there is no trust without a COMPLETE trust instrument

Here the court finally brings US Bank (and others like Deutsch etc) to task about their positions
as “Trustees” and makes the distinction between the alleged “Trust” who IS the Plaintiff (if
properly described) and the alleged “Trustee” who is NOT the Plaintiff. That distinction throws
off the entire narrative the banks are pursuing. everyone thinks they are dealing with US Bank
when in fact they are dealing with the rust. The insertion of US Bank as a Trustee in name only
can now be attacked with the winds of precedent behind you.

The nut cracked when the Court considered the question of whether US Bank had any
duties, obligations, control or even knowledge. A negative answer to all of those questions
would result in a finding that they were not a Trustee, and that the “property” (loans) were
never entrusted to them or any other trustee, thus defeating the very existence of a trust and any
claims for REMIC tax treatment, as well as claims for exemption under SEC Registration rulers.

The problem for the banks — all the major ones — was that the documents upon which they
relied to establish the Trust specifically prohibit the Trustee from exercising any control, or even
asking questions about “trust assets (their existence or status) thus establishing an unknown third
party who has been anointed by the Master Servicer with the job of acting as “subservicer.”

Getting lost in the weeds many thousands of pro se litigants and foreclosure defense attorneys
have missed the obvious, to wit: there is no trust without a COMPLETE trust
instrument, a trustor, beneficiaries and PROPERTY that is
entrusted to the trustee thus forming the physical existence of the
trust as opposed to the hypothetical existence of a trust that exists
only on paper (if in fact the Pooling and Servicing Agreement was fully executed and all
the exhibits were attached (including the MLS- Mortgage loan schedule).

Bob G. is correct. A trustee is supposed to be the legal owner, on behalf of

beneficiaries, of the loans. But they never are, because the trustee’s role is only when there is
actual cash pass-through (if there was ever any actual cash pass-through). Once servicer advances stop,
and they do, the default is swapped out of the trust, by a contract which is not a security. The trustee’s
role is done. Trustee cannot be named as the owner on behalf of the default swap derivative debt buyer
that the servicer refuses to identify. This
is why bank attorneys are now falsely
coming in and naming the TRUST — but a trust cannot stand without
a trustee. If Diversity jurisdiction is actually applied – the trust itself must come forward and
identify all “investors.” If even one resides in the state, diversity is defeated. They cannot , and will not,
name any investor in the loan trust because the loan has been swapped out. So they have to name the
swap holder/debt buyers. If even one is from your state, federal diversity is defeated, or can defeat
state jurisdiction if none are in your state. Point is — it forces the issue. None of this has been done. All
concealed from courts. Diversity Jurisdiction opens the door to mandated diversity jurisdiction
discovery. Discovery, otherwise, has been denied in case after case after case. The Courts meet their
match in this issue. Bob G is correct.
Actually the nut didn’t crack “when the Court considered the question of whether US Bank had
any duties, obligations, control or even knowledge. A negative answer to all of those questions
would result in a finding that they were not a Trustee, and that the “property” (loans) were never
entrusted to them or any other trustee, thus defeating the very existence of a trust and any claims
for REMIC tax treatment, as well as claims for exemption under SEC Registration rulers.”

That was mere dicta. The nut cracked over the diversity issue and federal subject matter
jurisdiction. The opinion can be read here: https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/doc1/12514400976.

no, it doesn’t leave the homeowner in limbo…the homeowner can now bring a quiet title
action.