More Lenders Are ‘Garnishing Wages’ To Get Paid Back

[ms.smiler]

85. badtoworse, after hours per day on a daily basis of research into

mortgage/foreclosure/securities fraud for the past 6 years I don’t believe I have any misconceptions but I certainly realize there is even more for me to learn about the securitization scheme.

The terms are in the agreement yes, but the character of the transaction is not disclosed or explained to the borrower who is not informed they are a party to securitization and they are not informed of other unknown parties that will also have a contractual obligation to make payments on the loan. Do you expect the borrower to somehow divine this information and understand the ramifications from words that do not appear anywhere on the contract?

The creditor and borrower both have obligations in the contract. There is little opportunity for the borrower to learn the identity of their actual lender or the actual and correct loan balance. The borrower is never informed of the other parties who have a contractual obligation to pay on their loan. The borrower has no idea if their loan was lawfully assigned and securitized or if perhaps it was unlawfully pledged to numerous Trusts. (Ponzi - yes, the largest in history.) The borrower has no idea if a breach of the contract occurred on the creditor side of the transaction or if their loan was even lawfully assigned at some point subsequent to securitization.

And in 6 years of research, no one has yet been able to direct me to the law which governs how a security is converted back into a loan so at this point I’m tempted to conclude that once a loan is securitized, it remains a security and no longer exists as a loan.

As an example of unlawful assignment, MERS never bothered to lawfully create officers prior to 2012 so millions of earlier Assignments of Mortgage are actually invalid. But then after 6 years of research, I still haven’t found a single example of a lawful assignment to an MBS Trust.

As another example, it was Citi I think who ceased selling collection rights on credit card accounts for about a year, because their records were in such disarray that closed accounts and accounts in good standing were included with those accounts supposedly in default.

In a traditional mortgage loan the borrower is the only party with a contractual obligation to make the payments. In a securitized mortgage loan though, numerous parties may have a contractual obligation to make the payments, unbeknownst to the borrower and one of those parties is the debt collector, (the mortgage servicer.)

If a homeowner ceases making mortgage payments, they have no idea what other parties may be making the payments and that their loan is not truly in default when they receive foreclosure documents. Of course they are likely unaware that a breach of contract occurred on the creditor side of the transaction long before their cessation of payments.

When is a loan in default? When some party erroneously declares a supposed default or when all payments cease to be paid on the loan?

There is so much fraud that transpires on the creditor side in this scheme that by the time some debt collector contacts the consumer, no good paper remains provided there was even good paper at loan origination. No full and lawful accounting of the loan is provided to the consumer. Without spending a few thousand, the consumer has no way to know if their loan was lawfully securitized and there is no lawful proof of the assignment of the alleged debt provided to the consumer.

It’s absurd to me but this all boils down to faith based borrowing for consumers. You expect consumers to simply trust the middleman - the banks and that they have lawfully handled consumer loans, lawfully securitized them, lawfully maintained complete loan balances, lawfully converted securities back into loans, and lawfully assigned the debt. You appear to assume that banks take great care to insure that no investors or consumers are cheated at all in this scheme and that throughout this process, the debt remains valid.

Really? Are you that trusting?

Do you follow the news?

I sat in court one day and listened to an attorney for a debt collector explain to the court that banks destroy credit card applications, which is why he had no signed contract to show the court. The attorney did have a few copies of statements though which is about as much as any debt collector ever gets for their .03 on the dollar. I had assisted the Defendant who won of course.

I understood the bluff. It was no longer a valid debt.

Do you suppose what that attorney said is correct? If the debt was valid and the contracts were so important, why would banks destroy them? Why don’t debt collectors ever have signed contracts when they appear in court? Why do they never have proof the debt was assigned to them? All they have is a spoken claim to the right to collect some mythical loan balance for which they never have a complete accounting.

No consumer should pay or settle with a debt collector. This scheme is designed with no transparency at all for the consumer. The consumer has no way to know if the debt remains valid, if a valid assignment transpired, the identity of the assignee, or what actual, true and correct balance may remain.

It’s not a debt, it’s a scam. It’s sophisticated and it’s profitable for the banks regardless how the loan works out but remains a scam.