The author skims the surface of the latte and finds after skimming the surface there is no more

cream. Duh.

The Banks are often appearing as trustees on behalf of NY Trusts most of which died on or about 2008. If the trusts are dead than who has the right to appear in court? Nemo est hires

viventis. No one is the heir of a living person

and I would suggest, no one is the a trustee able to act on behalf of a dead trust. If the paper was successfully transferred to the trust, then perhaps the thousands of suckers who bought a RMBS are the owners. But if the paper was never successfully transferred, then the trusts and the trustees are certainly not the owners with standing. The original lenders might be but after phony documents have been created assigning the note and the mortgage to dead trusts, how could they possibly have the right of ownership? The "myth" of the free houses was created not by consumers "oy!!" but by the very Banks who are picking up "free" houses every day by pretending to be trustees acting on behalf of dead trusts or trusts that never properly held the mortgages and notes. It is very much like Ronald Reagan calling a nuclear submarine the Corpus Christie or calling armed combatants "peacekeepers." The "free house" was the Orwellian double speak created by Bankers for Bankers and their judicial minions and hand maidens have adopted their language very well. GOAL OF FORECLOSURE DEFENSE BAR SHOULD BE The goal of the foreclosure defense bar should be to aggressively pursue "free homes" for as many people as possible, notwithstanding that only a few "free homes" will ever be obtained. The bar should network nationally to share information and to co-ordinate strategy akin to the plaintiffs-asbestos network. Why? Washington can't or won't fix the problem, and the lenders are vulnerable and in some respects defenseless. In a manner of speaking, this would facilitate the market solving the problem. NEMO DAT BITCH! and women Investors complicit in scheme to defraud it would appear to blind men

I'm beginning to think investors were well aware and complicit in the scheme... At least their agents were. How does a borrower sign mortgage documents on the 17th of the month and the Trust close on the 28th of the same month and all the revenue streams get calculated, Prospectus docs get printed and the sold to the investors in less than a week? Not really plausible. Which means investors bought something Wall Street did not own. Nemo dat. The investors had to know or should have known the mortgages were not yet signed when they funded or agreed to fund. Buyer beware... No wonder investors don't want to partner with the borrowers. They were both duped - just one had more warning.

NO SYMPATHY YOU BASTARD; NONE FOR ME THEN NONE FOR YOU. Free house or no, I have little sympathy for the banks. For years, these banks have held payees liable to the exact wording of the contract. Pay your mortgage one day late: penalty. Let your insurance lapse, no problem, we will buy really expensive insurance for you. Our lawyers are expensive? Who cares, you are paying for them. The bottom line is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander in this situation. If I have to follow the rules to perfection, so must the bank. Why would it be impossible for a bank to show that their possession of the note & mortgage was the result of an Article 3 transfer? There must be deal documents under which they bought the pool of mortgages (if they own them). If they are acting as an agent, the lawyers need to bring the proceeding in the name of the owner. I think this is mostly about sloppy foreclosure lawyers and the sloppy banks that hire them. For some reason the banks think they can rely on allegations made by employees who have no real knowledge of the facts, and their own computer records showing ownership. The courts are sending the message that the banks and their lawyers need to clean up their paperwork before they bring foreclosure proceedings. This story is much less about fraud than about sloppiness and cost cutting by the banks and their foreclosure lawyers. The free house theory arises because of res judicata. If the bank is the owner of the note and mortgage, but fails to prove it at trial, res judicata may prevent a subsequent foreclosure action. Same with a dismissal with prejudice. The banks and their lawyers need to take this risk seriously. I wonder if we will see quiet title actions following the failed foreclosure proceedings, in which the homeowner would be arguing that the bank that failed to prove title to the note/mortgage in the foreclosure proceeding actually had valid legal title?