For our Members only. Feel free to publish you legal news now:
https://axjhub.com/axj-global-news-network
Please publish it.
Notice under 18 USC 4 to Judge Richardson re Johnson case: PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is a FAKE company
I contacted veteran Johnson and hopefully she will join AAF and protect her rights against this crime.
I am very surprised how and the The Department of Veterans Affairs (V,A. ) continues to cover up for it even though GinnieMae refuses to participate in this scam
I see it in more and more cases where mill lawyers forge documents about non existing transactions to steal veterans homes – and no GinnieMae trusts involved , just fake companies like PennyMac and mill lawyers themselves
But VA does nothing to protect veterans against this heinous crime.
On Monday, January 20, 2025 at 10:51:14 PM PST, Summer Chic <summer.chicago3@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear District Judge Eli Richardson and the Department of VA:
My name is Elena, I am a veteran from another State who cares about preventing illegal foreclosures and illegal collections against veterans and other Americans.
I found case 23-cv-875 filed by veteran Sherma Johnson whose home lawyers from Maronosci Law Group tried to steal as their own revenue by using name of FAKE company PennyMac Loan Services, LLC and fraudulent documents which these lawyers downloaded from Mortgage Servicing Platform owned by Fidelity National Financial who uses myriad of fictitious corporate names such as Lenders Processing Services, Inc; DocX, LLC; Black Knight, Inc, ServiceLink ; ICE Mortgage Technologies and many others
I did a substantial research on illegal foreclosures and discovered that in 2008 Stanford Kurland, former President of Countrywide Financial and his team entered into a conspiracy agreement with hedge fund BlackRock, Inc to create a shell company Private Mortgage Acceptance Corporation, Inc later renamed as PennyMac Financial, Inc to pose as a “big market player” to defraud homeowners and investors
Kurland on March 25, 2008 registered a single member LLC [ one person company] named PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, a totally fake corporation, replica of Countyrwide’s Americas Wholesale Lender – whom Wall Street’s owned media started to promote as a “lender” and a “big servicer” – while all of it is a LIE. See response to my FOIA from CA tax authority.
On January 25, 2021 Kurland – a single member of PennyMac Loan Services, LLC – died . So, now its a single dead member LLC without any corporate functions.
Moreover, in its SEC form 10K PennyMac Financial personally deny any involvement in any servicing of any agency “loans”
PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is just a name on the letterheads generated by various fintech companies, hedge funds and mill lawyers which they use to steal people homes as their own profits
Johnson attached numerous exhibits [ see below] evidencing a substantial FRAUD – including fraud upon the Court by lawyers from Marinosci Law Group and Limestone Title and Escrow who pretended to be “Trustees” and “Successor Trustee” to MERS [aka Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.] to STEAL Johnson’s home for their profit using name of fake company “PennyMac”
In reality PennyMac Loan Services, LLC has absolutely nothing to do with Johnson or this illegal foreclosure.
Faux “Letter of Default” was AI-generated by so-called “Default Debt Servicer Franklin Credit Management and fintech company Covius Documents Technology LLC who rent PO Box 9109 in Temecula CA post office.
This information was confirmed to me by USPS in their response to my FOIA
Here is absolutely NO authority to appoint Limestone Title or Marinosci lawyers as “Trustee” or “Successor Trustee” in so-called “VA Guaranteed loan” which – according to fairy tales promoted to the public – must be in GinnieMae’s Trust which is missing in Johnson’s case.
Transaction described in faux documents from Limestone and Marinosci to steal Johnson’s home never existed and cannot exist in the real life IF Johnson has a “VA Guaranteed loan”
Limestone and Marinosci lawyers simply “appointed” themselves as “Trustees” and “successors” trustees” for undisclosed [non existing] principals to STEAL this veteran’s home as their profit.
I respectfully request you to initiate your own investigation and report Limestone and Marinosci lawyers to appropriate authorities.
Johnson had a quaso contract with undisclosed to her investment bank who paid for her services as an issuer of securities which generated a windfall of profits to numerous companies – without any disclosures to veteran Johnson
The REAL originator of Johnson’s transaction – masqueraded as “VA loan” – was Fidelity’s MSP LoanSphere or similar platorm via its suborinator Blend Labs, Inc
Not the named faux “lender”
The promise to pay issued by Johnson (a) does not necessarily create an obligation in law or equity if there was no business or personal reason for issuing the promise and no consideration for making the promise.
In this case, the promise was issued under false pretenses — i.e., for the creation of a loan account with a lender and compliance with lending laws, RESPA, and the FDCPA. If no such account was created or maintained then the obvious question is “if it was not a loan transaction, what was it?” Since no unpaid loan account receivable survived the transaction cycle there are only two possibilities left, to wit: gift or payment for services.. Either way, it is not a loan. And either way, Johnson did not agree to THAT transaction.
In simple terms Johnson transaction was a “Qualified Financial Contract” (QFC), part of which contained some apparent attributes of a loan, but which went much further and diverged extensively from a “loan” as the term is currently used in custom and practice in the financial industry and society in general. The QFC is defined in all securitization documents. Investment banks knew they were not creating a loan. They entered into a quasi contract with Johnson for services. In logistical terms, the Johnson delivered the only service the investment bank was seeking, to wit: issuance of the note and mortgage.
Neither the investment bank nor the originator designee of the investment bank was at all interested in making a loan, collecting revenue from repayment nor assuming any meaningful risk of loss. Although Johnson entered the transaction desiring a loan, she didn’t receive a loan. If there is no legally responsible lender or creditor at the conclusion of that transaction, it isn’t a loan.
