Homeowners' receive formal letters naming the entity who third-party debt collector "mortgage-servicers" claim is the owner of our Notes. The law compels timely answers to "borrowers' qualified written requests" disclosing the exact name of the "INJURED PARTY" who claims it is owed a debt arising from our specific Note and Loan.
If the dispute is brought to litigation there has to be a name put in the place of the entity who allegedly owns the Note and debt, i.e. the "injured party" who is injured due to non-payment of the note has to be identified in pleadings. It turns out this simple identification process is surprisingly problematic for our attackers.
In normal business, an entity owed money is eager to prove the debt is owed to it, providing proof of the "equitable injury," or financial loss suffered. But not here: though we have attorneys and debt-collectors refusing to modify loans or workout a resolution that keeps that family housed, instead incessantly maneuvering only to take our homes to satisfy the injury of a completely ELUSIVE entity. We cry foul and seek due process and remedy according to governing law.
"Okay ... sooo, Mr. Rent-a-Bank, you agree you're
Trustee of the Trust that supposedly owns our
note and loan, but you know ZILCH about our note
and loan .... and this cluelessness is your shield from being sued for damages -- or so you hope. You have "no loan-level data" but no other type of data is relevant here. And as "trustee" you're utterly mystified about the Trust you supposedly serve as "trustee" for? What curious cluelessness! What unacceptable unaccountability Mr. Rent-a-Bank as Trustee, sir! Firmly unaware then, if any loan or note even exists, let alone if the Trust
or any of its beneficiaries own it. However you're SURE only
a 3rd party debt-collector and "servicer," the only entity on
earth with a shred of any "loan-level data" is perfectly qualified
to assert ALL attacks against note-maker!
You wear IGNORANCE as INNOCENCE.
Logic-fail. WHO'S INJURED HERE?"
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
Posted April 2012 and still timely because the crisis is still very much afoot. Easy laymen's terms and promises to be an eye-opener. Thank you to attorneys John and Alicia Campbell and Eric Vieth. Note: it makes sense that these people are good at conveying and de-mysitifying this: John is also on the faculty of Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver; and we've seen time and again that law scholars who love logic and have more invested in Principle than in filthy lucre and a fallen injurious busiinss model -- would come through and reverse-engineer one of the greatest wealth and land grab heists of the century.
What is "MERS?" Check out minute 32 for ten minutes on the colossal mess known as "Mortgage Electronic Registration System."
Neil Garfield writing in LivingLies Blog, article titled"If you think foreclosures are a thing of the past, think again":
". ... The trusts didn’t exist and there were no trustees. But in the upside down world of foreclosure here we are with most foreclosures filed in the name of a nonexistent implied trust on behalf of a “trustee” with no trustee powers, obligations or duties to administer any assets much less loans in foreclosure.
In order to understand this you must throw out any ideas of a rational market driven by fundamental economics and accept the fact that the banks and their servicers continue to be engaged in the largest economic crime in human history. Their objective is foreclosure because that accomplishes two goals: first, it rubber stamps prior illegal practices and theft of borrowers’ identities for purposes of trading profits and second, it gives them a free house and free money.
If they lose a foreclosure case nobody suffers a financial loss. If they win, which they do most of the time (except where homeowners aggressively defend) they get a free house and the proceeds of sale are distributed to the players who are laughing, pardon the pun, all the way to the bank. Investors get ZERO.
if the facts were allowed in as evidence, the homeowner would be entitled to a share of the bounty that was a windfall to the investment bank and its affiliates by trading on the borrower’s signature. A “free house” only partially compensates the homeowner for the illegal noncensual trading on his name with the intent of screwing him/her later.
Upon liquidation of the property the proceeds of sale are deposited not by an owner of the debt, but by one of the players who just added insult to injury to both the borrower and the original investors who paid real money but failed to get an interest in the fabricated closing documents — i.e., the note and mortgage.
The Banks have succeeded in getting everyone to think about how unfair it is that homeowners would even think of pursuing a “free house”. By doing that they distract from the fact that the homeowners and the investors who put up the origination or acquisition money are both excluded from the huge profits generated by trading on the signature of borrowers and the money of investors who do not get to share in the bounty, which is often 20-40 times the amount of the loan.
The courts don’t want to hear about esoteric arguments about the securitization process. Judges assume that somewhere in the complex moving parts of the securitization scheme there is an owner of the debt who will get compensated as a result of the homeowner’s refusal or failure to make monthly payments of interest and principal. That assumption is untrue.
This is revealed when the money from the sale of property is traced. If you trace the check you will be misled. Regardless of where the check is mailed, the check is actually cashed by a servicer who deposits it to the account of an investment bank who has already received many times the amount of the loan principal. That money is neither credited to the account of the borrower nor reported, much less distributed to investors who bought certificates (wrongly named “mortgage bonds”).
