Thursday, February 3, 2011

DID YOUR SERVICER TELL YOU TO "STOP MAKING PAYMENTS SO YOU WOULD QUALIFY FOR A MOD?"

LIVINGLIES: SERVICERS LYING 

ABOUT DENIAL 

OF MODIFICATION 

BY INVESTORS

Neil Garfield | February 3, 2011 at 10:44 am | Categories: bubbleCDOCORRUPTIONcurrencyEviction,foreclosureGTC | HonorInvestorMortgagesecurities fraud | URL: http://wp.me/p7SnH-39k

INVESTORS NEVER CONTACTED

SERVICERS REPORT THAT INVESTORS DENIED MODIFICATION

Hundreds of Judges across the country have put foreclosures into a waiting pattern demanding that the parties complete the HAMP modification procedure before they rule on the foreclosure or any defenses and counterclaims. The attorney for the pretender lender usually comes back with what Judge Redfield Baum, Federal Bankruptcy Judge in phoenix, called a haphazard array of answers usually amounting to a a report that the "investors turned down the modification."

 IN FACT, THE INVESTORS WERE NEVER CONTACTED NOR WERE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OR ATTORNEYS, MANY OF WHOM ARE SUING THE INVESTMENT BANKERS FOR SELLING THEM BOGUS SECURITIES --- THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT WE HAVE CALLED HERE A "HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGE OF AN EMPTY PAPER BAG."

ACCORDING TO DIRECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTORS AND OFFICERS REPRESENTING DEUTSCH WHICH IS OFTEN USED AS THE NAME OF THE "TRUSTEE" FOR THE INVESTORS, THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SERVICER'S ORGANIZATION. 

This means that the servicer is pretending to go through a modification procedure,  after acknowledging that the servicer has no stake in the obligation, note or mortgage, and after putting the borrower through hoops and ladders, lost papers, resubmissions, and a variety of other stall tactics then reports back, often directly to the Court that the investors turned down the modification.

Our best information here is that no investor has EVER been contacted regarding a modification or settlement of ANY mortgage at any time. Based on our information no such attempt was ever made or intended and the lawyers who made those representations in Court knew it, inasmuch as it was always the intent of the servicer to create the illusion of a modification process rather than act as the go-between in an actual settlement process.

Further, based upon the information we have obtained directly from people involved in the securitization process, even Deutsch Bank, the most often used name as "Trustee" of asset backed securities pools, does not have a single Trustee from their Trust Department involved, nor are these deals considered to be within the scope of duties of their Trust department. To the contrary, senior officers of Deutsch confirm that they neither have the duty nor the power to approve modifications or settlements and that they have virtually no contact with investors. It appears that the ONLY thing that "Trustees" actually do is a collect a fee for pretending to be a fiduciary (Trustee) much like the loan originator with the homeowner was paid a fee to pretend to be a lender.

Courts are not pleased when they are the used as a vehicle for fraud. They are especially not pleased when large law firms and large financial institutions in whom the Court reposes a certain amount of trust, perpetrate such a fraud. Lawyers and pro se litigants are now asking for proof that the investors were presented with a modification and proof that the investors turned down the modification. The attorneys for the pretender lenders are stone-walling for the same reason that they stone-walled on the mortgage documentation --- no such evidence exists because nothing was ever done.

This was probably the reason why Levitin called for elimination of the servicers from the modification or settlement process and installing a government sponsored agency to act as the go-between. The servicers and pretender lenders are fighting this proposal tooth and nail because if it went through, the entire lie would unravel. It would become obvious that many "trusts" never existed or do not now exist, many investors have already elected their remedies and the the pool was dissolved, and the ownership of obligation, note and mortgage has never been transferred.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment