Using Securitization Facts Coupled With Proof of Fraud DISCLAIMER: THE CONTENT IN THIS BLOG IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE! Anthony Martinez is a Litigation Discovery Expert, Consultant and Strategist. Neither Anthony Martinez nor his firm AMA engage in the practice of law and only provide Case Management Consulting (“CMC”) and Legal Process Outsourcing Services (“LPO”) to licensed practicing attorneys. AMA will provide public information only and will not provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Obtain the most advanced, state of the art FEAR Declarations (False Evidence Appearing Real), Securitization and Forensic Audit Analysis Reports and Professional Loan Note Examination Analysis and Audit Reports from e-Logic Group ( e-logicgroup) . Sign-up today for e-Logic Group’s INTRODUCTION – HOW TO BECOME A PROFESSIONAL LOAN NOTE EXAMINER . Lean more about AMA Global Group’s Reverse Debt Collection Platform and Services at amaglobalgroup . Listen to the controversial archive conversations of real property litigation with expert guests on Blog Talk Radio’s - Who Stole Your Loan Radio - Hosted by Anthony Martinez every Thursday at 8pm. Look for up and coming Webinar and Seminar Events as Anthony Martinez brings advanced discovery information, tactics and strategies to the Webinar and Seminar Circuit! ********************************************* Securitization audits are a perfect example of how a good thing can be put to bad use. First let me start out by saying ANY ATTORNEY who does not know the life of their clients loan has already set the pace for a bad decision against the client homeowner. Why, because that attorney can only rely upon the documents provided to them by the banks – the party trying to STEAL your home! I’m not stating the term STEAL in bad faith. I, unlike many, understand and have a sound knowledge base in the complexities of false and fraudulent foreclosing filings. The Banks, the Courts, the Bar, the Attorney Generals Office, Law Enforcement and everyone else that is not YOU the HOMEOWNER believes the Banks are right and YOU are WRONG! Every foreclosure case begins with that stigma and every attorney, consultant, non-profit, audit company or any other person or entity who tries to help YOU the HOMEOWNER is deemed BAD and WRONG and is only trying to delay, hinder or prevent the banks from getting the money they are rightfully owed. Your constitutional rights mean SQUAT and that is self-evident by the lack of courts willing to dispose of cases on the merits and government from truly prosecuting the banks! Every attorney should know the true life of a loan. In most cases a loan is the subject of two (2) transactions, one that was documented with a Note and Mortgage and one that was undocumented. The undocumented transaction is likely what you are seeing wherein a Trustee like Deutsche Bank or U.S. bank comes in as the Plaintiff on behalf of a particular Trust. It is imperative for attorneys need to know if the named lender on the note and mortgage actually funded the transaction or if an undisclosed party funded the transaction. Unless a securitization audit is performed, chances are the attorney is relying on the banks doctored information instead of independent due diligence. Here’s a perfect example. Deutsche Bank is Trustee for FFMLT 2006-FF13. That’s the named Plaintiff in your case. The attorney thinks hey, I can just pull up that Trust information at secinfo and get all of the Trust documents. He/She is absolutely correct. Here is the problem though. Was the loan a part of that trust at the time the foreclosure was filed? Was the loan part of the trust prior to the closing date or after? In most cases your loan did not move to your trust until it was already in default which is post closing date. secinfo won’t tell you that and that is critical information the attorney should know. Why, because there is a difference between UCC 3 and UCC 9 transaction that applies to a loan that made it into the pool pre-closing date versus post closing or a loan that was already in default. Especially when you have an Assignment of Mortgage that jumps from MERS as nominee for the named lender who is now defunct straight to this Deutsche Bank Trustee for FFMLT 2006-FF13 Trust and an endorsement in blank where the Sponsor, Depositor and Issuing Entity is not reflected in the chain. A current securitization report is necessary to determine that. The problem is most attorney’s are looking for a report they can simply smack on the back of a pleading as exhibit A and do nothing more. This opens the door to expert witness and declarations that can withstand the expert witness muster which most audit reports cannot withstand thus, the audit is striken and you just paid good money for nothing. It wasn’t because the information was useless, it’s because the attorney simply did not know how to properly use the information. An affidavit from an expert is not what a securitization audit report should be used for. It should be used to arm the attorney with information not disclosed in the complaint or retrieved in discovery. A good securitization report should help the attorney gain better discovery. Here’s a perfect example. Your attorney introduces the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) and is met with – you’re not a party to the contract and so there is no privity of contract so you can’t raise these issues. That’s bad lawyering. Good lawyering is getting the Court to tell the defense who exactly the Plaintiff is. Deutsche Bank is Trustee? How? Can the Court please clarify how and under what authority Deutsche Bank is able to come into this Court as Trustee for this Trust. The objective here is to get the Plaintiff to show its alleged authority by introducing the PSA themselves. Now that the Plaintiff has introduced the PSA you can jump all over it. Now you can tie in the transfers and the closing date and the lack of compliance with the transfers of the note with the PSA, the lack of endorsements etc. The PSA is very specific on how this must be done. You also now get to introduce NY Trust Law which is critical to WHY the trust was obligated to follow these procedures. Lastly, the banks love to say hey judge, non of that matters, we hold the original note. Attorneys should remember a couple of things herein. First, you need to establish the holder position was AFTER the default and the Plaintiff took the note knowing a default had not been cured. How to you know this? Because they already alleged it in their complaint and submitted a bogus assignment of mortgage establishing when they allegedly acquired the rights to enforce. You will see this is way after the default. Why is this important? Because it moves the note from UCC 3 to UCC 9. UCC 9 supports your securitization argument about proof of change of transfer. Second, I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce a new service from e-Logic Group called Professional Loan Note Examination. Many of you may not be aware of this but the so-called “original note” found in the collateral looks like an original note but it is not. It is either a high-grade copy of a fabrication or the actual fabrication itself. e-Logic Group now offers Professional Loan Note Examination in Florida only but has launched its Professional Loan Note Examiner Certification Classes nationwide to help forward the movement to uncovering bank fraud in false foreclosure cases. Once a note is identified as a fabrication, Plaintiffs holder in blank theory not only fails but turns into a bona-fide fraud upon the court issue.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:17:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015