Posted [on LivingLies] on January 5, 2012 by Neil Garfield
The investors who purchased David Stern’s foreclosure mill have taken the extraordinary step of announcing publicly that they had been duped into buying a “criminal enterprise.” Obviously they didn’t want to get caught up in the dragnet of prosecutors looking for convictions. Nobody would spend $60 million like these investors did and then announce to the world that not only was it worthless, it was worse than worthless. It turns out that once they owned it they discovered that the entire enterprise was based upon criminal and other illegal or improper acts. It will soon be obvious that virtually all the foreclosure mills operated identically to Stern because they were owned and operated by the same people.
Those criminal acts were all about pushing foreclosures through the system. The end result of foreclosure is that somebody gets the house upon entry of a “credit bid” which is to say that they don’t pay cash, they just submit a “bid” based upon the fact that the property was the collateral for money that was due them. Since Stern was not taking the homes, and it is obvious that others were taking the homes, the question is why did they need to go through all those gyrations and subject themselves to prison time if the mortgages were legitimate? Continue reading “Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?”
World Savings Loans Were Securitized – Pooling and Servicing Agreement Uncovered
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Contrary to what Wells Fargo is saying in court, we have proof that World Savings Bank Securitized loans into REMICs. We had some evidence of this already, but newly added is a Pooling and Servicing Agreement that we have acquired for World Savings Bank REMIC 12. The terms are fairly standard that you see in most other securitizations, except that World Savings Bank played nearly all parts in the transaction (the originator, sponsor/seller, depositor, underwriter, etc). The servicers were required and obligated to make principal and interest payments whether or not they receive them from the homeowners, the notes were required to be endorsed without recourse to the order of Trustee and showing an unbroken chain of endorsements [..] from the originator thereof to the Person endorsing it to Trustee. It is all here, even the second set of books kept by the master servicer (you know, the true accounting that is concealed, misrepresented and not disclosed to any court of law).
This is a HUGE breakthrough for those looking for evidence that their World Savings Bank loans were securitized.
Download the Pooling and Servicing Agreement here
The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
New Note added on 1/22/2012 thanks to Simonee. California Probate Code does not seem to apply based on this California Supreme Court decision: Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623 (download here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)
Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623
Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure. If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case. But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.
I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.
Closing the Transaction
The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust). The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender). Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing. This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).
Notice of Default
Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary. Who is the beneficiary? Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS. However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.
Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1”