the MERS® System and downloaded the “uploaded electronic copy” and printed it out and took it into court (after adding a bunch of other “allonges”, “indorsements” to the note to try to tie the chain of title together with the chain of custody of the note.

Let me be clear here!  I do not believe that the allonges and the indorsements were completely added until AFTER the original note was retrieved from MERS. The latest article by Neil Garfield, which contains a statement: “I have obtained confirmation from a large bank vendor (Visionet Systems, Inc.) that it rectifies “lost notes” by reapplying the “signature images” upon stored copies. –Bill Paatalo, December 10, 2016.” goes to the core of the following scenario:

My wife and I attended a trial in Fort Myers, Florida where Bill Paatalo was admitted as an “expert witness”.  I went for two reasons.  First, I wanted to see what kind of questions the bank’s attorney and the judge were going to ask Bill about his expertise and the facts of the case; and second, we had dinner with Bill after that to further discuss the case, which ended up without a Final Judgment being issued that day (in court) because the judge wanted more education, in the form of trial briefs by the attorneys, which were due yesterday (I have not seen the brief).

This clearly also shows that the Notes were, at one time (as I suspected) electronic copies.  And riddle me this (as the Riddler said to Batman) … where do you think Visionet Systems, Inc. got the copy of the note?  Visionet is NOT a user of the MERS® System (check for yourself like I did) and therefore, they had to get the note from somewhere (more than likely the servicer, who IS a user of the MERS® System).  This now begs the deposition of someone at Visionet Systems, Inc. to verify this chicanery.

There are at least two cases supporting this conclusion! 

If you’ll simply Google a pdf of “In re Saldivar” (Texas) and “Glaski v. Bank of America” (California), you can see from these two cases that the court finally recognized that if the note and mortgage (or deed of trust) weren’t assigned until years after the Cut-off Date”, there is no verifiable evidence of WHEN or IF the note and security instrument actually “made it into the pool of loans” within the REMIC trust! This is what Bill Paatalo testified to at trial in Fort Myers.  When attacked by the bank’s attorney on the possibility that the note and mortgage made the cut-off date and that the assignment was strictly a memorialization of that fact, Paatalo responded to the “fact” that the assignment itself shows the date of the assignment being two years after the REMIC closed; thus, there is no possibility that the governing rules of the REMIC were complied with.  I am referring to the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus here, NOT just the PSA!

The OCC clearly contemplated that the Borrowers were the parties signing the notes and security instruments, which contained the provision (in paragraph 19 or 20, depending on which long form security instrument was employed at that time) that “the note, or a partial interest in the note” may be sold or transferred. It says nothing about the parties involved in that transaction, the “boss of the note” at foreclosure proceedings, or securitization of the loan.

Not only is the chain of title screwed up (because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing), certain parties came in contact with each other to “dummy up” paperwork to steal the house.  It’s that plain and simple.

That my friends, is a short-form explanation of the formula for securitization failure in roughly 3200 words, despite the fact I’m not an attorney nor do I render legal advice.  Share this with everyone because the life you save may be that of someone you don’t know that desperately needs to view this educational post!

BTW: For those of you wanting a progress report on the new FDCPA book I’m working on … I’ve about 40 pages to go!  I’m trying to get it done by the end of the year!  It contains some real damning information every “consumer” should know about, from foreclosures, to credit cards and car loans to student loans … all of which have been securitized … including relevant case law to back up the education I provide in this book! 

Dave Krieger, Clouded Titles

 

5 Comments

Filed under Chain of Title Education, Op-Ed Piece

THE FLORIDA BEAUVAIS CASE: PREDICATED ON LIES AND DECEPTION … FLORIDA’S LATEST JOKE!

(Op-Ed, Financial Education) — The following observations make the Florida Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals look like a friggin’ joke!   In other words, how many amicus briefs can you put forward to twist the truth, bury the falsification of documents, cover up the misdeeds of counsel and misdirect all of the fraud on the court?  

SIDE NOTE: … not to mention all of the felony misrepresentation within the recorded documents used to turn this case into what it is … this case has turned the Florida court system into the laughing stock of the nation!  We’re not laughing with you, your Honor! We’re laughing AT YOU! The banks and the HOA lawyers really pulled a good one over on you this time! 

