Some great articles by Bill Butler at Liberty Law, who knows a thing or two about securitization and foreclosure fraud, as he won one of the first (if not the first) lawsuits over securitization in 1996. Butler has been railroaded by the Minnesota federal judiciary, having been fined (and now suspended) in the neighborhood of $323,000 for presenting what the courts called “frivolous” arguments in foreclosure cases.
Of course, “frivolous” really means “bank-defeating” and so therefore the arguments couldn’t be allowed. You know, “frivolous” argument and reasoning like this:
In the example above, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, as Trustee of the Series 2004-B Trust, claims to be the sole and exclusive owner of the securitized mortgage. If Wells is in fact the owner, it must have acquired legal title to the loan on or before February 26, 2004. New York law states that transfers to a trust after the closing date of the trust are void. N.Y. Estates, Trusts and Powers Law §§ 7-1.18, 7-2.4. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., 218 Cal.Rptr.4th 1079 (2013). See also, Saldivar v. JPMorgan Chase, 2013 WL 2452699 (Bky. SD Tex. 6/5/13) (holding that trustee mortgagee’s position is void if notes and assignments of mortgage not delivered within 90 day of closing of trust); Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, 2013 WL 1831799 (NY Slip Op. 4/29/13) (holding that NY trust law governs securitization and that notes and assignments of mortgage must be physically delivered to trustee within 90 days of closing for trustee to have claim of ownership). The Internal Revenue Code provides for 100 percent tax penalties for transfers to the trust after the closing date. So, if Wells Fargo cannot show physical receipt of the note and mortgage prior to February 26, 2004, its claim to the home is void. Similarly, if the only evidence Wells Fargo has of ownership is a document executed after February 26, 2004, its claim is void. Here is an example of such a document. It is an assignment of mortgage executed on May 26, 2010 (“5/26/10 AOM”) by Mary Kist in Dallas County, Texas. It is patently fraudulent. It was executed six years after the Series 2004-B trust closed. Every fraudulent securitized mortgage foreclosure has this smoking gun. There are millions of these recorded throughout the country.
According to Marie McDonnell of McDonnell Property Analytics, Mary Kist is a robo-signer. Ms. McDonnell’s thorough and pro bono analysis performed for the Essex, Massachusetts Register of Deeds is here. Mary Kist, sitting in Dallas Texas, had no factual knowledge of the contents of the 5/26/10 AOM and no legal authority to sign it. The fact that Wells Fargo had to go to Dallas, Texas to find someone to sign the 5/26/10 AOM when it is headquartered in San Francisco is powerful and dispositive evidence that it did not acquire legal title to the loan prior to February 26, 2004. These fraudulent assignments of mortgage exist in every securitized mortgage foreclosure. They are always executed years after the closing of the securitization trust and typically by someone who has no idea what they are signing. They are also always executed in a state a long distance from, and outside the subpoena power of, the state in which the foreclosed property is located.
The significance of the too late assignment of mortgage is this. Wells Fargo never acquired “legal title” to the securitized loan. This is an unfixable error. It also exposes the MBS holders to 100 percent tax penalties. Because of this, Wells Fargo, according the Erobobo, Salidivar and Glaski cases cited above, does not and cannot have “legal capacity” or legal “standing” to make a claim to the property. In short, the 5/26/10 AOM is irrefutable evidence that the Series 2004-B Trust is a “busted trust” with no identifiable owner of the mortgage.
Of course, not only was Bill Butler fined and suspended–he himself is now a victim of the very foreclosure fraud he is now barred from attempting to stop. So he figures, why not tell you what happened to him. Like me, he was fighting Fannie Mae:
Fannie Mae’s fraud differs from private securitization fraud. Although Fannie Mae is subject to the same trust rules and makes the same representations regarding physical receipt of securitized notes and mortgages prior to the “Issue Date” of the MBS, Fannie typically comes into record title after the foreclosure. In a typical Fannie case in Minnesota, an entity like Bank of America will conduct the foreclosure and then deed the property to Fannie Mae. Attached is a September 7, 2010 quit claim deed (“9/7/10 QCD”) from BAC GP, LLC to Fannie Mae relating to my home. As you can see, the “total consideration” for this transfer was “less than $500.” Jill Landeros, as “Assistant Secretary” of “BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP” executed the deed in New York. The 9/7/10 QCD claims, without any independent authority, that BAC GP, LLC is the “general partner” of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP.
If this was done properly in accordance with the Fannie Mae Trust Indenture and Custodial Agreement above, Fannie Mae would have taken legal title to this loan in 2006 and would have in its possession the original note and fully executed assignment of mortgage dated sometime in 2006, the loan origination date and prior to the MBS Issue Date. For the same “busted trust” reasons cited above, because the 9/7/10 QCD is dated four years after last possible closing date of this securitization trust, Fannie Mae does not have legal title to this loan. Like the above example, the 9/7/10 QCD is powerful evidence that Fannie Mae never obtained legal title to this loan.
