Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Bob G

By M.Soliman

Can someone please answer the question? Just because the bank presents the original note, does that mean no matter what has transpired they can foreclose?

The bank is the holder in due course from day one through eternity. A holder in due course but “FBO” its investors. Remember, possession is nine tenths of the law.

The original note was never released from the bank as its own custodian. The note is encumbered by a warehouse line of credit. Therefore the borrower is the debtor to the note and lender is the obligor to the bank.

The Lender Company “A” is alleged to have MERS representing it as the nominee for its investors. In a third party origination the lender called Company “A” is a stand in who is provided a warehouse line by the Bank Company “B”.

Wholesale is an uncomfortable business means for Banks to originate loans yet offers a huge advantage. It creates an illusion of a “Loan Purchased” through a TPO or third party origination.

The Lender Company “A” funded the loan (using OPM) and shipped the file to the Bank Company “B” c/o its Whole loan Division. Wholesale keeps the left and right side and ships the “Collateral file to the warehouse division, of Company “B” the Bank.

The collateral consists of 1) a live note and 2) copy of deed of trust (nonjudicial state) (3) the endorsement in blank and (4) assignment in blank (5) the HUD I.

The Lender Company “A” is not a major player, a small Frye, who was approved to sell loans to the Company “B” the Bank Wholesale Division. The Banks warehouse line is a credit facility used to originate loans.

Note – If the lender (ACME Home Loans) is not a recognized name, it’s a TPO; i.e. Indy Mac Bank funds its own loans.

The Pooling and servicing agreement divulge the registrant who is the warehouse lender –the Bank Company “B”. The draw towards wholesale is the ability to avoid triggering certain accounting violations is dependent on the TPO wholesale channels and is form and substance “table funding” which is a regulatory violation. TPO is dangerous if not “controlled” and if controlled it’s a violation. Wholesale origination has its appeal however for purposes of the Bank, Company “B” remaining out of sight and out of mind. It is for this and other purposes it is popular, such as avoiding concentration of assets and taking the direct hit for predatory lending.

The platform (which the FDIC told me never to say) is for means and methods of its object, and why Lehman and B of A were the driving force in 85% of all subprime assets origination. It’s the warehouse lender and Bank, Company “B” who were controlling the wholesale origination channels operating in a clandestine and secretive manner. None the less, a major player is the Bank, Company “B” who is the registrant of the securities – the securitizer. Company “B” the Bank is typically backed by a consortium of participants like Sun Trust and Am Trust Bank who stepped up to share the risk and rewards of warehouse lending.

QUESTION – If warehouse lending is a God forsaken time consuming micromanaged costly business with HUGE risk – why then did all these banks jumped in to participate. See the Lehman Bros investigation conducted by the US Trustee “Vulkas”.

None the less these warehouse participant’s operated so clandestine and secretive for purpose of avoiding concentration and dispersing risk and apparently to avoid the attention of the FDIC and OTS enforcement of regulatory risk assessment procedures. But in actuality there is more here than meets the eye.

Back to the question – The warehouse lender is the bank Company “B” and it never ever gives up the note – got it. Never! If the loan is sold to an arm’s length investor only then ship the note before the wire under a Bailee agreement. The loan “files” were shipped “flow” or “upon funding” by the lender Company “A” to the “Wholesale” division of the Bank. The “collateral” file was shipped PTF direct to the warehouse division of the Bank, Company “B”

Herein the securitization process begins.

First – Remember the loan is assigned concurrently at funding to MERS- representing the investors as was stated on the mortgage or deed. The Deed is the collateral for the note. The recording of the mortgage at closing is the substitution for the missing assignment. The language MERS requires acts as an assignment granted by the borrower executing the collateral – mortgage or deed.

The line of credit is sold by the Bank Company “B” the Seller to Company “C” an SPE that was formed as a Trust. The Trust Company “C” is a shell that comes to life upon capitalization by Depositors. The Bank Company “B” will deposit capital or funds to start up the SPE Company “C”. The shifting of Warehouse lines of credit over to the SPE Company C” is called moving liabilities off balance sheet. It’s exchanging the “insured” FDIC Deposits normally held at a bank into an “uninsured” Depositor’s account held at the bank. This substitute’s the Loans for Depositors capital to satisfy the regulator’s for the amount outstanding used to originate the mortgages.

