SCAM: US Bank as Successor to Bank of America as Successor to LaSalle Bank as Trustee On Behalf of Holders of Certificates — It’s a Lie
Posted on November 8, 2019 by Neil Garfield
I just had an exchange with a client who was requesting my input on a document bearing the label “Substitution Of Trustee.” As usual the label is a lie but if not challenged it directly leads to assumptions that are very damaging to the interests of the homeowner. I remind the reader that you should not believe one word of anything that the homeowner has received or that has been stated in cases where there are direct or implied claims of securitization.
And I also want to make this point: the ability of the schemers to put their own labels on the movement of money does not make real. So if they sell all attributes of the debt and label the transactions as if there was no sale of the debt, multiple times, that does not mean the debt has not been sold.
Lastly I want to remind you to challenge the securitization strategy. As soon as the assignment is recorded, or the notice of substitution of trustee is recorded you should object, file complaints and seek to have the documents expunged or canceled. They contain false utterances, they are part of a fraudulent scheme, and there might actually be a claim for damages for slander of title. The purpose of such filings is to interfere with your ability to refinance the loan with a real lender who might demand proof that they are paying off a party who owns the debt by reason of having paid for it.
So here is what I wrote to my client with some deletions as to identity.
Starting with the first document called “full reconveyance” dated April 12, 2007, it appears to be a document without any legal effect. It is worded something like a quitclaim deed. It basically says that TD Service conveys “the estate held hereunder.” This could be, as per the title a reconveyance of the title back to XXXXX. But it does not expressly say so. It also refers to a request to convey without warranty to “the persons legally entitled” which does not identify anyone.
As for the Substitution of Trustee, it is, as I have already stated a void document. The Appointment of Clear Recon Corp. is void (not voidable). There are several reasons for this.
US Bank asserts the position of being a successor trustee to Bank of America. I don’t think that statement is true because it is not a “successor” to Bank of America.
Be very careful of misleading labels used by attorneys for parties in securitization; they are almost always misleading or fraudulent.
- Bank of America was indeed a qualified successor in interest to LASalle Bank who was the REMIC Trustee because of a merger.
- But for US Bank to be the trustee, under the terms of the actual Trust Agreement, it would be required to be a successor by merger or acquisition which it is not.
- The only way such a statement would be true is if the position of trustee was a commodity that can be bought and sold. I don’t think it can but this has not been tested in the courts.
Keep in mind that if you are able to force production of the actual trust agreement you will find that the “beneficiary” of the trust is the investment bank and NOT the investors or holders of certificates. You will also find that the trust, if it exists at all serves only one purpose — to hold “bare legal title” to certain documents including deeds of trusts and mortgages. In other words the trust agreement makes the trust exactly the same as MERS, except that the trust might not even exist in the real world.
In any event my prior comments stand, to wit: the named trust either does not exist at all or even if it does somehow exist with some basis of claiming that anything is entrusted to LASalle Bank, your loan was never entrusted to LaSalle Bank because your debt was never acquired by either LaSalle Bank nor any other representative of the named trust.
- Your challenge would be for the opposition to provide the dates and parties to any transaction in which anyone ever paid value for your debt as per the requirements of Article 9 §203 of the UCC as adopted by state statute.
- They can’t do it because the debt was funded by an investment bank using investor money.
- The investors never received title to the debt.
- The two elements of ownership of the debt and valid conveyance of the mortgage are the conveyance (assignment) and payment for the debt.
- If the claim is that the trust is not the owner of the debt and is acting in a representative capacity then the identity of the principal must be disclosed.
As previously stated, the actual moniker of this assemblage of words is that US Bank appears on behalf of the holders of certificates.
The certificates are of course not identified and neither are the holders. There is a good reason for that.
The certificates do not bear an indenture that conveys any right, title or interest to the deed trust or mortgage. So the holders have no standing which means that if US Bank is appearing on behalf of the holders of bonds issued in the name of the trust, US Bank lacks standing simply because it is appearing in a representative capacity for investors who have no right to inquire much less enforce the debt, note or mortgage.