There are other nuances relating to Fannie Mae foreclosures, including the application of District of Columbia trust law and the occasional fraudulent assignment of mortgage to Fannie, but generally the above—bailout bank servicer with no right, title or interest in the loan conducts the fraudulent foreclosure and then deeds its interest to Fannie Mae—is how Fannie Mae illegitimately steals homes.
Now, most judges will downplay all of this and quite readily rule against anyone making these arguments. Even a lot of attorneys will tell you that, while all of this is true, you did borrow money and do owe it to somebody and that the best you can hope to get from arguments like these is delay in the foreclosure process and you risk really raising the ire of the court if you press on with these arguments. Fortunately, there are lots of procedural snafus that can be used against the banks that don’t have to involve the floodgates-opening truth, so a lot of times those get used against the banks with good results.
But it doesn’t unravel the whole Ponzi…
Reblogged this on Manifest Injustice and commented:
A Very Good Article To Read for Foreclosure Victims
I was curious if you were aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6?
Rule 1.6 made it illegal to prosecute injustice in the United States. A ‘law’ in every state enacted by the state Supreme Court results in an unconstitutional loss of rights and privileges of a litigant victim when an act of injustice occurs in a courtroom. (In Civil, Criminal or Family Courts)
The ‘law’ makes it illegal for any prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general to prosecute the crime – because it
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability.
The victim is left with no recourse, or escape. They are bullied and harassed by the courts until one of three possible outcomes results. Loss of EVERYTHING in their life, prison, or suicide.
There is nothing any judge can do to address the injustice. This is not judges protecting their own. It is a violation of Rule 1.6 if the judge even tries to address the injustice. Their judicial integrity is sacrificed. This angers the judge who then seems to take it out further on the victim.
When the act which caused the injustice is known and exposed (even in court) the damage to the victim worsens. The injustice grows each time the victim appears in court because no lawyer or judge may acknowledge or address the injustice or resolve the matter.
The overall result is abuse of power under color of law. In criminal courts the prosecutor’s aggressive misconduct is ignored. All ‘lawful’, but unconstitutional – as they are mandated to never reveal it or they are quickly disciplined and discredited. It cannot be dealt with until the litigant has his constitutional rights restored. But the victim would have to figure out how they lost their rights – and there is NO ONE TO HELP. (They made helping the victim of injustice illegal. No lawyer may participate. If they try, they are disciplined.)
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.
Each state lost the ability to address the injustice of their own courts, and mandated that no lawyer, attorney general or district attorney invite the federal government to investigate.
Each time the Federal Government has acted to address injustice and corruption of any state court, that state’s Supreme Court has modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. This leaves a trail which exposes the corruption caused by this ‘law’ which perverts the entire justice system.
Kids for Cash is one huge example in Pennsylvania. No one could stop it until a judge violated Rule 1.6 and reported it. Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for doing the right thing.
A massive example is the foreclosure crisis nationwide, where a fraud upon the court – a forged and false mortgage note or deed – resulted in the actual fraud being ‘lawfully’ ignored by the court while people everywhere lost their homes. It wasn’t necessarily the banks that caused the crisis. It was the lawyers who committed the initial fraud upon the court which could not be addressed.
The victims of injustice lost their home because of a deliberate injustice and the mandate by Rule 1.6 that no one reveal it.
Rule 1.6 made it illegal for a lawyer to fix this crisis. It took two pro se defendants to find the needle in haystack of injustice… all deliberately and intentionally caused by the author of the ‘law’ … The American Bar Association.
The same unconstitutional law, same number, same name, in every state.
Read more at http://www.work2bdone.com/live
JUSTICE IS COMING.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
Eastern District of Pennsylvania # 13-4614 (2-13-cv-04614-TON)
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591
Rule 1.6 refers to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION unlawfully enacted into ‘law’ by each state Supreme Court. Unlawfully enacted because it results in the denial of rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
Pingback: FORECLOSURE FRAUD AND SECURITIZATION IN A NUTSHELL |
Clinton Kirby another great article, yesterday Mary Deeters and I spent the day researching, in the mornig RICO which I believe was premeditated way long before the 2008 crash and even before the repeal of Glass Steagal. In the afternoon, Mary and I went on a Phelan Witch hunt. Do you know Lawrence T. Phelan owner of PHS in Philly and Full Spectrum Legal Services FSLS also works for Fannie Mae can you say conflict of interests. hmm
The McDade-Murtha provision would establish a Justice Department “Misconduct Review Board” with extraordinarily broad subpoena powers to demand secret information about ongoing federal criminal investigations, and to harass federal prosecutors. Information, evidence, and testimony obtained by the Board — including grand jury testimony, investigative files, identities of potential witnesses, and information covered by the Privacy Act — would presumably leak to a Member of Congress facing federal prosecution, because the Board would have two non-voting Republicans and Democrats appointed by congressional leaders, and Board meetings would be open to the public.
“The Corrupt Politicians’ Protection Board is a corrupt Washington politician’s dream come true,” said Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project. “It would help corrupt politicians and other politically powerful defendants to interfere with and to subvert federal prosecutions against them.”