It is no surprise that the Third District Court of Appeals would rehear and reverse the Beauvais decision, which in of itself, was based on so much controversy that it boggles the mind.  It’s also no surprise that everyone was quick to say the reversal of the DCA’s previous ruling was against Florida homeowners and that my inbox would be flooded with negative comments about the decision, obviously anti-homeowner.

Let’s take the obvious for what it is, shall we?

Florida is pro bank.  The Florida Mortgage Bankers Association and Lender Processing Services own the controlling interests in the Florida legislature and have a distinct foothold on Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.  This is why Bondi will not investigate anything having to do with the real reasons Beauvais is here in the first place!  When you have attorneys who lobby on behalf of the banks submitting amicus briefs to align themselves with this reversal, it only shows that document manufacturing orchestrated by these very attorneys hasn’t stopped.  Despite the AG Settlement in 2012, these same law firms continue to supervise (along with the title companies) the production of documents generated to steal peoples’ homes.  The circuit court justices in the State of Florida don’t want to understand that their state-sponsored retirement system is funded by fraudulent RMBS’s that have already been paid off dozens of times over and that ruling against document manufacturing won’t hurt their retirement funds.  The Florida Court system is politically motivated to screw Florida homeowners and sadly, very few Florida homeowners “get it”.  Unless you’ve been affected by a foreclosure and did the homework on your own chain of title, you wouldn’t know a corrupt document if it bit you in the ass!  Beauvais is just another example of an entire chain of title gone wrong.  It’s always the chain of title … and Florida title companies are in the middle of it!  Yup, tar and feathering is what they used to do.  There were no “settlements” back then.

While bankers’ attorneys are groveling at their latest accomplishments (including MERS attorneys who are knee deep in this), the diversion of attention to the real facts have been deliberately misplaced.  In fact, Mr. Harry Beauvais is partially to blame!  He sat on his thumbs and did nothing.  He let his HOA do the talking for him.  At that point, the whole charade was everything but “who has title”.  For those of you who have been to our Quiet Title Workshops, this case has blatantly and deliberately circumvented all of the real issues in favor of arguing “debt collection issues” having to do with statute of limitations.  What foreclosure defense attorneys don’t seem to understand is that banks’ attorneys craft their pleadings to “steer” the both the homeowner and the attorney into a corner, where they can only paint a limited picture to the courts and control the narrative.  Unless you’ve come up with something definitive you can hang your hat on, like in the infamous Nash and Dinmant cases, you’ll lose.  That is exactly what we have here!  And EVERYBODY missed the point!  Read the latest ruling and see if you can spot the real truth: DBNTCA v Beauvais et al, 3D14-575

Time for a COTA-in-brief!

The first diversion from the real truth came at the very outset of the loan!  Let’s look at the subject mortgage for a moment to see exactly where the “problem” originated. The HOA in this case never argued the fact that THE LENDER WAS A FICTION!  See for yourself: Beauvais Mortgage 

The Lender was NOT what it said it was, a New York Corporation.  In fact, like America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”), it was not registered to do business in the State of Florida! American Brokers Conduit (“ABC”) was in fact, another one of these fabricated posturings by the banks to fool homeowners and their attorneys, who think that this entity (an illegitimately unregistered “assumed name” of American Home Mortgage Finance Corporation) actually had some sort of authority to loan money, when in fact, everything about it parallels AWL!  Thus, the entire Beauvais case was predicated on fraud, yet the real problem was deliberately argued off in another direction so the courts would see the “real problem”: ABC Registration, NY Dept of State, Div. of Corps. (3-16-2012)  

(1) ABC was never a New York Corporation at the time Mr. Beauvais signed his note and mortgage!  And here I thought fraud vitiated the contract.  We have a serious breach issue ab initio because the Lender (as you can plainly see on its face) could NOT have loaned Mr. Beauvais a nickel because it did not exist in form.

