http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=172631
And there's the beef in all of it's ponzi glory.
And I'm sure the "deep pocket" people don't want to you to see that either.
America the "deep pocket" people have made the "rule of law" in the United States a joke.
I believe it's time to show them just how seriously the rest of us take it.
Having money does not mean your above the law, or can buy the law,inconvenient or not.
Of particular note is that as far as I can tell there has not yet been one case where a court hearing a foreclosure has forced a claimant to produce actual proof of proper transfer.
However, this is not true in the case of bankruptcies. There are multiple bankuptcy cases now winding their way through the courts, and in at least some of them (where the debtor/homeowner is trying to avoid some of their mortgage indebtness) Judges are demanding strict proof that the claiming party for the debt actually owns the paper, including a proper chain of transfers.
In one pending case there have been four separate attempts to dodge production of the paperwork. One of the arguments raised by certain commentators is that it's "inconvenient" (that is, the document is actually in the custodian's vault, but it would cost something to go get and produce it.) Given that the charge for that service is usually around $30-50, this seems to be a convenient lie when one instead prepares four separate pleadings trying to avoid that production - the legal costs alone of such preparation have to reach well into four figures.
Mr. Levitin continues:
While the chain of title issue has arisen first in foreclosure defense cases, it also has profound implications for MBS investors. If the notes and mortgages were not properly transferred to the trusts, then the mortgage-backed securities that the investors’ purchased were in fact non-mortgage-backed securities. In such a case, investors would have a claim for the rescission of the MBS,79 meaning that the securitization would be unwound, with investors receiving back their original payments at par (possibly with interest at the judgment rate). Rescission would mean that the securitization sponsor would have the notes and mortgages on its books, meaning that the losses on the loans would be the securitization sponsor’s, not the MBS investors, and that the securitization sponsor would have to have risk-weighted capital for the mortgages. If this problem exists on a wide-scale, there is not the capital in the financial system to pay for the rescission claims; the rescission claims would be in the trillions of dollars, making the major banking institutions in the United States would be insolvent.
Ding!
Now we understand why banks would spend thousands of dollars in Bankruptcy courts doing their damndest to avoid having to produce that which they do not have.
The claims that people often make that this is a "nothingburger" and can be fixed retroactively do not hold up. As Mr. Levitin explains
