Source: https://livinglies.me/category/corruption/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:27:57+00:00

Document:
Referring to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, completely undermines your argument that they have no right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure.
…when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from you as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale.
Questions to the servicer about how, when and where they made payments to Deutsch, or Deutsch as Trustee, or any trust, or any group of investors holding certificates will reveal their absence from the money trail. No such payments exist nor will they ever exist.
I take issue with the practice of referring to “the default.” When someone refuses or stops paying another person that does not automatically mean that a default exists. A default only exists if the the payment was due to a specifically identified party and they didn’t get it. Failure to pay a servicer is not a default. Failure to pay a servicer who is sending your payments to a creditor IS a default.
If your refusal to make payment was in fact a default as to Deutsch as Trustee of a real trust or as authorized representative of the certificate holders (they never make that clear), then all of your arguments come off as technical arguments to get out of a legitimate debt. You will lose.
On the other hand if your position (i.e., your denial and affirmative defenses) is that Deutsch is not a party on its own behalf and that it is being named by attorneys as being in a representative capacity for (a) a trust that does not exist or (b) for holder of certificates that do not convey title to the debt, note or mortgage and are specifically disclaimed, then you have a coherent narrative for your defense.
And if you further that argument by asserting that Deutsch has never received any payments and does not receive the proceeds of foreclosure on its own behalf nor as trustee for any trust or group of investors and will not receive those proceeds in this case then you push the knife in deeper.
So if Deutsch is not appearing on its own behalf and the parties that the lawyers say it is representing either don’t exist or are not identified, then the action is actually being filed in the name of Deutsch but for and on behalf of some other unidentified party who may or may not have any right to payment.
What is certain is that Deutsch is being represented as the owner of the loan when it is not. The owner of a loan receives payments. Deutsch never receives payment from anyone and the investors never receive payment from the borrowers. If they did the servicer would have records of that.
So when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from the homeowner as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale.
If Deutsch didn’t suffer any default it could not legally declare one. If the declaration of default was void, then there is no default declared. In fact, there is no default until a creditor steps forward and says I own the debt that I paid for and I suffered a default here. But there is no such party/creditor because the investment bank who funded the origination or acquisition of the loan has long since sold its interest in the loan multiple times.
Thus when lawyers or as servicer or both sent notices of delinquency or default they did so knowing that the party on whose behalf they said they were sending those notices had not suffered any delinquency or default.
When homeowners refer to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, they completely undermine their argument that they have no right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure.
And remember that the sole reason for foreclosures in which REMIC claims are present is not repayment, because that has occurred already. The sole reason is to maintain the illusion of securitization which is the cover for a PONZI scheme. The banks are seeking to protect “profits” they already have collected not to obtain repayment. That is why a “Master Servicer” is allowed to collect the proceeds of a foreclosure sale rather than anyone owning the debt.
Also remember that while it might be that investors could be construed as beneficiaries of a trust, if it existed, they actually are merely holders of uncertificated certificates in which they disclaim any interest in the debt, note or mortgage. Hence they have no claim, direct or indirect, against any individual borrower.
PRACTICE NOTE: Don’t assert anything you cannot prove. Leave the burden of proof on the lawyers who have named an alleged claimant who they say or imply possesses a claim. Deny everything and force them to prove everything. Discovery should be aimed at revealing the gaps not facts that will prove some assertion about securitization in general. Judges don’t want to hear that.
Who will receive the proceeds of foreclosure sale?
Did the trustee ever receive payments from the borrower?
Does the trustee in this alleged trust have any contractual right to receive borrower payments?
Do holders of certificates receive payments from the borrower through a servicer?
Is that Mortgage or Deed of Trust Void or Just Unenforceable?
