Information of Foreclosure Defense! Simple to understand Non-Valid Trust. Can suits be filed for the LIBOR Fraud of banks and governments? YES!

There can be lots of complex defenses against the FRAUD of banks!   I get confused at times, since I am not a lawyer about how to defend against a FRAUDCLOSURE!

Jesse Scott from Mortgage Auditors had mentioned article 9 to me a few times and posted a short email/article from him about it.  

Today I have found another article about "article 9" from Matt Weidner.  He is a lawyer and has a Law blog and it has a lot about the Fraudclosure happening and defenses of it.

I have to admit the whole  "Article 9" portion can seem confusing to me, considering I am not a lawyer.

But it is a very valid defense and everyone should look at using it.  Besides that defense there is something that is so simple to understand, in my opinion.

That defense is also on Matt Weidner's site.   It is about the "Pooling and Service" agreement, this was written in 2010, but is very very valid today. 

Every single loan/mortgage goes into a "Pooling and Service" agreement and that is ultimately a trust.  Normally that trust consists of hundreds of new mortgages.  That "Trust" is filed with the SEC.

Here is the part that is very important!  That trust is suppose to have "tax filings" (just like we have to file our IRS taxes every year) with SEC.   What you will find is there may be a filing or two regarding that trust, but then the filings stop.  You will find as a whole the "Trust" that has mortgages in it, stopped being an "effective or valid" trust, once the SEC filings stopped.  So.. that means that Trust is no longer valid and that Trust means there can be no Trustee to be able to foreclose on a home.   (I know the trust for my personal home,  stopped filing any thing with the SEC many years ago)

Here is the above linked article:

If you’re being sued by any entity acting as a trustee, i.e. “US BANK as trustee for the HP Series 2006-c Certificate Holders”, you need to be aware of a variety of issues that may be helpful in your case.  I will start another series of video blog posts on the “Capacity Argument”, because this argument works in nearly every case, but it is particularly appropriate in cases where Plaintiff is an exotic, alphabet soup Foreclosure Frankenstein.

Individual mortgages originated by lenders like New Century and Argent were pooled into groups of approximately 8,000 mortgages from around the country to form a Mortgage Trust which held mortgages which had (on paper at least) cumulative values of between 10-12 million dollars.  These mortgages that were grouped together and given a name like “HSI ASSETT SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2006-OPT2″. Interests in these mortgage trusts were then sold to teachers unions, investment funds and other institutional sources around the world.  Before selling the interests in these trusts, the institutional investors were required to prepare the contract that would govern the rights between the depositor of the mortgages, trustee of the new trust and the company that would be responsible for collecting payments from homeowners and sending those payments out to those who had invested in the trust.  This contract is called the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  The important thing about the Pooling and Servicing Agreement is you will find in virtually every case that all of the parties who are involved violate nearly every provision of their own Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  This has important consequences that we will talk more about later, but the Securities and Exchange Commission rules requires these trusts to provide important other reporting information that was widely ignored or worse, falsified by the entities in control of these trusts.  Finding such information can be a key to defending your case.

The Securities and Exchange Commission Edgar Database can be found here. You can also put the name of your Frakenstein, Alphabet Soup Trust into quotes, “The IXIX 2006-A Trust” into a straight google search and see what comes up. Here are Step-By-Step instructions:
Finding Pooling And Servicing Agreements  (PSA’s)
For Securitized Mortgage Loans
The “Pooling and Servicing Agreement” is the legal document that contains the
responsibilities and rights of the servicer, the trustee, and others over a pool of mortgage
loans.  The Pooling and Servicing Agreement can be a stand-alone document or it can be
part of another paper, usually called the “Prospectus.”  If the securitization is public,
these documents must be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and
will be available to the public at www.sec.gov.  Locating a Pooling and Servicing
Agreement on the SEC website can be a challenge. The most important information you will
need to find the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement is the name of the original lender and the title of the pool of loans.  We will
work through an example below.  Assume that the lender is Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
We don’t know the name of the pool that the homeowner’s mortgage ended up in, but we
do know that the mortgage was made on June 1, 2002.

Step One:
Go to www.sec.gov and click on “Search for Company Filings” under “Filing & Forms
(EDGAR).”    Under “General-Purpose Searches,” click on “Companies & other filers.”
Then, in the “Enter your search information” box, type in “Ameriquest” next to “Company name” and click on the “Find Companies” button.
Step Two:
The page you are now looking at shows a long list of the names of securitized pools of
loans.   We know the mortgage was made on June 1, 2002.  Look for the entry titled
“AMERIQUEST MORT SEC INC ASS BK PAS THR CERTS SER 2002 2.”  The
document number is CIK 0001175125.  Click on that number.  We selected this entry
because it said 2002 on it and the loan in question was made in 2002.  There may be
several other pools of mortgage loans that Ameriquest securitized in 2002 but this is the
first one we come to on this list (when reviewed in late February 2007) so we will pull it
up.

