Loan or Investment Contract
By John Korman
Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan
The point, as we have stated here before, is that there were no loans because the money advanced by the investors was subject to a set of documents supporting a bond in which the homeowner was not the payor and where the homeowner never signed. The homeowner was subjected to a set of documents that failed to disclose the real party or the real terms of the entire transaction — a black letter requirement of the truth in lending laws. (TILA)
The purpose of the transaction was for the investment banks to get money from the investors and to get a signature from the homeowner without connecting the two. The real purpose of the transaction was an investment scheme wherein the intermediaries took everything — the money, the property and the gains from credit default swaps, insurance and government bailouts.
Thus the intent of the investor to lend money for residential mortgages, and the intent of the homeowner, to get a loan for his home, was never accomplished and was effectively thwarted by the attempt to cover tracks by refusing to document the trail of the money. The actual documents offered in foreclosures document a fictitious trail — one in which no money ever changed hands.
The homeowner, without consent or knowledge, was converted from a borrower to a securities issuer and the investor was converted from being a part owner in a valid REMIC pool to being the alleged buyer of the security issued by the homeowner. Hence the right of rescission and damages arises not only from TILA but from the SEC rules and regulations. And the time for filing doesn’t start to run until the parties had enough information to either know or where they should have known of the fraud.
From: John Korman
934 SW 21st Way
Boca Raton Florida 33486
February 16th 2011
This letter is addressed to the Attorney General in each great State of America.
Alabama; Luther Strange
Alaska; John J. Burns
Arizona; Tom Home
Arkansas; Dustin McDaniel
California; Kamala D. Harris
Colorado; John W. Suthers
Connecticut; George C. Jepsen
Delaware; Beau Biden III
Florida; Pam Bondi Only
Georgia; Sam Olens Hawaii; David M. Louie Idaho; Lawrence G. Wasden Illinois; Lisa Madigan Iowa; Tom Miller Kansas; Derek Schmidt Kentucky; Jack Conway Louisiana; James D. Caldwell Maine; William J. Schneider Maryland; Douglas F. Gansler’s Massachusetts; Martha Coakley Minnesota; Lori Swanson Mississippi; Jim Hood ; Missouri; Chris Koster Montana; Steve Bullock Nebraska; Jon Bruning Nevada; Catherine Cortez Masto New Hampshire; Michael A. Delaney New Jersey; Paula T. Dow New Mexico; Gary King
email@example.com Attorney.General@State.DE.US provides an electronic on-line Form firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com te.il. us firstname.lastname@example.org
New York; Eric T. Schneiderman NYAG.Pressoffice@oag.state.ny.us
North Carolina; Roy Cooper email@example.com
North Dakota; Wayne Stenehjem firstname.lastname@example.org
Ohio; Mike DeWine email@example.com
Oregon; John Kroger firstname.lastname@example.org
Pennsylvania; William H. Ryan, jr email@example.com
Rhode Island; Peter Kilmartin firstname.lastname@example.org
South Carolina; Alan Wilson email@example.com
South Dakota; Marty J. Jackley firstname.lastname@example.org
Tennessee; Robert E. Cooper, jr email@example.com
Texas; Greg Abbott Greg.Abbott@oag.state.tx.us
Utah; Mark Shurtleff firstname.lastname@example.org
Vermont; William H. Sorrell email@example.com
Virginia; Ken Cuccinelli, II firstname.lastname@example.org
Washington State; Rob McKenna email@example.com
West Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, jr firstname.lastname@example.org
Wisconsin; J.B. Van Hollen 608 267-2779 faxed
Wyoming; Bruce A. Salzburg email@example.com
My name is John Korman. I, as a paralegal who lives in Florida investigated Mortgage Loans for an Attorney who defends clients against foreclosure. The job I did was research the Corporate / Trust Documents [law of the case] filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in reference to the target loan and create an Affidavit based on my finding. Almost every Mortgage loan investigated which was produced by a major Banking Institution between the years 2000 – 2008 was securitized. Securitization is the act of producing an investment vehicle of Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”) using the Borrower’s Mortgage NOTE as the under-lying corpus, as collateral.
In each and every securitized loan produced by these Banking Institutions, file with the Securities and Exchange Commission certain documents which are mandated, include but is not limited to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Prospectus, Indenture, 10-K [yearly report], 10-Q [quarterly report], 8-K [current report] Form 15-D and the Servicing Agreements] (herein after referred to as “Documents”), agreed to by the Party’s.
Reading these Documents, in each investigation to date, the common mandated procedure is as follows; first we have the Lender. Shortly after the Mortgage
2 of 9
NOTE documents have been executed [or before the NOTE is executed] the Lender sells [or has already sold] its right, title and interest in this Mortgage NOTE to a third party, an arms length transaction [true sale] to a party known as the Seller. Within thirty  days or less the Seller will sell its right title and interest to this Mortgage NOTE to another party known as the Purchaser, also identified as the Depositor. The Depositor agrees to “trade” with a named Trust-Entity, it’s Mortgage NOTE for a predetermined amount of Mortgage-Backed Securities [less commission], these Certificates are then sold to investors.
Now a really interesting thing happens once the Mortgage NOTE is acquired by this named Trust Entity, witnessed through the use of specialty licensed software which permits investors [or licensed users] access to any “named Trust-Entity”. I can see each Mortgage Loan held by this named Trust-Entity, and I can see its currant status. I can see if the named Trust-Entity is in possession of the Mortgage NOTE documents. I can see if a Mortgage NOTE is thirty (30) days late, sixty (60) days late, ninety (90) days late, or if it is in foreclosure. I can also see how many “tranches” have been created within this named Trust-Entity.
The analogy to describe what a tranche is [in my minds eye] would be similar to, you giving me one apple, I return this one apple to you as apple juice [different form], and however I manage to create from this one apple, ten additional artificial apples out of thin air and transform them into apple juice. Now this named Trust-Entity has the authority and ability to sell [juice from ten artificial apples] Mortgage-Backed securities in multiples of the underlying collateral by creating multiple tranches within the said named Trust Entity. Within these multiple tranches I find the same Mortgage NOTE to exist, at full face value.
The last investigation which I just completed within this past week the named Trust Entity held twenty one tranches and the target Mortgage NOTE appeared in each one of those tranches. This one Mortgage NOTE now has the potential of generating twenty one times its face value of this Mortgage NOTE, in Mortgage-Backed Securities sold to investors. Based on the foregoing if a Trust sells these Mortgage-Backed Securities to investors and receives only ten times the face value of the original under-lying Mortgage NOTE [Security] has the named Trust Entity been damaged by the Mortgagor not making the promised monthly payments under the Mortgage NOTE agreement? In other words, if Sam goes to the Bank and borrows a sum of money but Sally pays off the debt can the Bank still claim to be a damaged party because Sam did not make the payments as promised?
3 of 9
In the event whereby the Lender knows fore-hand this loan [Mortgage NOTE] will be sold out-right, securitized once executed, the Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan, per-say. In the not so distant past and throughout our history, prior to securitization, the Maker of the Mortgage NOTE Holds a possessory right to said Mortgage NOTE. Once the debt was discharged the Bank which held this Mortgage NOTE as a “Special Deposit” returned it to the Borrower. Today, with the advent of securitization these so-called loans [Special Deposits] are truly investment contracts [Mortgage NOTE sold out-right to generate profit] and the Borrower is an undisclosed investor with possessory rights to the profits generated from said Mortgage NOTE.
Because this undisclosed investor [Borrower] is unaware of the moneys due it abandons the right to receive said funds when Borrower / Maker fail to make a claim to said funds within three years. To prove my point the Attorney General needs to request the Servicer, or the Trustee to produce a copy of the 1099-OID Form which was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the 1099-A including the 1099-B. These three Forms are filed with the Internal Revenue Service by either the Servicer or the Trustee and will prove the aforementioned allegation, that it is the Borrower that created, and is entitled to the “O”riginal “I’ssue “D“iscount, but the Borrower has abandoned these funds [1099-A] which is now claimed by the Servicer, or the Trustee [1099-B]. In other words, these aforementioned Forms will identify the Bank as the Debtor. The profit made from the invested Mortgage NOTE belongs to the Maker. We live in a wonderful place, if it wasn’t for the deceit.
Many of today’s so-called Lenders only lent their name to the Mortgage loan transaction. In other words, the Lender did not lend you their money, an undisclosed third party provided the funds for the Borrower making it appear like the Lender / Bank / Broker provided the funds. A group of investors, or a single investor creates what is commonly known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPY”) wired the money to the Lender just prior to Closing.
The Lender / Bank now acting in the capacity of a Nominal Lender used this SPY money to transact the Closing. Once the Closing was completed the Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission, then the Nominal Lender put its name on the Mortgage NOTE. Within twenty-four (24) hours from Closing the Nominal Lender was required to physically conveyed the Mortgage NOTE to the true Lender / Investor. Thereafter this Nominal Lender takes on a new role as the Servicer of the debt, or it may employ a subServicer. The Borrower makes the monthly payments to the Servicer who s/he believes is the Lender, who forwards the payment [less its fee] to the true Lender / Investor[s]. The Homeowner was
4 of 9
tricked into thinking he was a Borrower of a Loan, when in fact was a Seller of a Mortgage NOTE into an Investment Trust [SPV]. This Investment Trust has no right to a Mortgage which is used to facilitate the purchase a NOTE, fraudulently procured under the guise of a “Loan”, when in fact it was not a Loan but rather the “Purchase / Sale of a Mortgage Note” facilitating the foundation of these Mortgage-Backed Securities; the true nature of this Transaction was not disclosed to the Borrower either before or at Closing; and this Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission for loan it did not fund.
Question; can a Nominal Lender that did not fund the transaction [Loan], putting its name on a Mortgage NOTE pretending to be the True-Lender, tricking a Homeowner into signing over a Mortgage NOTE in order to secure an Investment Security, thereafter assign a Beneficial Right to a third party, a right which it never Held from the beginning?
A reading of the Corporate / Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two constants are apparent; the Original Lender after selling its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE becomes the Servicer of this debt; and the “conveyance” of the Mortgage NOTE, Documents [law of the case] mandate the delivery of the Original Mortgage NOTE, endorsed in blank … without recourse … with ALL prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing to the Trustee. In every investigation that I have personally conducted find there are four parties to the initial transaction, if we exclude the Borrower.
The “Originator / Lender,” who sells its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE to the “Seller,” the Seller sells its rights, title and interest to the “Purchaser / Depositor,” who sells to the “Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate-Holder[s].” Although the named Trust Entity Documentation [law of this case] mandates this “chain of endorsements” I have yet to witness these endorsements on any Mortgage NOTE.
Rather I witness an “Assignment” of the Mortgage that purports to convey the NOTE directly to the named Plaintiff. My understanding is a NOTE can not be assigned; it is endorsed from the present Holder / Owner of said NOTE and conveyed to the new Holder / Owner. Instead I am witnessing the Servicer [who was once the Lender] claiming to be the Plaintiff with all the rights title and interest as an Owner / Holder of a Mortgage NOTE, after selling its right title and interest to that same Mortgage NOTE to a third party, at an arms length transaction, viewed as a true sale. The Documents [law of this case] mandate it to be a true sale.
5 of 9
I witness assignments [and or endorsements] being filed with the Courts assigning [endorsing] the right title and interest of the Originator / Lender directly to the Plaintiff, passing-over the Seller, Purchaser and the Trustee, when the Plaintiff is a named Banking Institution. The named Banking Institution would need to acquire this said Mortgage NOTE from the Trustee in order to foreclose, [not from the Lender] thus the Trustee’s endorsement would be expected on the NOTE, from it to the named Plaintiff, in a proper chain of endorsement. Instead I witness over and over again where an assignment of the Mortgage will go directly from the source [Lender] to the Plaintiff, as there are no prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing the NOTE to the Trustee.
If the Trustee is the named Plaintiff acting for a named Trust-Entity would still require the endorsement from the Depositor / Purchaser to the named Trustee in trust for the Certificate-Holder. In my opinion, [non-attorney] this is why there was a rash of “Lost NOTE” claims in the past; the endorsements are missing, however re-establishing a NOTE cures that problem; however re-establishing a NOTE you never Owned, Held or possessed is a criminal act, in my opinion. Not only do I believe this act is a Fraud upon the Court but it is also using the legal system to facilitate a counterfeited financial instrument. The Homeowner who loses their home to foreclosure [95% are uncontested] with the use of a re-established NOTE faces the added threat that the true Owner / Holder may appear at some future date requiring the Homeowner to pay this same NOTE a second time, unless the Order from the Court provides the Defendant protection against such an occurrence.
However when a Homeowner does not defend their case, lack of funds, or whatever, this protection [should the Real-Party-In-Interest appear at some future date and demand payment for the Original Mortgage NOTE] against paying twice, is often missing from the Final Order for Foreclosure, because the Homeowner lacked the legal capacity to request this protection be included in the Order from the Court, and the Plaintiff will not do the right thing, voluntarily, by including this protection, exparte.
In the event the Plaintiff does possess and produces the Original NOTE bearing the once wet ink signatures of the Borrower[s], it [NOTE] must contain the endorsements of all the aforementioned parties, otherwise there is a clear break in the Chain of Title. The Chain of Title in every securitized document I have personally reviewed requires an endorsement from the Originator / Lender to the Seller, from Seller to Purchaser and from the Purchaser to the Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate Holder [s], this is in accord with each one
6 of 9
of the documents I have reviewed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
These investigations that I have personally conducted disclose that most Trustees over-see dormant, dissolved or unregistered named Trust-Entities. Every named Trust Entity that I personally have investigated filed a Form 15-D with the Securities and Exchange Commission, notifying all parties of its Termination of Registration and suspension of its Duty to File Reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77a et seq., 78a et seq.).