100 K Loans – 100 K Lines = 0.00 vs.
(100 K Loans – 100 K Lines) + $100 K Deposits = $100K
Offset the borrower “loans” that are held on the banks lines of credit.
Upon moving the lines off balance sheet the loan are unencumbered or owned free and clear. (For this example).

BANK =$100 K Loans and
QSPE = $100K Deposits – $100K Deposit’s = 0.00
Thus zero net worth is bankrupt insulated

Therefore the deposits are substituted collateral that enhances the Bank; Company “B” books freeing up more lines for liquidity and freeing up loans to securitize. The unencumbered loans are Banks assets held for benefit of SPE Company “C”. The excess cash flow is then payable to Trust Preferred investors in Company “D”.

The Bank, Company “B” holds the notes and owes the borrower payments to the SPE Company “C” for (1) lines outstanding and (2) Common Trust Shares (“CD”) dividends (3) to deposit the excess. Therefore the SPE Company “C” has a receivable due from the Bank Company “B”. Company “C” QSPE then pays out the balance left over to the SPE Company “D” as dividend to trust preferred shareholders.

The entire structure is held in a Real Estate Investment Trust or REIT and the common shares in Company “C” are owned by investors and controlled by a 10% holding owned by Bank management in a TRS or taxable REIT Subsidiary. The loans are an asset evidenced by the note and owned by the bank that is the controlling interest for Company “C” SPE common shares. The cash flow Company “C” collects and then forwards is debt of the bank – It’s all Debt.

The cash flow Company “D” is entitled to is for unsecured securities like bond or “Debt / Equity” bonds called Preferred Trust Certificates.

Moving lines of credit off balance sheet secured by deposits is legal. Nothing deemed fraudster or Bankster’s about it. The lender Company “A” is removed from the scheme within 30 days normally and the Bank through its wholesale division controls production and the warehouse division facilitate the originations.

The Bank always held the notes. The amount due the warehouse line is converted into a long term debt and a receivable for Company “C” by way of shifting over deposits into “Common Stock Shares, which free up the encumbered borrower loans. It’s called factoring – buying someone’s receivables. And once again – the cash flow Company “D” receives is for unsecured securities like bond called Preferred Trust Certificates, payable by the QSPE Company “C”.
My personal experience and insider knowledge of the scheme reveals’ a significant fraudulent effort here –centered on the “common shares” and TRS. It’s something that cannot remain hidden in discovery.

It is a fine line between “divestiture” and committing paper (borrower loans) as pledge assets to investments. For the other case of fraud, I believe the FDIC has no idea of what these debt collectors had up their sleeve. This I will testify too.


Quote 0 0
Does anyone know what happened at Wednesday's hearing before U. S. Dist. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in the case USA v. Brenda Michelson, No 4:11-cr-00904-PJH. This is the case in the Northern District of California on the criminal fraud charges against M. Soliman's partner Brenda Michelson and fellow swindler Kanya Coleman.

There was a hearing on Wednesday, February 6, 2013, at 2:30 P.M. I want to find out what happened at that hearing.

Also, does anyone have any updated information on a guilty plea by Maher Soliman on other charges?? Is M. Soliman still at large? If so, does anyone have information about his whereabouts and the identities of others in his new gang?
Quote 0 0
M. Soliman is leading expert witness ever where and borrower alway get free house when use Mr. Soliman expert service! Alway!!!
Quote 0 0
Ummm.... no, Maher Solimon does not allow borrowers to get their homes free and clear.  I have not heard of one case wherein he was successful in helping the borrowers.  We spent years dealing with his gibberish and paid him as well... COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0

Texas, my man! Thank you for this!!!

