NEIL GARFIELD CLARIFIES WHO IS THE "LENDER" OR "CREDITOR"?

New post on Livinglies's Weblog Who is the "lender" or "creditor"? by Neil Garfield LET'S PROCEED STEP BY STEP. - Based upon actual documentation filed with the SEC 1. let's assume that the mortgage is defective because it was not perfected. The note described a party who was not the creditor and gave no notice as to the actual identity of the creditor. 2. Let's assume also that the note was paid in full from a variety of sources, which you know about ad nauseum. 3. Let's further assume that the transfer documents are either non-existent or defective in that there was no actual transaction (they are false), there was no authority of the signatories etc. 4. Now let's see what evidence I come up with to show that one or all of these things are true. SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS: We will issue and guarantee the certificates. Each certificate represents an undivided ownership interest in a pool of adjustable-rate residential mortgage loans. We offer each certificate by this prospectus supplement and the prospectus referenced in the pool statistics included herein. What that means is that they (a) intend to do something in the future as of the date of this instrument, which appears to be some time in 2005 and (b) each certificate represents an undivided interest in the loans as a pool and do not represent direct ownership of the loans themselves (c) and it appears to indicate that that FNMA issues and guarantees the certificates, not the loans. Note that FNMA is not a lender but rather a guarantor although it is frequently referred to as a lender because it serves in the nominal position of "Master Trustee" for REMIC Trusts whose Trust Beneficiaries funded the loan, even if it wasn't through the trust. The certificates are issued under the terms of the ARM trust indenture dated as of July 1, 1984, as amended. What that means is that the agreement and intentions of the parties were set long before the first contact or application was made by the borrower. This impacts the mortgage origination. TILA and RESPA require full disclosure of the identity of the lender because the very purpose of TILA was to make sure the borrower had enough information to make a choice between one lender or another. By depriving the borrower of this knowledge, the borrower was unaware that the purpose of his/her "loan" product was to sell securities and that the "securitization" parties had a greater incentive to sell the loan than make sure that the loan was viable --- even if they had no intention of actually securitizing the loan in the manner set forth in the Prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The borrower is also not advised that his/her name and credit score would be used to sell those securities. Now this doesn't mean the loan wasn't real, but it does point to the fact that the actual identity of the funders of the loan was being kept secret and that the note was defective in failing to show that this was the intent of the parties sitting across the table from the borrower. By keeping this information from both the lender and the borrower, the "securitization" parties were obviously intending to use the identities of the lenders and use the identities of the borrowers to create actual or fictitious transactions to cover any excessive compensation or payoffs they were anticipating. We have responsibility for the servicing of the mortgage loans in the pool. Every month we will pay to certificate holders scheduled installments of principal on the mortgage loans in the pool, together with one month's accrued interest at the pool accrual rate. We guarantee to pay these amounts, whether or not the borrowers under the mortgage loans pay us. If we foreclose on a mortgage loan, we also must pay certificate holders the full principal balance of that loan even if we recover a lesser amount. There are several possible interpretations here. And that is because "we" is not actually an identification of any party or parties. One is that FNMA was the creditor in fact the whole time. The fact that FNMA is not the creditor because it never loaned any money and never bought the loans (except possibly as Master Trustee for a REMIC Trust, which could only mean that the REMIC trust bought it acting through FNMA acting as a "manager"). Another is that the investors were the creditors, and still another is that the trust was the creditor. It's really not that clear. What IS clear is that the investors were paid no matter what, which means that from the investor point of view there could be no default --- ever, unless FNMA defaulted. This is the quasi equivalent of servicer advances. In truth both servicer advances and the guarantee payments probably came from a reserve fund taken out of the investors' pool of money sitting in the broker dealer's account. The reason why the payments were made regardless of what the borrower did was that the broker dealers wanted to sell more bonds. By creating the illusion that all is well with the loan pool, the investors continued to buy the mortgage bonds. The authority for paying the investors out of their own money is directly stated in language buried in the prospectus, at a point