The Trustee foreclosing on a Homeowner [after filing a Form 15-D] is doing so on behalf of a named Trust-Entity contrary to the INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, see Section 7, under TRANSACTIONS BY UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
What is really transpiring with these Mortgage loans is [in my minds eye] the Lender is selling the Borrower an automobile that the Lender knows has faulty brakes, and then said Lender takes out an insurance policy on that automobile. Once the automobile is totaled in a crash, the Lender collects on the insurance and still holds the borrower liable to pay the out-standing balance due on the automobile. Look no further than the foreclosure rates here in Florida or your home State, and then look at the record profits being generated by the Banks. How do you think this feat is being accomplished? Are foreclosures a negative force on the economy, because it does not seem to be negatively impacting the major banking institutions.
Brings me to my final observation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), which acts as the purported Mortgagee of record [which we know is not true; as MERS did not loan any money and the Borrowers] do not owe any money to MERS]. MERS usually acts in the capacity as nominee for the Mortgage NOTE Owner / Holder; however, according to the procedural manual produced by MERS, it may only act in such a capacity [nominee] for and on behalf of another MERS’ Member. To the best of my knowledge none of these securitized named Trust Entities are MERS Members, thus bifurcating the Mortgage and NOTE, destroying the security and rendering the Mortgage a nullity.
When you get right down to it I think we would all agree, the bottom line is, the Creditor is the party with the skin in the game, they are the Certificate Holder[s], they are true investors], Hard-Money-Lender[s]. All Certificate Holders are customers of Cede & Co., being the nominee of the Depository
7 of 9
Trust Company (“DTC”), a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. The Entities that purchase these Trust Certificates must purchase them from Cede & Co., or from one of its authorized agents. Seems to imitate the MERS model in so far as Cede & Co. appears to be the central recordation hub were investors trade positions by electronic registration. These named Trust Entity’s Certificates are almost always Held in the “street name” of Cede & Co.
Within the past month I was engaged to conduct research / investigation into a Mortgage Note foreclosure, Plaintiff is JPMorgan Chase, the Original Lender was Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”). Within this Complaint JPMorgan Chase avers it is the Mortgage NOTE Owner and Holder by virtue of a Purchase and Assumption Agreement facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) after it seized WaMu. Within this Complaint filed by JPMorgan Chase is attached as prima fascia evidence this aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC which read, [paraphrasing] JPMorgan Chase purchased all of the assets of WaMu, as such is the Owner / Holder of the Mortgage NOTE being foreclosed on [presumptively giving JPMorgan Chase Standing]. However, reading the Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission WaMu sold this Mortgage NOTE out right to a third party [true sale] long before its seizure by the FDIC.
The only nexus held by WaMu in reference to this Mortgage NOTE in question were its right to Service this debt. In the case styled UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, case number 09-CV-01656-RMC, Document 55, styled DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for the Trusts listed in Exhibits 1-A and 1-B, Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association; and WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendants; JPMorgan Chase herein pleads, on page 33. of 39;
“Under the plain terms of that agreement, JPMC did not become WMB’s successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WMB. While JPMC purchased all of the assets of WMB, it assumed only specified liabilities: those that had been reduced to a dollar amount on WMB’s ‘general ledger and subsidiary ledgers and supporting schedules which support the general ledger balances.’”
8 of 9
I only know of this one case in particular whereby JPMorgan Chase is foreclosing on a property in which it holds no right title nor interest aside from its Servicing right[s] acquired under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement, still to be executed between it and the FDIC. However JPMorgan Chase is telling a Judge in New Jersey it Owns and Holds this particular Mortgage Note by virtue of the aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement acquired from the FDIC. Then in this case, [as sited above] in order to avoid / evade liability now pleads it”… did not become WMB.’s successor in interest.” You’ all know the difference between “avoid” and “evade,” [twenty years]!
It is my sincere hope the Attorney General of Florida along with the Attorney General in the other forty-nine States investigate JPMorgan Chase’s claim as successor in interest to WaMu, wherein JPMorgan Chase claims to be a Plaintiff, as its foundation points to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Equity would call for an Estoppel of all foreclosure Actions in which JPMorgan Chase claims to be WaMu’s successor in interest.
In closing, these named Trust Entities by-and-large are missing a mountain of Mortgage NOTEs. I have not had the time to do a mean average [as some named Trust Entities hold literally a thousand Mortgage Loans and the calculations must be done manually] however the field marked “Doc” [abbreviation for Documents] either reads “Unknown” or “Limited” in over 50% of these Mortgage Loans [by observation] conservatively. The named Trustee of the named Trust Entity clearly did not do even a reasonable job in receiving the Mortgage NOTEs as mandated under these named Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
/s/ John Korman