(2) The 2012-formed “ABC” has nothing to do with the now-bankrupt chain of entities connected with American Home Mortgage Finance Corporation!  Plain and simple. Even in the first two pages, anyone researching the New York address on Page 2 of Beauvais mortgage could spot what I’m arguing here.  And the Third DCA went right along with their derailed train of thought without even giving the subject mortgage a serious glance.  Remember, you can only argue what was pontificated in the “lower tribunal”, which should be ashamed of itself, like Mr. Beauvais.  How in the hell can you sign a note and mortgage for $1.4-million and walk away when the going gets tough?  Worse is the fact that there are other documents in the chain of title that smack of the same findings that my team and I found in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION that no prosecuting entity seems to want to really investigate.

(3) Three suspect assignments followed the (note and) mortgage … and why am I not surprised that MERS is involved here!  It’s no wonder that Robert Brochin and his law firm (Morgan Lewis & Bockius, who represent MERS) put an amicus brief into the mix!  Another diversionary tactic to fool the courts. Look at the Beauvais Mortgage again.  See the MIN (100024200011269624)?  That’s evidence that the funds came from investors and not the fiction itself.  After the loan documents were uploaded into the MERS® System, they were likely shredded: (a.) to cover up any existence outside of the MERS database; and (b.) to force the bank’s attorneys to orchestrate a charade of document manufacturing found here:

ASSIGNMENT #1:

MERS (a fiction) assigning a note and mortgage as nominee for another fiction (ABC) by AHMSI’s own employees, orchestrated by foreclosure mill attorney Jack S. Lewis, Esq. on behalf of the foreclosure mill law firm Adorno & Yoss, LLP: MERS ASSN OF MTG_2006 

First, understand (if you don’t already), that each REMIC trust is only allowed to stay active for one year according to IRS regulations. This assignment, dated June 8, 2006, was executed by a known robosigner who is employed by the Servicer (the “Assignee” in the document), which means that the attorney and the Servicer orchestrated the manufacture of a misrepresentative document for the purposes of stealing the property, which is a felony in Florida!

Second, if you look up the REMIC involved here that Deutsche Bank claims to represent (SEC Info – American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-2 – ‘424B5’ on 7:5:06), you’ll notice the cut-off and closing dates (which I’ve restated here), signify WHEN the IRS regulations (and those of New York trust law) state you must transfer the loan documents into the REMIC: (a.) the Cut-off Date was June 1, 2006; and (b.) the Closing Date is June 30, 2006.  This means that instead of putting the loan documents into the trust pool, the assignment of the Note and Mortgage by AHMSI’s own employees to AHMSI was signed AFTER the cut-off date!  This invalidates the entire securitization process!

Third, when a search of the REMIC itself in the SEC files was conducted using the words “American Brokers Conduit”, there was no mention of ABC anywhere in the document.  

Fourth, when you look at the transaction structure for the REMIC, do you see ABC anywhere in the structure?:

2006-2 Structure

Didn’t think so.  In fact, the New York Corporation address claimed by ABC in the Beauvais Mortgage is the same address as is contained in the 424(b)(5) Prospectus for the REMIC trust, and I quote directly from it: The depositor’s principal executive offices are located at 538 Broadhollow Road, Melville, New York 11747 and its phone number is (877) 281-5500. Thus, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, RBS Investment Capital and UBS Investment Bank were involved in this “transaction structure” and ultimately had something to do with the funding of the loan.  Because of the players involved here, this “problem” is now an international one.

Also of key significance here is that the MERS business model is being used by AHMSI employees to facilitate the covering up of the misdeeds in the entire loan process and chain of title.  The banks of course set this whole charade up knowing that no one at MERS could be held directly culpable not having any knowledge of the transaction.  Only through discovery and grand jury testimony could any of this information ever come to light.

But the real points here are: (a.) ABC is the claimed “lender”, organized as a corporation under the Laws of New York, when in fact, that is false; (b.) the document was recorded in the public record as a MERS-originated Mortgage, which means “securitization” was intended; and (c.) the attorney for Adorno & Yoss didn’t care about the Cut-off Date of the REMIC because if he did (and he prepared the bloody assignment), it would have been generated long before then and the Assignee would NOT have been AHMSI, it would have been the REMIC trust!  FAILURE #1!