Your post got me to thinking about this Sheik Tehuti and swindler Maher Soliman. Here is the case I found and it doesn't look as though Mr. Soliman's "slavery" defense in a foreclosure is working any better than scam artist Mike H.'s "death gamble" defense:

[i]Sheik Terhuti v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-3748-P-BK, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division, Dec. 6, 2012[/b]
Quote 0 0

Do you know where we can find a mugshot of noted foreclosure scam artist Maher E. Soliman?? He operates a debt elimination scam pretending to be an expert witness.
Quote 0 0
Even before he teamed up with scam artist Maher Soliman to interpose the Soliman "slavery defense" to foreclosure, Sheik Tehuti seemed to be showing some inability to make a coherent argument:

[i]TEHUTI v. BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP, No. 05-11-00449-CV (Tex. App. -- Dallas, Sep. 9, 2011)[/b]

[i]In re Sheik Tehuti, Elfreda Allen, and Pyramid Bonds, No. 03-12-00358-CV (Tex. App. - Austin, July 6, 2012)[/b]

In the latter case, Sheik Tehuti seemed to not even be capable of ascertaining the correct appellate court in which to file his appeal. It seems unsurprising then that he is so stupid that he would pay fellow criminal Maher Soliman to use a totally specious defense which has no merit whatsoever.

You really have to love the name of Sheik Tehuti's fellow co-conspirator in the second case "Pyramid Bonds"! This sounds like someone who would have been working for Bernie Madoff! It is unclear whether someone actually named their child "Pyramid Bonds" in celebration of a successful swindle or whether like Neil Garfield's use of "Living Lies" as the name of his web site that another scam artist employed the alias "Pyramid Bonds" to immunize himself from prosecution for fraud (how could any jury ever convict someone named "Pyramid Bonds" fraud??). Either way, it is really hard to make this stuff up. Whether Maher Soliman is endorsed by the noted Sheik Tehuti or whether Sheik Tehuti is endorsed by scam artist and "expert witness" Maher Soliman, it is ironic that the Sheik has a cellmate named "Pyramid Bonds" and that there is a real Texas appellate case bearing this name.

Any time a borrower is presented with another of Maher Soliman's vacuous legal theories the very first thing a borrower should be asking is where the argument has been successfully employed in the past.

Like the other debt elimination scam artists, Maher Soliman can never identify a single case where his legal theories were actually successful or where his "expert" testimony was actually accepted by a court resulting in any favorable outcome for a borrower.
Quote 0 0
M. Soliman is aslo master mind of enjeanious new court argumont to stop descrimenat and slavery by forclose!!! Is recommen by Sheik Tehuti and can be use if paid in full to M. Soliman. M. Soliman is lead expret witnes ever where. Pay M. Soliman to get a free house!!!

Mr. Soliman's slavery foreclosure defense didn't work very well in Washington State, either:

[i]Michael Ronzone v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No. C11-5025BHS (U.S. Dist. Wash. February 14, 2012)[/b]
Quote 0 0
Is show M. Soliman way to void all morgage by notise and crete an Allodial Title!!!

M. Soliman

If you are giving even a shred of consideration to employing this complete moron, be sure to check out his qualifications:

Expert Affidavit of M. Soliman Qualification

Also search the Forum for other mentions of scam artist Maher E. Soliman. This guy is a debt elimination scam swindler masquerading as an "expert witness".

This slavery defense and related vapor money defense claiming to be a sovereign Moor is just another variation of the same scam.
Quote 0 0
Ollie Jeff and Nikki yu lye!! M. Soliman work clos with GRAND SHEIK SHAKIR RA ADE BEY, Divine Public Minister which declare new slavary defens accord of Moorish Holy Tempel of Sciens Worl wide.

Yu do nto slendar M. Soliman are GRAND SHEIK by deni slavary defnes. Stop!!! Is Bles by GRAND SHEIK!!!

Onely by pay M. Soliman is tru slavary defens revile! Do pay M. Soliman for free hous!!! If yu slendar M. Soliman GRAND SHEIK mak fattah and yu suffer jihad.

