Here's a question that came up in California: Who can be a recorded assignee of the Deed of Trust? Freddie Mac designates Servicers to be recorded Beneficiaries of the Deed of Trust when they have no interest in the Note or Deed of Trust. This is done by forming an agreement for the sale and servicing of a loan. By signing a Master Agreement, the selling bank binds itself with Freddie to a Servicing Guide which becomes a governing set of rules for the servicing of the loan. The Guide says in order to sell a Note/Loan to Freddie, the bank endorses the note in blank so that they can act as Holder of the Note upon default. As Holder of the Note, the bank proceeds to substitute the Trustee and cause an Assignment of Deed of Trust to be recorded in the land records although the bank has no interest in the Note or DOT except for the fees generated by servicing.
Any comments on the legality of this? For one thing, the DOT states "For Value Received".
We know that the UCC allows others to act as enforcers of the Note. But a recorded beneficiary of DOT seems to be a lot different than what the UCC allows.
This is a far more complex topic than you might ever imagine and the root truth can be discovered by reading Mr. Roper's many posts here at the Forum.
There are really two very separate issues to be considered. One is the right of private parties to contract to do just about anything. The other is the misuse of the courts and especially those who come into court making false representations.
At the very simplest level, you are free to make almost anyone your agent to act on your behalf. For example, you could make a relative, friend, acquaintance or even a stranger your agent by a simple power. The power might be written or oral.
If you give your agent $50 and tell your agent to go and buy you a carton of cigarettes, you remain the owner of the fifty dollars. Your agent is the holder of the $50. You agent can spend the $50 freely. Those taking the money may never know that the agent is acting on your behalf. There is nothing illegal or unethical about this (unless, perhaps you are engaged in purchasing cigarettes for someone underage, etc.).
The agent is accountable to you for your $50 and is due to give you your carton of cigarettes or restore the money to you. If your agent absconds with the money, you should have a valid cause of action against your agent, though you might have a proof problem if you failed to memorialize the agency in some way.
There is nothing inherently unlawful or unethical about assigning a note or bill for collection. This is done everyday in state, national and international commerce, as when one bank acts on behalf of another to present a check for payment. This is how most checks clear!
Problems emerge when an entity acting as an agent for another person or entity files suit and within its pleadings, motions, discovery responses, and/or sworn testimony misrepresents the nature of the transactions!
In the 1990s, the Democratic Party seized control of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and began systematically looting both to enrich corrupt politicians. This looting continued for more than a decade and a half before the bubble burst in 2007.
The looting was part of a systematic plan both to create an uber class of ultra-rich Marxists who would rule the country, but also to strip all American's of private home ownership. This plan is still underway.
It is essential that the population not perceive or understand that these foreclosures are being purposefully orchestrated. For this reason, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require that foreclosures be completed in the name of the servicers, even though this means that false representations must be made to the courts.
This policy of misleading the public is important to two objectives of the Democratic conspirators. First, this immunizes Fannie and Freddie against public criticism. Second, it increases public hostility towards the corrupt banks which are also involved in this swindle.
Hostility against the banks is critical to the second part of the conspiracy, which involves consolidation of all private banking in the hands of a few mega banks, which will then be seized by the national government completing conversion to Marxism. After the government seizes the few remaining banks, it will declare default against all remaining private homeowners and seize their homes.
This is why the Dept. of Homeland Security has been stockpiling ammunition and now has far more ammunition than the U.S. Military!
As you can see, there is nothing really wrong with entities acting as agents for one another. The real problem is the Marxist conspiracy by those Democrats who now are in firm control of the GSEs, the Federal Reserve Board and the large banks. The best strategy is probably to stockpile a lot of ammunition!