Suspect evidence: Notary Fraud; Document Fraud: Perjury and Subornation of Perjury by counsel; Florida Criminal Code Violations; Fraud on the Court; securitization failure; securities fraud; mortgage fraud; criminal RICO

 

ASSIGNMENT #2:

MERS (a fiction) assigning a note and mortgage as nominee for another fiction (ABC) by AHMSI’s own employees, orchestrated by foreclosure mill attorney Jack S. Lewis, Esq. on behalf of the foreclosure mill law firm Adorno & Yoss, LLP: MERS ASSN OF MTG2_2006

WOW!  As the Forrest Gump saying goes, “Stupid is as stupid does!”  Notice from the second assignment, it appears almost identical to the first assignment, except it is dated SIX MONTHS EARLIER (January 8, 2006), unlike its predecessor assignment recorded on June 16, 2006, this document was recorded on February 8, 2007.  How can that be?   Is it because the attorney realized in drafting Assignment #1 that he screwed up?  Did the attorney even draft the assignments?  Notice that there is no second “witness” on this document, allegedly signed SIX MONTHS EARLIER (before the first assignment).  Oh, come on now!  Do the friggin’ math!   We have two assignments from MERS (who has no authority to assign the Note because it can’t prove when it HAD the Note), dated six months apart, to the SAME ASSIGNEE (instead of the REMIC), violating all of the same tenets discussed in Assignment #1, and THIS DOCUMENT was also recorded in the real property records of Miami-Dade County, Florida!  It is amazing how attorneys will step all over their own privates to reverse engineer documents in an attempt to perfect the chain of title and continue to screw it up in the process.

Also of key significance here is that the MERS business model is being used by AHMSI employees to facilitate the covering up of the misdeeds in the entire loan process and chain of title.  The banks of course set this whole charade up knowing that no one at MERS could be held directly culpable not having any knowledge of the transaction.  Only through discovery and grand jury testimony could any of this information ever come to light.

Of course, this chain of assignments looks to be no different than that of the crap issued by the Law Offices of David J. Stern before he was disbarred.  The key issue here is, neither attorney is sitting in prison right now.

But the real points here are: (a.) ABC is the claimed “lender”, organized as a corporation under the Laws of New York, when in fact, that is false; (b.) the document was recorded in the public record as a MERS-originated Mortgage, which means “securitization” was intended;  (c.) the attorney for Adorno & Yoss obviously didn’t supervise the preparation of the assignment because if he did, he would have caught the dates and realized he was now caught up in a web of deceit of his own making; and (d.) the REMIC trust still did not get the benefit of the assignment, which by now is public record!  FAILURE #2!

Suspect evidence: Notary Fraud; Document Fraud: Perjury and Subornation of Perjury by counsel; Florida Criminal Code Violations; Fraud on the Court; securitization failure; securities fraud; mortgage fraud; criminal RICO

 

ASSIGNMENT #3: 

All the while the issue of WHO HAS TITLE is working its way through the court system in Florida, employees of Homeward Residential, Inc. formerly known as AHMSI (who technically got nothing via assignment, if you’ve been keeping up with the chain of fraudulent assignments), is now assigning ONLY the Mortgage (the assignment of the Note is obviously absent) by Homeward Residential’s own employees, led by alleged Vice President April Caroon (see the following info from her LinkedIn page), finally assigned ONLY the Mortgage to the REMIC:

April Caroon Screenshot_LinkedIn

April Caroon LinkedIn Background Info

You gotta hand it to these people, they’re real smart, using Homeward Residential’s Texas address while signing off on the document in Duval County, Florida and then causing it to be recorded in the real property records using MERS (again) to cover up their misdeeds.  It would obviously necessitate some sort of discovery to show WHO actually had the shredded original note.  LOL!  But this never happened because Harry Beauvais was ready to accept the cash and move into a pricey Miami-Dade home, not caring about the consequences he left in the wake of the foreclosure on his home.

I don’t see anywhere in April Caroon’s information where she claimed to be a Vice President of Homeward Residential, Inc., do you?   If I was an officer of a company and I was posting on LinkedIn, I sure would be bragging about being an officer of that company.  But in fact, she wasn’t, was she?

