Posted by
admin on Jul 23, 2026 in
Uncategorized |
0 comments
How Derecognition, Securitization, and the Deliberate Destruction of Original Notes Rendered Mortgage Enforcement Structurally Impossible
This is Part One of an explosive summation of how the American mortgage industry converted your home loan into a securities commodity — and, in doing so, destroyed the very documents the law requires to enforce it.
I have spent more than sixteen years as a licensed private investigator pulling this machine apart, loan file by loan file, deposition by deposition. Part One of my Addendum — How Derecognition, Securitization, and the Deliberate Destruction of Original Notes Rendered Mortgage Enforcement Structurally Impossible — is now complete and available. It does not argue theory. It indicts the industry out of its own mouth: its own court filings, its own prospectuses, its own sworn witnesses, its own trade associations, and its own government.
What Part One proves, with their documents:
-
They told us they destroyed the notes. In 2008, the Florida Bankers Association informed the Florida Supreme Court — in a certified filing — that promissory notes were “converted to electronic files” and that “the actual physical note” was routinely eliminated after imaging. Originals, gone. By admission.
-
The note itself closes the door. The promise in every note runs to a closed class — the “Note Holder” — defined as the named lender or a transferee by proper endorsement and delivery. The named lender sold and derecognized the loan within weeks. The transfers never happened. The class is empty.
-
They told investors the truth and courts a different story. WaMu’s own prospectus disclosed that notes would not be endorsed to the trusts, that “no assignment of the mortgages to the Trust will be prepared,” and — in a risk factor that reads like a confession — that “the trust may not have a perfected interest” in collections commingled by the servicer with its own funds. Then the industry walked into foreclosure courts and swore the opposite.
-
Sworn testimony confirms it. In In re Kemp, a WaMu custodian’s officer admitted the notes were never endorsed or delivered to the trusts. The “lost note” count in your foreclosure complaint is not an accident. It is the design.
-
MERS assignments are nullities. MERS assigns the mortgage without the note — and Carpenter v. Longan settled in 1872 that the mortgage without the note is a nullity. You cannot assign a destroyed note, and there is no beneficiary left to declare a default.
-
They knew before the crash. In November 2007, the Texas Foreclosure Task Force heard it on the record: when documents are missing, “they just create one… the servicer signs it themselves” — and the industry’s fix was to change a rule of procedure to manufacture standing. Insane. Documented.
-
The tax record is the tell. The industry derecognized the loans and booked the gain — but never filed the Forms 1099-C the law requires when debt is discharged. Filing them would confess everything.
Part One closes with the fork the industry cannot escape: either the transfers into the trusts occurred — and the certificates were sold on fraud — or they did not — and no one foreclosing today has standing. There is no third option. The fraud is indivisible. They cannot pick up only one end of the stick.
Coming next — Part Two: The Follow-Through. The industry’s own servicing economics, the money circuit that proves the borrower was the only source of value in the entire system, the payment stream that amortizes an unbooked liability, the four-step mechanism to force the missing tax record — and the four questions every judge asks (“You took out a loan, correct?… Nobody gets a free house.”), answered with the industry’s own documents.
Read Part One. Share it. Then watch what they do when you hand it to the judge.
William J. Paatalo Licensed Private Investigator — Oregon PSID #49411 (406) 309-1812 |
bill.bpia@gmail.com | bpinvestigativeagency.com
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.