Step Three:
Now you see a list of documents filed with the SEC that are related to this pool of loans.
Scroll down to the bottom and you will see a document titled “Prospectus.”  This is the
document that will likely be the one you want, assuming that the mortgage loan you are
concerned about is in this pool.  We can only make an educated guess, unless you know
the name of the securitized pool in advance (which is unlikely). Click on either “htm or text”
next to this document and the Prospectus will appear.  Now,
bookmark this document on your web browser, so you can come back to it easily in the future.

Step Four
Is this likely to be the document you want?  Scroll down to page S-2 and you will see a
Table of Contents.  Included in that is the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement” which
starts on page S-76.  Also, scroll down one more page, past the Table of Contents, and
you will see a “Summary of Prospectus Supplement.”  Certain important information is
listed there, including the cut-off and closing dates for loans that will be included in this
pool.  The closing date is June 7, 2002.  Based on this information, you can assume that
this document governs the responsibilities of the servicer of the mortgage loan in
question, unless that servicer tells you otherwise and can back it up with a reference to a
different agreement or pool.   Other important information listed in this Summary includes
the title of the pool, and the
identity of the servicer and trustee.  The servicing rights may have been sold since this
document was filed and the current servicer may be a different company but the trustee
(the legal holder of the mortgage) should be accurate.

Step Five:
Go the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to find what you need to know.  It should
describe how the servicer is paid and by how much, who keeps late and other fees, what
authority it has to modify the loan or engage in workouts with homeowners, and its
obligations to pass mortgage payments on to the trustee.
Some of the best information I get comes from intrepid consumer researchers out there who care enough to dig into these things.  Perhaps the most powerful thing about this and other online forums is the ability for consumers and advocates to share what they’ve found.  In my estimation, what this pro-se Defendant found is enough to blow the lid off his foreclosure case…..read on:

I was served Lis Pendens last month, (April 2010), naming the plaintiff  Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for HSI ASSETT SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2006-OPT2 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2

I looked into the records for that entity in the SEC EDGAR online database and discovered that the last annual report was filed in 2007, contemporaneously with a FORM 15 filing.That Form 15 filing claimed a standing under 15d-6 of the 1934 SEC regulations which exempts the entity of filing an annual report, whereby the number of claimed investors had fallen below the SEC registration and reporting threshold of 300 persons. ( To my understanding, the same Form 15 filing is also used when a registered, reporting, entity is dissolved.)
I then began looking at many other securitized trusts in the EDGAR database. Literally dozens and dozens of these securitized trusts have done exactly the same thing. he trust is established and appropriate SEC documents are filed for a period of time, usually 1 or 2 years. The trust then files a Form 15 claiming exemption of the obligation to file reports with the SEC under 15d-6

The paper trail for the Trust with the SEC thereby *ends* Many of these trusts have not filed anything with the SEC for years. Many as far back as 2005 and 2006

Some of the SEC Form 15d-6 filings disclosed as few as 15 or less investors. Bear in mind, these are for trusts that purportedly hold well over $1 BILLION in mortgages, and there are dozens and dozens of these trusts with a mere hand full of investors! I also noted that the “agent of record” of many of these trusts have changed many times, and are very infrequently “named”, but list only an address and phone number, (usually in New York). In several of the cases I’ve looked at in the EDGAR database, I actually called some of the phone number listed at 3:00am EST and got the voicemail of someone at a bank in N.Y. Note that the answering party was NEVER a bank listed as the Trustee, (as Deutsche Bank is in my case), or the trust “administrator” as listed in the PSA or any subsequent SEC filings.
I actually got the voicemail of some fellow at HSBC Bank who was the “anonymous” contact in my case! My point is this;

Has anyone actually verified that the securitized trusts claimed to be under the trusteeship of some of these banks still ACTUALLY EXIST?

We’ve been so focused on the NOTE and the fraudulent paper being slung about for assignment of those notes, and whether or not the “plaintiff” has standing to bring the foreclosure action, has anyone thought to see if the “plaintiff trust” is even still active or not? Were many of these trusts actually dissolved after payouts from credit default swaps and TARP funds and the actual investors now long gone? We have no records to show whether they are alive or dead. Most of these trusts haven’t filed anything with anyone in years as far as I can tell.

Certainly, as in my case, Deutsche Bank, (as Trustee), still exists, but can these plaintiff securitized trusts be made to *prove* they still exist?

What happens to a foreclosure case if the plaintiff entity,(the securitized trust, *not* the Trustee for it), no longer exists or cannot prove it exists?