where most fund managers have stopped reading and are relying upon their trust of investment banks who have a reputation dating back as much as 150 years. This was a reputation they cashed. The only true securitization was that the reputation of the major banks was sold off multiple times in bogus instruments that do NOT qualify for security exemption and SHOULD be subject to SEC enforcement. Hence the source of funding was paid and is being paid and is guaranteed to be paid in all events. So here is the problem: if the guarantee was of the certificate and not of the mortgage how exactly does FNMA claim direct ownership of the loan? You have a right to see those transactions and ascertain the true value of the mortgage and the true creditor. It is unlikely that there were two guarantees --- one for the certificates and one for the loans. And the interesting part of that is my understanding of the process is that FNMA was to created to guarantee loans not certificates. The point of this exercise is to emphasize the importance of actually reading the "securitization" documents and to compare the events set forth in the documents with the actual events. If the document says the loan was to be acquired through an assignment that is in recordable form and which is recorded, then there are several questions. Was the document of assignment prepared? Was it recorded? And most of all was there any transaction in which the Trust paid for the assignment? And of course as almost everyone knows in foreclosure defense, when did this alleged transaction take place. The name of the trust usually has a year and sometimes a month in it and that gives the answer about when the transaction must have taken place in order to qualify for a valid acquisition of loan --- i.e., the 90 day cutoff. So we know by definition and from the facts of closing that if the closing took place on December 1, 2006 and the cutoff date for trust business was January 1, 2007, that the assignment was required during that period. But we also know from experience that these assignments appear out of thin air only for mortgages that are in litigation --- leading to what some in foreclosure defense refer to as "ta da!" assignments --- obviously fabricated minutes before they were used in court. The last item is the most deadly for the banks. It is perfectly appropriate to ask for the transaction in which the transfer took place. The assignment, fabricated or not, says it took place on a certain date. The banking system is set up so that there are multiple sets of footprints for the movement of money. So your question is, show me the transaction where the Trust issued a check or wire transfer for this mortgage. Their answer is no. They will cite all sorts of reasons for this, but the real one is that the transaction does not exist. It doesn't exist now, it didn't exist then and it never will exist because in most cases the money advanced by investors to the broker dealers was never used in the manner set forth in the prospectus. That is a subject for litigation between investors and broker dealers and there have been hundreds of such claims now that the truth is coming out. The only significance to you is that you now have actual knowledge that the investors directly and involuntarily funded the origination or acquisition of your loan, but failed to get the what they should have received --- a note and mortgage payable to the investors. Naming the mortgage broker or originator on the note and mortgage is pure fiction and in my opinion renders those instruments void. The alleged transaction at the closing with the borrower was a sham. He or she was induced to sign closing documents upon the mistaken belief that the originator or mortgage broker was actually lending the money to him or her. The moment the borrower signed the note and mortgage, and the moment the mortgage was recorded, there was a cloud on title because the mortgage was defective --- a mortgage which the investors themselves allege was unenforceable for exactly the reason set forth in this article. Analysis taken from ADJUSTABLE RATE TRUST INDENTURE FOR ADJ RATE PRIOR TO 6-1-07.pdf; SET 2 TEXT RECOGNIZABLE FM 000471 - MERS history of lender, investor, servicing.pdf; FNMA LISTING OF ARM MBS SUBTYPES.pdf; FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2005.pdf; LOAN LEVEL INFO.pdf; monthly reporting.pdf; NOTES WHILE REVIEWING SECURITIZATION DOCUMENT.wpd; Prospectus July 1, 2004.pdf; SECURITY SPECIFIC DETAILS FROM FNMA WEBSITE BASED ON POOL NUMBER PROVIDED IN DISCLOSURE.pdf; Supplement to Prospectus.pdf Neil Garfield | March 27, 2014 at 9:29 am | Tags: 10-K annual report, assignments, date of assignment, date of transaction, Fannie Mae guarantee, Fannie Mae Master trustee, mortgage bonds, payments on behalf of investors, payments to investors, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Prospectus, Servicer advances | Categories: CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | URL: http://wp.me/p7SnH-65M Comment    See all comments    Like Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Livinglies's Weblog. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/who-is-the-lender-or-creditor/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com