Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is ForeclosureGate Sloppy Paperwork or Push Button Financial Fraud?
The Market Oracle ^ | Oct 20, 2010 | Washington's Blog

Posted on 10/21/2010 4:06:28 PM PDT by An Old Man

Foreclosure Expert Confirms Mortgages Pledged Multiple Times, Not Actually Securitized, Document Problem Is Really a System of "Push Button Fraud"

Yesterday, I showed that mortgages were fraudulently pledged to multiple buyers at the same time.

Today, foreclosure expert Neil Garfield (former investment banker, trial lawyer and board member of several financial institutions) confirms this, explains that the loans were not actually securitized, and the whole "sloppy paperwork" excuse is really an attempt to explain away a system of push-button fraud:

The game was to move money under a scheme of deceit and fraud. First sell the bonds and collect the money into a pool. Second take your fees, third take what’s left and get it committed into “loans” (which were in actuality securities) sold to homeowners under the same false pretenses as the bonds were sold to investors. By controlling the flow of funds and documentation, the middlemen were able to sell, pledge and otherwise trade off the flow of receivables several times over — a necessary complexity not only for the profit it generated, but to make it far more difficult for anyone to track the footprints in the sand.

If the loans had actually been securitized, the issue would not arise. They were not securitized. This was a mass illusion or hallucination induced by Wall Street spiking the punch bowl. The gap (second tier yield spread premium) created between the amount of money funded by investors and the amount of money actually deployed into “loans” was so large that it could not be justified as fees. It was profit on sale from the aggregator to the “trust” (special purpose vehicle). It was undisclosed, deceitful and fraudulent.

Thus the “credit enhancement” scenario with tranches, credit default swaps and insurance had to be created so that it appeared that the gap was covered. But that could only work if the parties to those contracts claimed to have the loans. And since multiple parties were making the same claim in these side contracts and guarantees, counter-party agreements etc. the actual documents could not be allowed to appear nor even be created unless and until it was the end of the road in an evidential hearing in court. They used when necessary “copies” that were in fact fabricated (counterfeited) as needed to suit the occasion. You end up with lawyers arriving in court with the “original” note signed in blue (for the desired effect on the Judge) when it was signed in black — but the lawyer didn’t know that. The actual original is either destroyed (see Katherine Porter’s 2007 study) or “lost.” In this case “lost” doesn’t mean really lost. It means that if they really must come up with something they will call an original they will do so.

So the reason why the paperwork is all out of order is that there was no paperwork. There only entries on databases and spreadsheets. The loans were not in actuality assigned to any one particular trust or any one particular bond or any one particular individual or group of investors. They were “allocated” as receivables multiple times to multiple parties usually to an extent in excess of the nominal receivable itself. This is why the servicers keep paying on loans that are being declared in default. The essential component of every loan that was never revealed to either the lenders (investors) nor the borrowers (homeowner/investors) was the addition of co-obligors and terms that neither the investor nor the borrower knew anything about. The “insurance” and other enhancements were actually cover for the intermediaries who had no money at risk in the loans, but for the potential liability for defrauding the lenders and borrowers.

The result, as anyone can plainly see, is that the typical Ponzi outcome — heads I win, tails you lose.

***

So the paperwork was carefully created and crafted to cover the tracks of theft. Most of the securitization paperwork remains buried such that it takes search services to reach any of them. The documents that were needed to record title and encumbrances was finessed so that they could keep their options open when someone made demand for actual proof. The documents.

Washington's Blog


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
The government must have sponsered this.
1 posted on 10/21/2010 4:06:29 PM PDT by An Old Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

Pledging the cash flow from mortgages to multiple people is obviously fraud and a real problem, but means nothing regarding foreclosure. If the mortgage isn’t being paid, it should be foreclosed on — the only question is who gets the money after the foreclosure.


2 posted on 10/21/2010 5:04:48 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

How can you pay a bank when you can’t even find the note holder because it was flipped so many times?Been there done that.It’s FRAUD!


3 posted on 10/21/2010 5:10:48 PM PDT by taxtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

Yes, that is what the Feds do with every entitlement program. Take the current funding, print off an IOU - that they will cover by seizing your retirement savings. Twilight Zone stuff? - Naw, plans currently being evaluated to determine if they can get away with it. To be passed in the Lame (or wishingly, exceedingly DEAD) Duck session of this shameless congress.


4 posted on 10/21/2010 5:12:53 PM PDT by GregoryFul (Obama - Jim Jones redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If the mortgage isn’t being paid, it should be foreclosed on

If there is no paperwork, is there really a mortgage?

5 posted on 10/21/2010 6:20:01 PM PDT by razorback-bert (Some days it's not worth chewing through the straps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Foreclosed by *whom*?

Aye, there’s the rub.


6 posted on 10/21/2010 8:38:00 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson