The Real Employers of the Signers of Mortgage Assignments to Trusts

BY Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Editor, Fraud Digest (szymoniak@mac.com),

The Real Employers of the Signers of Mortgage Assignments to Trusts

Comments
2 Responses to “The Real Employers of the Signers of Mortgage Assignments to Trusts”
  1. Willow says:

    Ah, yes. Where are those “missing mortgage assignments”? The notes that are pledged in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement were never deposited into the Trust. Those notes have been destroyed or “lost” on purpose and with intent. Thus, the MBS has no actual mortgage or note to back the security that was sold. Ergo, all those investors who purchase the certificates or securities have worthless paper because there IS NO note to back up the security. Therein lies the FRAUD on the investors and that is why the MBS “asset” is Toxic because it is WORTHLESS.

    Assignments have to be manufactured by document companies because otherwise the FRAUD will be exposed and all hell will break loose since the investors will discover, as some already have, that they have been DEFRAUDED.

    Meanwhile, back at the outhouse, things are piling up for the homeowner. The HO tries to get a “loan modification” but can’t and does not understand why. Well, that’s because the Servicers are NOT the creditors and they don’t have the promissory notes to modify. They already sold their right, title and interest in the note in exchange for acting as the Servicer for a “fee”. They are getting their money so why the hell should they bother with any more paperwork? The only folks who can modify the note is the guy who actually has the note. The servicer collects the money you send and passes it on to….? Hell, we don’t even know where the money is going! It’s a BLACK HOLE.

    The HO is strung along with all kinds of assurances, promises, lies and deceit as the criminals in this government-sanctioned enterprise, move in for the kill by foreclosing, where they get even more fees. And, let’s not forget that everybody whose got their dirty little fingers in the pot are all being paid by insurance against default. So, when HO defaults, everybody gets paid anyway. What a scam. So here’s your HO who is now out of a job, lost all his money and now has no place to live, his credit ruined.

    Where is your Attorney Generals in all this? Sitting at their desks watching porn on their computers, probably. Oh, it’s just too complicated for them. Besides, if they actually DO anything, it’s all for show…lots of pomp and circumstance, media coverage, 15 minutes of fame and POOF, the circus is over and nothing is done.

    The real truth of the matter is this: everybody in this “chain of title” circus has been paid by default swaps, insurance, fees, etc. Therefore, the actual note itself, which is a negotiable instrument for value, has been paid many times over and no one has been damaged. Keeping in mind, that the purpose of civil litigation is to make an aggrieved party “whole” because of the default, where the parties have suffered NO damage, they have already been made whole…it seems to me that the full force and effect of enforcing the promissory note is MOOT. Thus, in the end, the HO who has had their house stolen by this fraud really owes nothing to nobody. Or if they did owe something to somebody, that person or entity either can not or will not step forward. So, the whole foreclosure circus is a Fraud in and of itself.

    • Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:

      I hate to pick gnat sh*t out of pepper but “fidelity of message” is important, as is articulately expressing your argument. It is only through the articulate argument being made that any of these as yet unproven new legal theories will gain any validity in the eyes of any court. Inarticulate and/or confusing arguments will simply make bad case law for us all.

      So, forgive me for nit picking, but…

      In paragraph 1 you state “Those notes have been destroyed or “lost” on purpose and with intent.”

      In paragraph 3 you state “…the Servicers are NOT the creditors and they don’t have the promissory notes to modify. They already sold their right, title and interest in the note…”

      If the servicers are not the creditors then they never had any right, title and interest to sell. They merely collect a fee for servicing. There are instances (many of them actually) in which the servicer is also the alleged originating lender. Failing to make the distinctions may confuse an unknowledgeable court to the point of undermining your credibility, or to the point of ruling inappropriately.

      Also you seem to be putting forth two arguments in re the notes: 1) that they have been intentionally destroyed, and 2) that they have been sold. Again, not distinguishing all of the players, and all of their various roles accurately, may confuse the court to your detriment.

      I do see where you’re going with this, or at least think I do. But if I were an unknowledgeable, uninformed or uneducated court counting on you to make accurate and well articulated arguments I would not be convinced.

Leave a Reply