IT’S TIME FOR ME TO GET BACK TO AN ISSUE THAT I HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE AND IT IS THIS CAPACITY ISSUE…BECAUSE IT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF THESE CASES.  SIMPLY PUT, A TRUSTEE CANNOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION ON BEHALF OF A TRUST THAT DOESN’T EXIST.

 

Now with all the FRAUD happening.

How anyone can defend a bank today, I will never understand.  Considering that various fraud in all areas is coming out constantly that all the banks have committed for years/decades.

The banks have committed fraud and still do with MERS and foreclosures.  They have manipulated the metals/commodity/equity markets for years.  MF Global stole money directly out of people's accounts and then allowed JP Morgan to steal all the gold and silver in storage for customers and not one person is being charged or prosecuted for it.   What this means to me, is there is collusion involving the U.S. government with the fraud as all the agencies are covering it up.    That also means CFTC is in collusion with the banks for covering up the metals manipulation too. 

Now we have the LIBOR manipulation that has come out.  Which is showing how the banks manipulated the interest rate market for their benefit and hurt every one (which is literally everyone) who relies on the credit/banking system in one way or another.

The U.S government has looked the other way with all the fraud and manipulation.  All the elected officials have looked the other way, as they have been paid off to through campaign contributions.   The Federal Reserve is right in the middle of it all.  Considering the U.S. elected officials handed off our monetary policy to a privately owned bank (Federal Reserve) that means they have been allowing the manipulation of all credit at the detriment of the American people.

Now, believe it or not my biggest question here is.................... Can, We the People sue our Government and the Federal Reserve and all of our elected officials, for allowing the manipulation, participating in the manipulation and allowing a private bank to control the complete monetary policy of fraud for the country?  Can we Sue the Credit Card companies, banks and all entities involved in all the fraud they purposely committed against the people.  

When will people fully understand, we have a system that is completely rigged against the "regular" people and only benefits the insiders. government officials, corporations and banks?  Every single transaction is manipulated to steal from the people to benefit the few. 

Some may think it is silly and it is "out there" to want to sue all entities including the SEC, CFTC, elected officials, Fed Reserve (private bank) and all other private banks for all the fraud they have committed against the people.  The government agencies have not done their jobs and they are in reality in collusion with those who are committing the fraud upon the people.   Just look at the Madoff ponzi scheme.  The SEC knew about it but they looked the other way they let it continue.  The CFTC and all other Federal government agencies are looking the other way right now regarding the MF Global and JP Morgan stealing people's money directly out of their accounts.

Do you see that "We the People" do not have representation nor protection in any way shape or form from the corporations and banks that continually perpetrate FRAUD upon us?

It is time to demand the government does their job and we need to take action to stop the Fraud in every way.

Why not Sue the Federal Reserve?

Here is a great article about all the conflict of interest involving the Federal Reserve including the insider trading of LIBOR with the Federal Reserve and U.S. government being complacent.  

I know I have had credit cards from Citibank, a line of credit based on an investment property I owned in 2005 from Suntrust bank, which was based on the manipulated LIBOR rate.  Which both jumped up in interest at times because of the fraudulent LIBOR rates.

So.......  through action from RICO suits and others, we the people need to stop sitting on our butts and start taking non-violent but intellectual action and sue everyone involved.  It is only through mass action we can get the rigged system changed from our money being stolen in every which way (including pensions and IRA accounts).    We need to make our government accountable for them allowing all the fraud and looking the other way. 

Will lawyers be willing to take suits on against all involved?

Can you sue the U.S. Government?  
(much more is at link, a portion below:)

In general, the FTCA is intended to provide monetary compensation for injury, property loss, or death "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government." But this broad-sounding mandate is subject to a lot of fine print.
Although the limitations and exceptions are too numerous to review in this article, here are some general guidelines regarding the limitations on FTCA claims:

• Only federal employees can be sued under the FTCA, not independent contractors hired by the federal government (unless they are treated like employees).
• The negligent or wrongful conduct must have been done within the scope of the defendant's employment.
• In general, only claims of negligence -- as opposed to intentional misconduct -- are allowed (though some claims for intentional misconduct can be brought against certain federal law enforcement officers).
• The claim must be based on -- and permitted by -- the law of the state in which the misconduct occurred.

Despite these and numerous other limitations on FTCA lawsuits, the federal government still pays out millions of dollars each year to compensate FTCA claims. So if you think you may have a valid claim, it may be worth pursuing.
If you determine that you do have a valid FTCA claim, the next hurdle is to follow the prescribed steps for such claims, which include some strict time limits.

Matt Taibbi is interviewed by Eliot Spitzer on Viewpoint about LIBOR and why it is so important and how it is the center of the financial universe.