Grand Sheik didn't do very well with the M. Soliman's slavery defense either:

McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201 United States District Court, D. Connecticut, June 11, 2010

The Courts seem to recognize that Shakir Ra Ade Bey is a phony, whether he capitalizes his name or not, and that the Moorish Holy Temple of Science of the World is just another scam to defraud complete idiots. Even the name Shakir Ra Ade Bey is an alias for Raymond Wintson McLAUGHLIN, a common criminal.

Maher E. Soliman is a liar and a chump. Only a moron would employ this scam artist. The most flattering thing that may be said about Maher Soliman is that he consistently demonstrates himself only to be a singularly distinguished moron whose gibberish writings and incoherent posts would seem to impress only other morons.

See also:

McLaughlin v. CitiFINANCIAL AUTO CREDIT, INC., United States District Court, D. Connecticut, June 11, 2010

It would be an impossibility to slander Maher Soliman, because this fool discredits himself every time he or any of his shills open their mouths or types any of their gibberish online. His writings are almost impossible to read because of the time one must spend to try to decipher the misspellings and egregiously erroneous grammar.

There are some unexplained gaps in Maher Soliman's resume between some of the various major swindles in which he seems to have been a participant. Perhaps he became a disciple of the Moorish Holy Temple of Science of the World in prison where most of the other adherents of this fraudulent religion seem to flourish.
Quote 0 0
Ne 1 can buy fore close defens wat will stop fore close. Yew pay and be sheik.

Aslo shoe yew sekrit argumnt wat to yews. Yew clame is a trust!!! Anser and say yew is trusty!!!

Yew pay $2500 for argumnt. Yew can be the sheik is onely $3000 moore. Onely cash is excepted.

Texas can you find us any mug shots of Sheik Amenti? This guy doesn't sound on the level.

Can a borrower claim to be a trust and then answer as a trustee? That doesn't sound right.
Quote 0 0
Ne 1 can buy fore close defens wat will stop fore close. Yew pay and be sheik.

Aslo shoe yew sekrit argumnt wat to yews. Yew clame is a trust!!! Anser and say yew is trusty!!!

Yew pay $2500 for argumnt. Yew can be the sheik is onely $3000 moore. Onely cash is excepted.

Lets be clear. Buying a foreclosure defense from Sheik Amenti is going to be no more effective than buying such a foreclosure defense from Sheik Maher Soliman or Sheik Terhuti. These people are all scam artists.

"Sheik" is an honorific title indicating that the person is an important person, often a significant landholder and/or head of an extended family. In Islamic speaking countries where royalty prevails, such a designation might be formally be bestowed by royal decree but more often comes into usage simply as an indication of respect. In a prison gang, it might indicate the head of the gang.

The defense alluded to of claiming to be a trust or the trustee of a trust is a completely vacuous argument that isn't going to slow a foreclosure down even five minutes unless it is because everyone in the courtroom bursts into laughter at the idiocy of any person making such an argument.

Sheik Amenti actually seems to be a fellow named Patrick WOODS, of Louisville, Kentucky. He adopted the name El-Ptah Sa Amenti Ra during the course of his trial court proceedings, probably to justify spitting at the judge and plaintiff's counsel every time he uttered his own name. Later he seems to have also adopted the honorific "Sheik" possibly after purchasing the title from Sheik Tehuti or Sheik M. Soliman, two known swindlers.

Partick WOODS lost his foreclosure case in the trial court in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in December 2011 (Case No. 10-CI-401370). He lost his appeal in the unpublished decision Woods v. U.S. Bank just last week in the Kentucky Court of Appeals:

[i]Woods v. U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, No. 2011-CA-002327-MR (Ky. App. July 12, 2013)[/b]

Like other losers, Sheik Amenti may now be "selling" his totally ineffective trustee foreclosure defense to unwitting borrowers. He also may be selling Sheikdoms on the side.

A sheikdom plus a bus token may get you a ride on Louisville's bus system, but this can also be achieved by a bus token alone.

If it seems baffling why anyone would be promoting such scams, consider that any money that Sheik Amenti receives from any idiot who believes any of this hocus is pure profit (after paying off the operators of foreclosure defense websites that allow him to advertise and promote this scam.)
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...