Neither the investors who bought the original uncertificated certificates nor the investors who purchased contracts based upon the apparent value of the certificates ever see a penny of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. In order to maintain the illusion of legality and an orderly marketplace the banks and their servicers must continue to push foreclosures. ...
[Audio linked above: Neil Garfield show on the topic of who gets paid on the proceeds of the auctioned house?]
At the bottom of this page, are links to this note-maker and home dweller's formal inquiry letters, affidavit of telephone disclosure in answer to our Qualified Written Requests (QWR) and Notice of Error & Request for Information letters (NOE/RFI) pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2605 and 1024.35 (RESPA); 15 U.S.C. Section 1641 (TILA); UCC Article 3 adopted for each state, and other applicable law not the least of which is our Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
Homeowners are a real party in contract: as such we reasonably need the clear unambiguous identity to whom we owe a debt, the true current owner of our note, so to modify our loan or settle the dispute with outside funding options, in a manner certain and final. We are forced to litigate when certainty is sorely wanting! An unacceptable condition which subjects ourselves and our heirs to never-ending anguish and controversy on retaining home.
Often opposing counsel representing mortgage-servicers are baffled when they realize their mortgage-servicer client doesn't have "standing" as the debt-owner or injured party. And its understandably a bit baffling that representing "the Trust" proves enigmatic, problematic and difficult to explain. This includes "certificate-holders" as purportedly owed the debt - we ask "Produce these certificates and the prospectus accounting of these certificate-holders --- where is there spokesperson, where do the certificate-holders hold their annual meeting? In fact, if the "trust" or the "certificate-holders" have been the injured party all these years as claimed by the servicer, I have a counterclaim to make against them for my own damages -- who is their managing-level representative who is a human being and not its attorney or its 3rd party agent servicer? Such is MY right to deal directly with an 'intact identifiable obligee' who simply proves its injury, says we a real party in interest."
"Prove the injury of the Injured Party!" says homeowner and real party in interest, in keeping with governing law regarding a promissory note which is the subject transaction.
A threshold of legal standing is existence, followed by the capacity to own that Note and suffer an injury arising from non-payment of the same Note. At law we have clear ways to establish this proof of injury and thus overcome the burden of proof of standing for a current owner of the debt and Note.
Instead the attempted schematic we routinely see from servicers only and their attorneys, is a formulaic and oft-repeated position that defies logic and refutes governing law.
From the abstract: "Who has the legal right to foreclose on your home? More importantly, who doesn’t?
Unlawful foreclosures are not just financial crimes against
individuals and families. At the eviction stage, they are crimes perpetrated together with the threat of violence. Five years after the 2008 economic implosion, it is clear to anyone with a shred of sensibility that many financial regulators have become Wall Street commodities to be bought and sold. If that were not the case, by now there would have been hundreds, if not thousands of arrests, convictions and imprisonments; just as there were in the aftermath of the Savings and Loan debacle in the early1990’s.
Twenty years hence, our leaders are benign at best and complicit at worst. This is a legal issue that has haunted the foreclosure crisis since it began in 2008. During the 1990s, U.S banking interests aunched an all-out campaign to repeal many of the federal banking regulations which were enacted by Congress in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929. Bit by bit, those regulations were stripped away until finally, in 1999, Congress repealed what was arguably the single most important financial regulation born out of that financial crisis: The Glass-Steagall Act. This deregulation allowed the rapid return to the same casino-like behavior that characterized the financial industry in the 1920s.
Although many foreclosures are legitimate, a large percentage of them which were started since 2008 involved fake or forged documentation, the most egregious of which are recorded mortgage assignments involving private label securitized trusts created between 2004 and early 2007. In 2013, such unlawful foreclosures continue to occur daily, on a massive scale, in every State of the Union. ..."
SCHOOL of LIFE
Paid in Full
Special thanks to Jim Campbell for his sacred-warriorship and academic discipline; taking his case to the United States Federal Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit, and earning both degrees focused on this deep dive, in the wake of a direct attack of unlawful foreclosure upon his own family and household.
EXCERPT: "James Campbell | Master of Arts in Policy Studies University of Washington Bothell | June 6, 2016
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Do foreclosures by entities with no legal standing to do so constitute a public policy failure? ...."
in a 30-day span
QWR never answered by Nationstar nor BofA
Meet & Confer phone 430.41.
See 1/30/2019 blog post on CA Homeowners Bill of Rights
All 3 variations penned by Nationstar to formal complaint
to Consumer Financial Pro-tection Bureau (CFPB) differ between their own 3 responses AND with attorney-named "injured party" during 2017 suit.