Proving that an instrument is unenforceable does not void the instrument unless it is unenforceable by anyone. Better to prove that it should never have been written.
The DOT could only be void if it was not facially or actually valid. That, in my opinion, means that the the DOT should never have been written, should never have been executed and should never have been recorded. It must the equivalent of uttering a false instrument and have the qualities of being a wild deed.
You need to look at your state statute that authorizes the use of a Deed of Trust. Look for the elements. If they are present, the DOT is not void on its face. If the elements are falsely presented then the instrument can still be proven void.
Proving that an instrument is not enforceable by the party trying to enforce it does NOT prove that nobody could enforce it. Hence it isn’t void until you can show that there is nobody who can or will enforce it. You must show that the DOT should never have been presented, signed and certainly not recorded.
That isn’t easy. And it is nearly impossible without investigation and discovery in which some party claiming to have an interest admits that there are fatal defects in the DOT. Defects in assignments or legal standing do not prove that the original instrument is void.
Put yourself in the shoes of a party whose money was used to give you the loan. Would you want your collateral wiped out because your servicer did something wrong in enforcement?
§ 42–801. Execution, acknowledgment, and recordation in same manner as deeds.
Mortgages and deeds of trust to secure debts, conveying any estate in land, shall be executed and may be acknowledged and recorded in the same manner as absolute deeds; and they shall take effect both as between the parties thereto and as to others, bona fide purchasers and mortgagees and creditors, in the same manner and under the same conditions as absolute deeds.
§ 42–401. Effective date of deeds; exception.
Any deed conveying real property in the District, or interest therein, or declaring or limiting any use or trust thereof, executed and acknowledged and certified as provided in §§ 42-101, 42-121 to 42-123 [repealed], 42-306, and 42-602 and delivered to the person in whose favor the same is executed, shall be held to take effect from the date of the delivery thereof, except that as to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers and mortgagees without notice of said deed, and others interested in said property, it shall only take effect from the time of its delivery to the Recorder of Deeds for record.
§ 42–403. Defective grants recorded on or after April 27, 1994.
Any instrument recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds on or after April 27, 1994, shall be effective notwithstanding the existence of 1 or more of the failures in the formal requisites listed in § 42-404, unless the failure is challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 months after the instrument is recorded.
§ 42–404. Failures in formal requisites of an instrument.
(4) An omission of an attestation.
(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to eliminate the requirement that a deed be under seal. Any deed accepted for recordation without a seal but made effective by operation of this act shall be deemed a sealed instrument.
(c) Nothing in this act shall be construed to validate any instrument with respect to which there was any misrepresentation, fraudulent act, or illegal provision in connection with its execution or acknowledgment.
(d) Any person convicted of a fraudulent act, in connection with the validation of any instrument under §§ 42-101, 42-402, 42-403, and 42-602 shall be subject to the penalties set forth in § 22-3222.
So putting it all together you probably cannot prove that the instrument is facially invalid but you can prove that it is invalid for misrepresentation of the lender and the terms of the loan referenced by the DOT by its reference to the promissory note. The actual terms were that a remote undisclosed party would sell the borrower’s signature multiple times reaping huge rewards without any application of sale proceeds to the borrower’s account.
The part about the wrong name being inserted as the lender is a good one. But that could be theoretically corrected by an affidavit of scrivener’s error, although supporting such an affidavit would be nearly impossible.
But since the statute speaks to the commission of a fraudulent act you might be able to invalidate the the DOT without appearing to invalidate the debt. Or you could attempt to reform the DOT to name the actual lender, which I think might be a more productive tack, since it completely avoids the appearance of seeking a free house.
Remember thought that fraud must be specific: You need a representation that was false, which the party knew was false, for the purpose of getting you to reasonably rely on the representation to your detriment and to their advantage. I think you have that here.
And remember that once you prove by clear and convincing evidence that the DOT was void for being part of a fraudulent scheme, any assignments of the mortgage or assignments of the beneficial interest in the void deed of trust are equally void because assignments convey only the interest possessed — they do not create interests.

References: § 42

§ 42

§ 42
 § 42

§ 42
 § 22