The facade is cracking on the once impenetrable fortress that is the Wall Street securitization scheme for home mortgages.
One blogger who posts tirelessly has penned must-read piece for anyone interested in this area.
My thoughts are straightforward. Many homeowners took on home loan debt to get a piece of the American dream. The problem for millions of them, though, was the simple fact that they could not afford a traditional 20% down, 30 year amortized loan. Along came Wall Street, and invented Securitization. This scheme fostered reckless lending to anyone who could fog a mirror, because the lender had no skin in the game, and the borrower operated under the illusion that the low teaser payments on the low docs or no docs loan would never end. Eventually, millions of loans fell into default, sparking a foreclosure wave.
The problem was that the securitization model separated the lender from the borrower. In the foreclosures that ensued, borrowers claimed the loans were void, due to all sorts of fraud and fakery permeating the securitization process. Borrowers asked courts to set aside the loans for many reasons, including predatory lending claims, and the now famous "show me the note" defense where borrowers claimed that the foreclosing lender had no right to foreclose because it never gained the legal posture to do so.
On the surface, Courts balked at giving homeowners a "free" home, even in cases where fraud and deception were rampant.
In Florida, a judicial foreclosure state, forged, fake documents were the norm, and our lexicon gained a new word, "robosigner." Still, Wall Street churned out the foreclosures while some cases made their way up the appellate court ladder.
Among those cases was one that the Ninth Circuit decided recently, linked below, which shows that the courts are revisiting this area and really are focusing on the corrupt securitization model.
Also linked below is the most comprehensive, easy to read piece putting it all together that I have ever seen. Please read the below blogger's short piece, then click on the link and read the Amicus Brief. I promise you will walk away more informed.
As to my predictions of where this may lead, all I can say is that truth appears to be emerging as to the systemic corruption that is Wall Street and the western fiat scheme in general, so one can hope.
He wrote this, which is so good, that I wanted to share it verbatim, from his site, here, https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/hooker-case-flirts-with-real...
"It is interesting to watch the evolution of thought in the Courts. But it is also infuriating. They treat false claims of securitization as a novel issue; but in fact, there is nothing novel about Ponzi Schemes, and other types of fraud.
Yet the Court continue to ponder the issue, probably wondering how they could possibly explain their prior decisions, the millions of foreclosures that have already occurred, and the 15 million people who were ejected from homes and lifestyles, jobs, and even lives (murder-suicides).
This is not rocket science despite the layers upon layers of paper that Wall Street throws at the issue. The simple facts and law governing loans, and secured loans in particular, need only be applied as they were written and interpreted for centuries.
If I loan you money, you must pay it back. If I don’t loan you money then I have no reason to demand you pay it “back” because I never loaned you money in the first instance. If I purchase a real loan for real money, then you owe the money to me. If I don’t purchase the loan, then I have no right to your money.
If some other person gives the loan you were looking for then that is a matter between you and them — not you and me. Whether I race to the courthouse or not, I cannot collect, get a judgment or foreclose unless you fail to contest it. The only way I could ever obtain a judgment against you on a false claim is if you don’t answer it. That isn’t because it is right that I should have a judgment against you and for me, it is just because the rules work that way. But even after that you still have some options to set aside the judgment or action on the alleged debt that doesn’t really exist.
Possessing an assignment from a party who never owned the loan has never been considered as conferring some right on the assignee. And Faulty, notes, mortgages, indorsements and assignments have very clear laws and precedent. The defective ones are thrown out. Why? Because the object is to identify REAL transactions in which real value exchanged hands. And because the object is to ignore documentation that REFERS to a transaction that never took place.
It is one thing to have an executed note or some other testimony of proffered evidence of a loan, and another to show the Court the actual canceled check in which you advanced the money. One document talks about the transaction while the other IS the transaction. It is the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Talking about Paris doesn’t get you there.
You might have received a loan from someone at closing but the odds are that you didn’t get it from the Payee on the note, the mortgagee on the mortgage, the nominee, the beneficiary on the deed of trust or any of the other parties that were disclosed.
Finally the Courts are asking about the reality that Judge Shack in New York and Judge Boyco in Ohio were talking about 6 years ago, which was picked up by a number of Judges that were suddenly rotated out of the position to hear foreclosure cases. Politics frequently trumps the law, at least for a while. And politics is all about money. And if it is about money, then the banks are the obvious place to look.
I commend to your reading, the short Hooker Case (Link below) and the Amicus Brief (link below) submitted by laymen for your review and study. While not exactly what we would like to see both provide compelling evidence of a movement on the bench toward reality and away from the smoke and mirrors of the largest economic crime in human history.
The implications for both pleading and discovery are, I believe, self evident. HINT: I have it on good authority that the IRS form mentioned in the Amicus Brief is feared by Wall Street as the lynchpin of their position: once pulled the whole thing falls apart as it becomes obvious that the “trusts” neither received funds from the investors nor did they receive loans from the aggregators. That Amicus Brief also contains the only valid diagram of the actual practice of securitization in existence (other than the ones I have drawn in seminars). Notice how different it is from the diagrams of securitization that trace the wording of the securitization documents. it is the simple difference between truth (what happened) and fiction (what they say happened and why you shouldn’t be allowed to ask what really happened).
For information on lawyers, litigation assistance (to lawyers), how to research applicable laws, litigation, modification, short-sale, Hardest Hit Funds, and other Federal, State and private programs call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867. Ask about AMGAR our latest program for assistance to homeowners."