Judge Schack Hammers HSBC for False Paperwork
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Here are Neil Garfield’s comments regarding this case from LivingLies (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/schack-bangs-hsbc-for-false-paperwork/):
Posted on December 30, 2011 by Neil Garfield
EDITOR’S NOTE: Plausible deniability went out the window as HSBC tried to get out of the consequences for submitting false, fabricated papers to the court in support of a fraudulent foreclosure. They tried to say they didn’t know. Schack didn’t buy it and slapped them with a $10,000 fine.
But the real story is yet to be told. We are getting closer to the real question, yet the inquiry into WHY false papers are being submitted on such a widespread basis has not occurred. This is the industry that practically invented dotted i’s and crossed t’s. They processed tens of millions of mortgages just the way they wanted them without error. Now they are claiming that they messed up the paperwork because of the same volume that they processed without a problem. And they are layering the responsibility by outsourcing the fabrication, forgery and fraud.
THE REAL ANSWER: When we get to the point where the question is asked and answered, it will unravel the entire securitization scam and it will be obvious that although the MONEY was treated as though the loans were securitized, the DOCUMENTS were not. Why would they do that? To cover up the money they were skimming from the investor dollars that were advanced for funding mortgages but instead were used to pay fees to the investment bankers and their cohorts.
In order to give the appearance of selling the loan over and over again, and in order to create “trading” activity that would justify the profits and fees they were taking without the knowledge of either the investor or the borrower, they needed a gap — a vacuum that they would fill with bogus transactions which gave them the lion’s share of the pot created by the sale of bogus mortgage backed securities that were in fact, not backed by mortgages and were in fact not transferred into the pools.
But none of those extra transactions fit in with the documentary scheme required by law for mortgages and none of them conform to the documentary requirements in the pooling and servicing agreement. So they filled the gap, for purposes of foreclosure with fabricated, forged, fraudulent documents that refer to transactions and payments that never occurred.
A FULL accounting will easily show that the alleged transfers of the loan obligation were never the basis for payment between the transferor and transferee. A FULL accounting will show that the most of the loans have been paid down further than any required principal reduction. It will show that the past foreclosures were fraudulent, the sale of bonds to investors were fraudulent, and that the new ones coming up are equally baseless and without merit.
Download ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011-NY-Slip-Op-52317-U_HSBC_vs_Taher.pdf