Since too many bona fide third party transactions have occurred to rescind or unwind the transaction the only possibility remaining is to have a court reframe the agreement to include the basis [intention] upon which the undisclosed investment bank entered into the transaction — i.e., the creation, issuance, selling, trading and hedging of unregulated securities. The investment bank had no intention of becoming a lender and that there was no intention to make investors lenders. It was partly a scheme for avoidance or evasion of lending and securities laws.
Authority to enforce the note can only come from one who is entitled to enforce. And the premier person who has the right to enforce is owner of the underlying debt that the note is supposed to memorialize. Under the laws of all jurisdictions nobody gets to own the obligation without paying value. It is a very simple logical progression. In the end enforcement of the note is intended to pay the debt. If it doesn’t pay the debt the maker of the note is subject to multiple liabilities for the same transaction. And that is what happened. Since the originator did not substantively fund the homeowner transaction the issuing of the note and mortgage in favor of the originator was a legal nullity. The issuance of the note created a new liability that was not merged with the underlying obligation to repay the money, if any, that was received or paid on behalf of the homeowner.
Johnson transaction was not a loan but a quasi contract or quantum meruit.
Since there is no lender or creditor at the conclusion of the securitization cycle, the intent of Johnson is thwarted — i.e., she does not have a loan agreement. It is something else. And that is where quasi contract and quantum meruit come into play. If Johnson knew about real nature of her transaction and the real parties – she could have bargained away reasonable compensation or consideration for her role in initiating the only documents that made securitization claims possible — i.e., the note and mortgage. Our legal system is not designed to correct stupid mistakes in bargaining ornegotiation in transactions or agreements. Our system is designed to enforce the intent of the parties. So we can’t get away from the intent to create an obligation and the intent to have that obligation enforceable and memorialized by a note and mortgage. In fact, we should embrace it.
The reason is that the intent to create the enforceable homeowner obligation was not the only intent operating. Since the securitizations scheme — and the homeowner’s vital role in it — was not disclosed (actually actively concealed), the homeowner did not, could not and never did bargain away rights to compensation or consideration for his role and risks in this dangerous risky transaction. Thus we enter the realm of quasi contract and quantum meruit.
So now the question is how much consideration did Johnson actually receive for issuance of the note and mortgage?
Since it wasn’t a loan, even though that was what was intended by Johnson , the receipt of property Deed must be categorized as payment of consideration. But now the issuance of the note and mortgage becomes a service rather than the result of an underlying obligation to repay. So the consideration of the receipt of benefit from the funding [here was no funding] of Johnson transaction is entirely offset by a promise to pay more than the consideration received in the form of money paid to her. But here it was only the property Deed from the property Seller.
On the other hand, there is good reason to find that the consideration for issuance of the documents required to start securitization claims, securities, selling trading and hedging was entirely negated by the concurrent promise to pay more than the money received. But assuming there was a finding of consideration, was it enough? In a court of equity wherein rescission is no longer an option the court must determine what a reasonable homeowner would have bargained for or received through the process of free market forces if disclosure had actually been made regarding the securitizations scheme and the vast profits and revenue generated under the scheme. The court must order hear a testimony from the real parties of the transaction and reach a conclusion as to whether Johnson had received enough consideration or if she should have received more as per the quasi contract and not just what was presented as a faux loan agreement.
The investment bank secretly tricked Johnson into a dangerous transaction, the risks and actual profits of which were unknown to Johnson .
Using the shadow banking marketplace (i.e., where all derivatives are traded for nominal value) as the external reference point for heuristic projection, it may be fairly assumed that the average revenue generated from each securitization cycle was $12 for each $1 transacted with homeowners. Additional securities analysis reveals that the figure could be much higher. Plus revenues from sales of securities by other undisclosed parties who were real originators, suboriginators, real servicers, ect. In a free marketplace where there was no asymmetry of information the fair question could be posed as follows: from the investment bank’s perspective they would be saying that they are going to make $12 on each $1 during the securitization cycle, perhaps more.
Without Johnson [and other homeowners] signature on faux “loan” documents there is no securitization and there are no revenues and there are no transactions claimed as “loans.” So looking at the customs and practices of the financial industry the homeowners would probably initially claim 20% of ALL profits for their indispensable role in the windfall of revenues generated by all undisclosed parties
The Court must also look at the money actually spent (commissions, bonuses etc) on getting Johnson to execute the required note and mortgage while concealing the truth about the transaction as a measure of what Johnson should get. Or a license or royalty arrangement might be adopted. All of them average around 15%-20% of the total revenue generated by the scheme. this would leave the investment bank with 40% of the securitization cycle revenue which is around 1200% of normal revenues for underwriting and sale of debt securities. So the court must order all real parties to appear and join this case; disclose all profits generated by Johnson services as an issuer of Note and Mortgage; offset the obligation [if any] with whatever it decided was reasonable consideration for Johnson. It would either order payment to Johnson of any excess consideration due or order her to pay the balance of the obligation after offset for the consideration due.
And if Johnson still owed money both the note and mortgage would be enforceable by any party who paid value for the debt. None of this is possible without creating a contract by decree in which it is possible to designate a party who is not a creditor to act as a creditor — in a transaction to which the homeowner agrees that for all purposes the designee will be a creditor. And that creditor is subject to lending and servicing laws. This is essential because under current law only the owner of the debt can enforce the mortgage and only someone representing the owner of the debt can enforce the note unless they are a holder of the note in due course — which means they purchased it for value in good faith and without knowledge of the maker’s defenses.