• Renee Ramos Yamagishi

"Don't sue us, we are merely a 'rent-a-bank-name' and .... we hope you just plain d



The article linked HERE exposes exactly the same position that all so-called "trustees" of a REMIC trust state to us when we inquire what the actual company serving as "trustee" can validate for us on behalf of the "trust" or it's "certificate-holder investors" who allegedly own our "loan" claiming the right to be paid on our "loan" or to foreclose; and hence if not receiving payments should be able to document their financial injury and thereby PROVE THEIR STANDING -- in other words:

"OK, you (US Bank, or Wilmington Trust, or _____, as Trustee of the ___ Trust: I've called you to appear and testify in my court case or answer my formal debt validation letter in your capacity, because according to a 3rd party mortgage-servicer I owe the trust you preside over a whole lot of money - and I want to negotiate some settlement, some work-out resolution directly with your trust entity, the actual "injured party" who allegedly owns the debt.

The 'rent-a-bank-name' company's answer, as a presiding "trustee" of the REMIC trust, is clearly written and spoken, as essentially "We have no clue if your specific loan is in this trust - at all, and ummm, errr, we're therefore not the ones suing you or making any claim directly against you at all regarding the specific loan you are referencing. We did NOT hire any of the attorneys who may be filing adverse claims against you or your property. Our name is being used in a nominee-only "rent-a-bank" capacity only so we can, I guess, get a cut at the end when the mortgage-servicer and related entities complete dispossession of your home and property from you and your family, rendering you all homeless and gravely irreparably harmed. But we didn't do it, they did, soooooooo.... yeah, go talk to that servicer, that is all."

I base my commentary on the blog post linked HERE .from actual letters and phone conversations from Wilmington Trust National Association and it's parent company M&T Bank's senior staff counsel and management level employees - mailed and spoken directly to me, documented in my court-filed pleadings, and a matter of public record. Above in the Header section of this site are button--links which open to the active 2017 Complaint for Quiet Title EXHIBITS, a formal Debt-Validation demand letter and a fumbled collection of responses from only a self-stated mortgage-servicer 's attorney and not from any alleged injured party purported to be the owner of loan at all.

Ummm.. THAT'S what the entity I supposedly owe a whole lot of money to says to me? That they should not be sued to prove that I owe them anything? Because they DON'T KNOW IF I DO? And that an unverified unauthorized unproven third party and stranger to the transaction (mortgage-servicer) for whom they refuse to provide a power of attorney or proof of authority to represent the trust or them as trustee -- is the ONLY entity on the face of the earth who is demanding payment from me and I"m supposed to just .... say "Great! OK, how do you spell your name Nationstar let me write you my check right now?" I JUST DON'T THINK SO. BRING IN THE INJURED PARTY TO THE COURTROOM, YOUR HONOR, FOR PROOF OF STANDING AND DUE PROCESS BEFORE DISPOSSESSION OF PROPERTY, SHALL WE????? [Amendments 5 and 14, United States Constitution ... at the very least.]

And also, there is additional Rule of Law in play here (your Honor); such as (amongst many other statutes and opinions): TRINSEY v. PAGLIARO, 229 F.Supp. 647 (1964) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, in which the court ruled:

“Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment." And from the same case, Trinsey v Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". And there's more: ""Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Which means the actual "injured party" and "owner of a debt" must appear, testify under oath, submit to depositions, interrogatories, be able to produce a Sworn Affidavit as a fact-witness with first-hand personal knowledge, prove it's standing that it owns the debt and prove extent of financial injury. This ruling concurs with many others still on the books and to be upheld, that statements of a purportedly "injured party's" alleged attorney or a third party self-stated debt-collector and mortgage-servicer are merely HEARSAY and INADMISSABLE-AS-EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE "INJURED PARTY ITSELF" HAS FAILED TO APPEAR AND IS NOT IN THE COURTROOM!

Third party strangers to the transaction are not a fact-witness, and hearsay from a stranger to the transaction is inadmissible, therefore as opined by the Supreme Court: lawyer statements or "statements of counsel" are "NOT SUFFICIENT" for summary judgement, such as a judgment to allow foreclosure. Any party named by these attorneys absent COURTROOM appearance of the OWNER OF THE DEBT WHO HAS PROVEN ITS STANDING would be lawfully deemed "UNAUTHORIZED" to conduct any debt collection activity including foreclosure. If they do so anyway, non-judicially and by a set of rubber stamp processes, the foreclosure would be VOID.

And when deemed VOID, all prior adverse debt-collection activity would be subject to damages; any documents proven false, forged or fabricated filed into the Court subject to sanctions as Fraud Upon the Court, and any fraudulent documents filed into County public records would be a violation of penal code at felony status.

Thank you Neil Garfield, and Living Lies, again.

Further reading


counter added 6/1/2018

All Rights Reserved,  Renee Shizue Ramos Yamagishi, 2016

Nothing on this site is to be taken as "legal advice," and content here is presented by a non-BAR non-lawyer and researcher / writer, who is self-represented Sui Juris when seeking remedy from the judiciary.