You Can’t Trust the Mortgage Paper Trail (TM) By Nye Lavalle – Scribd.com
. . . .
As such, to protect our nation, taxpayers, borrowers, and investors each alleged lender must be required to prove their noteownership with their accounting and financial books and records, not fabricated and forged paperwork and dubious servicing records that only allege accounting for a borrower’s payments.
Due to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was created after the ENRON debacle, this should be a relatively simple process. Journal entries in the lender’s financial, accounting, and general ledger systems showing a borrower’s note as an asset and the asset being recognized and de-recognized from the alleged lender’s books should be able to be produced with the push of a few keys and clicks of a mouse. (page 4)
. . . .
Issues such as who has really suffered a loss and what is the amount of that actual loss must be addressed in each proceeding?Is there really a holder in due course or can a borrower sue the current alleged lender for the torts of the originators and securitizers. By now, the questions for judges and lawyers should not be whether frauds, bad, and unlawful acts were committed for we all know they were. The questions that should be posed to each court is how was the borrower damaged; who was responsible for the damages; who are or were the ultimate lenders that actually suffered any loss; how much is their actual loss; and how do we adjust the equities for the borrower and the true and rightful owner of the debt? Simply, who can a borrower sue and settle with? (page 4 and 5)
. . . .
On pages 27–28 of this report, I described several robo-signing practices including the:
•“filing of fraudulent and false affidavits by predatory lenders claiming that theyown the note when in fact they are only the servicer;”
•“filing of fraudulent and false affidavits by predatory lenders claiming that theylost the note when in fact they never had control of the document;”
• “filing of fraudulent and false affidavits by predatory lenders claiming anindebtedness that is not owed;”
• “filing of fraudulent and false affidavits by predatory lenders claiming amountsowed that are non-recoverable from the borrower;”
• “filing of fraudulent and false affidavits by predatory lenders claiming control and custody of documents that are not in their control and custody;”
• “filing of fraudulent and false affidavits that claim to support knowledge of facts not known by the affiant;”
• “supporting motions for summary judgment with fraudulent and false affidavits;”
• “using corporate dummies as corporate reps that are trained to avoid questioning and obstruct justice;” and “witness tampering.” (page 9 and 10)
. . . .
I also provided Merrill Lynch, Ocwen, Fairbanks Capital, Citigroup, and Litton LoanServicing with my reports. As for Ocwen, I attended an annual meeting where I was theonly outside shareholder in attendance in a conference room with the entire board andCEO and chairman present where I presented questions and noticed the board of myfindings. Years later, the general counsel for Ocwen would write me to inform me that there was nothing wrong with Ocwen’s practice of “surrogate signing” in front of notaries attesting to the signature of Scott Anderson. (page 15)
. . . .
My investigation and research over the last 20-years into the servicing, securitization, document custody, and foreclosure practices of both commercial and residential mortgage servicers reveals a variety of motives designed to confuse borrowers, lawyers,courts, and regulators about note ownership. These motives include:
• Concealing that the current and/or prior bank/lender is/was cooking their books;
• Concealing accounting schemes, frauds, and abuses from borrowers, shareholders,and regulators;
• Concealing that the securitizations were shams and were in reality not true sales, but financing of receivables subjecting the notes to the reach of federal bankruptcy trustees;
• Concealing real owners of foreclosed properties in downtrodden neighborhoods to prevent payment of property taxes and fines to local and state municipalities;
• Avoiding local transfer and state intangibles taxes and recording fees on transfers and assignments of mortgages and notes;
• Concealing double and multiple pledges of the same promissory note;
• Concealing broken chains of title;
• Concealing pledges of the note to other banks, private lenders, and even Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve for other borrowings and advances; (etc., on page 42 ff.)
. . . .
Robo-signing is a merely a “symptom” of a much larger cancer (fraud). Since the cancer (i.e. foreclosure, securitization and accounting fraud) is so widespread, mere “testing” via a “temperature” is not sufficient to diagnose the extent of the disease and determine the appropriate treatment. If you find cancer in one part of the body or system, you must conduct additional tests and scans to see if the cancer has spread and if successfully treated, conduct continual testing to insure it has not returned