As any good researcher would do, I pulled Homeward Residential’s incorporation file: Florida Dept. of State, Div. of Corps. Registration ListingHomeward Residential is an ACTIVE corporation in the State of Florida, but I didn’t see April Caroon’s name listed as a Vice President.  In fact, for the year she claimed to have signed the document (2012), I pulled the Annual Report for Homeward Residential, which you can view here: 2012 For Profit Corp Annual Reportand I sure as hell don’t see April Caroon’s name listed here as a Vice President, do you?

This assignment typifies virtually every kind of foreclosure conducted in Florida, yet in this case, we’re arguing statute of limitations issues in an attempt to get a “free house” (either by Deutsche Bank, the Servicer and/or the HOA, Aqua) the cheapest way possible, by just making shit up as you go along and then plying that shit on the court system, who eats what is put in front of it … and a mile of it at that!

But the real points here are: (a.) ABC is the claimed “lender”, organized as a corporation under the Laws of New York, when in fact, that is false; (b.) the document was recorded in the public record as a MERS-originated Mortgage, which means “securitization” was intended;  (c.) it appears that a non-lawyer working at the foreclosure mill law firm of Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L. prepared the document, which may indeed have UPL consequences if it is found that the preparation was unsupervised by an attorney; and (d.) the REMIC trust got the benefit of the assignment alright, SIX YEARS TOO LATE!  FAILURE #3!

Suspect evidence: Notary Fraud; Document Fraud: Perjury and Subornation of Perjury by counsel; Florida Criminal Code Violations; Fraud on the Court; securitization failure; securities fraud; mortgage fraud; criminal RICO, Unauthorized Practice of Law

(4) Given the manner in which securitization works … as Al West puts it, “it gets better”!  If further investigation were to take place surrounding the securitization failure, one would likely find:

(a.) that upon default (Day 91), the REMIC collected at least 82% of the value of the loan (multiple times over) based on the credit default swap insurance side bets placed on the failure of the note, making a loan through a fiction that the players knew didn’t qualify for such an expensive mortgage, but did it anyway and structured the loan to fail so it could collect;

(b.) that upon default (Day 91), the REMIC could go collect on any other default insurance policies put into place prior to the registration of the loan;

(c.) that after the default, the REMIC went screaming to the title company, claiming the title was all f**ked up, and collected on a title insurance policy.

So, if an investigation by someone with some real authority were to pan out and the real truth be known:

(a.) the real players behind this mortgage loan did NOT include ABC, which is a fictitious fraud and did NOT exist in reality at the time the mortgage loan was made;

(b.) the parties involved in the manufacture of the assignments clearly knew what was at stake and that the mortgage loan was paid in full before the foreclosure process even started; and

(c.) the parties found something new to argue about in order to deflect from the real truth because the “not so real truth” is an easier pill to swallow when it comes to screwing over Florida property owners in the courts making bad case law over something totally irrelevant as statute of limitations, when fraud vitiated Beauvais’ mortgage loan in the first place!

Did the Third District Court of Appeals get a plate full of shit to digest?  You bet!

Were the real matters involving the loan itself ever made a part of this case?   Nope!

Did the banking cartels ever mean for any of this to see the light of day?  Nope!

Did the Circuit Court judge give a damn about the chain of title to the property?  Nope!

Is there more suspect document manufacturing going on AFTER the 2012 AG Settlement? Most definitely!

Are the foreclosure mill law firms involved in this suspect criminal RICO activity?  You be the judge!

Does statute of limitations really matter, given the propensity of the banks to outspend Florida property owners to screw them over in the Florida courts?  Nope!  This is a diversion, to deflect from the real truth.

So you ignorant litigants out there, keep arguing those SOL issues and see where they get you!

And now you have Florida’s latest “joke” all neatly laid out for you … which will go unheeded because, as you know, most Florida politicians and judges are bank-owned, just like foreclosed properties, so buying real estate in Florida involves some real serious caveats, including Florida politics,  especially when buying foreclosed homes, or any home for that matter, in the Sunshine State!  This is “the joke” that is Florida!

Stick that where the sun never shines! 

I rest my case.

1 Comment

Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education, Financial Education, Op-Ed Piece, Quiet Title Education