Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale, by Neil Garfield


Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale
Posted on July 3, 2018 by Neil Garfield
https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/pay-attention-look-at-the-money-trail-after-the-foreclosure-sale/

My confidence has never been higher that the handling of money after a foreclosure sale will reveal the fraudulent nature of most “foreclosures” initiated not on behalf of the owner of the debt but in spite of the the owner(s) of the debt.

It has long been obvious to me that the money trail is separated from the paper trail practically “at birth” (origination). It is an obvious fact that the owner of the debt is always someone different than the party seeking foreclosure, the alleged servicer of the debt, the alleged trust, and the alleged trustee for a nonexistent trust. When you peek beneath the hood of this scam, you can see it for yourself.

Real case in point: BONY appears as purported trustee of a purported trust. Who did that? The lawyers, not BONY. The foreclosure is allowed and the foreclosure sale takes place. The winning “bid” for the property is $230k.

Here is where it gets real interesting. The check is sent to BONY who supposedly is acting on behalf of the trust, right. Wrong. BONY is acting on behalf of Chase and Bayview loan servicing. How do we know? Because physical possession of the check made payable to BONY was forwarded to Chase, Bayview or both of them. How do we know that? Because Chase and Bayview both endorsed the check made out to BONY depositing the check for credit in a bank account probably at Chase in the name of Bayview.

OK so we have the check made out to BONY and TWO endorsements — one by Chase and one by Bayview supposedly — and then an account number that might be a Chase account and might be a Bayview account — or, it might be some other account altogether. So the question who actually received the $230k in an account controlled by them and then, what did they do with it. I suspect that even after the check was deposited “somewhere” that money was forwarded to still other entities or even people.

The bid was $230k and the check was made payable to BONY. But the fact that it wasn’t deposited into any BONY account much less a BONY trust account corroborates what I have been saying for 12 years — that there is no bank account for the trust and the trust does not exist. If the trust existed the handling of the money would look very different OR the participants would be going to jail.

And that means NOW you have evidence that this is the case since BONY obviously refused to do anything with the check, financially, and instead just forwarded it to either Chase or Bayview or perhaps both, using copies and processing through Check 21.

What does this mean? It means that the use of the BONY name was a sham, since the trust didn’t exist, no trust account existed, no assets had ever been entrusted to BONY as trustee and when they received the check they forwarded it to the parties who were pulling the strings even if they too were neither servicers nor owners of the debt.

Even if the trust did exist and there really was a trust officer and there really was a bank account in the name of the trust, BONY failed to treat it as a trust asset.

So either BONY was directly committing breach of fiduciary duty and theft against the alleged trust and the alleged trust beneficiaries OR BONY was complying with the terms of their contract with Chase to rent the BONY name to facilitate the illusion of a trust and to have their name used in foreclosures (as long as they were protected by indemnification by Chase who would pay for any sanctions or judgments against BONY if the case went sideways for them).

That means the foreclosure judgment and sale should be vacated. A nonexistent party cannot receive a remedy, judicially or non-judicially. The assertions made on behalf of the named foreclosing party (the trust represented by BONY “As trustee”) were patently false — unless these entities come up with more fabricated paperwork showing a last minute transfer “from the trust” to Chase, Bayview or both.

The foreclosure is ripe for attack.

Spread the word

Woman Tears US District Court Judge Willis B Hunt, a New AssHole In Brief Filed Into the Court!!!


Can’t say that I blame her. Hunt is very discriminatory, and an arrogant ass…

‘F— This Court’: Woman Files Bleep-Filled Tirade Against Judge
BY M. ALEX JOHNSON
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/f-court-woman-files-bleep-filled-tirade-against-judge-n347381

A woman upset that a federal judge dismissed her $10 billion lawsuit against Georgia officials responded with a nine-page profanity-filled tirade against the judge — calling him “an old … geezer” and saying he’s on a “one-way ticket to hell” — according to remarkable court records made available this week in Atlanta.

In an order filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. — who’d dismissed most of Tamah Jada Clark’s claims on March 31 — recused himself from hearing the rest of her complaint “in light of Plaintiff’s decidedly vitriolic pleading.”

According to court records, the complicated case began almost five years ago when Clark, of Pensacola, Florida, and East Point, Georgia, showed up near the south Georgia jail where Jason Joseph Clark was being held after his conviction for aggravated assault, domestic battery and other crimes. Court records identified Jason Clark as the father of Tamah Clark’s child, while Tamah Clark identified him as her husband.

Tamah Clark was arrested after Pelham police found her 1-year-old son, an AK-47 assault rifle, a .45 caliber pistol and wilderness survival gear in her car. Both Clarks were charged with conspiring to aid in an attempted escape after investigators described phone conversations in which they plotted his jailbreak, according to the court records, but there’s no record that she was ever convicted or served any prison time.

IMAGE: Title of Tamah Jada Clark’s court filing U.S. DISTRICT COURT
The title page from Tamah Jada Clark’s court filing this week.
In July 2014, Tamah Clark filed her suit for $10 billion against a slew of Georgia officials for the wrongful arrest, conviction and incarceration of her husband. (The suit was filed in Atlanta, in the Northern District of Georgia, because Jason Clark was held in a Gwinnett County jail to help relieve crowding in south Georgia facilities, the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office confirmed.)

Hunt dismissed the bulk of the case late last month, on the legal ground that it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations to bring such an action had expired but also because, he said, it was “nonsensical.” As a believer in the so-called sovereign citizen tax-protest movement, Clark claimed not to be a U.S. citizen and couldn’t bring the action on Jason Clark’s behalf, he wrote.

IMAGE: Tamah Jada Clark GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA, SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Tamah Jada Clark in an undated arrest mugshot.
Cue Clark’s response Monday, pungently titled “To F— This Court and Everything that It Stands For.”

“Don’t you ever again in your motherf—–g life attempt to disrespect me, my family, or our status again. Keep our names out of your unworthy mouth,” the papers state.

Clark couldn’t be directly reached for comment, but she referred reporters Thursday to a Facebook posting where she wrote that she would address the matter at a later time.

“There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion as to what exactly has taken place heretofore to provoke what may appear to some to be a ‘rant’ of sorts,” she wrote, adding:

“The court will not allow me to say anything on record. Instead, it has allowed the Defendants free range to attack me without recourse on my part. I was tired of that bull and realized that the court and judge only have power so long as the matter is kept quiet and secret. So … what can I say? I had had enough. I let him have it.”

In a one-page order filed Wednesday in response to a related claim, Hunt — who is 83 — didn’t address any of Clark’s insults, saying only that “in light of Petitioner’s decidedly vitriolic pleading that she directed against the undersigned in another action … the undersigned concludes that he must RECUSE from this action.”

Hunt’s after-hours contact information isn’t public. The court didn’t answer a call for comment late Thursday.

First published April 23rd 2015, 10:05 pm