Good News From Jessica Dye!!!

Unbelievably: Another Bombshell revelation.      Another case has emerged to our attention involving a Bank of America Whistleblower.   Gregory Mackler  filed a Qui Tam case on behalf of all those who were foreclosed upon while eligible for modifications which were required if a homeowner qualified, but denied so that the bank could maximize profit.     This time a former employee blew the whistle on purposeful, malicious denials of modifications while the bank was reporting to the federal government complete direct lies about participation levels in HAMP.      This whistle blower pocketed 14million.     READ THIS FROM REUTERS….  Seems like the whistleblowers should be coming out of the woodwork.

 

By Jessica Dye

NEW YORK, March 7 (Reuters) – Bank of America NA prevented homeowners from receiving mortgage-loan modifications under a federal program in order to avoid millions of dollars in losses while benefitting from financial incentives for participating in the program, according to a complaint unsealed in federal court Wednesday.

The suit is the second whistle blower complaint unsealed so far with apparent ties to the $1 billion False Claims Act settlement announced by Bank of America and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York on February 9.

The Bank of America settlement is also part of the sweeping $25 billion agreement reached between state and federal authorities.

Final settlement documents have yet to be filed in the BoA settlement, which the U.S. Attorney’s Office said was the largest ever False Claims Act payout related to mortgage fraud.

The settlement resolved claims that Bank of America’s Countywide Financial subsidiaries defrauded the Federal Housing Administration by inflating appraisals used for government-insured home loans, as well as claims involving the Home Affordable Modification Program, a federal program to help American homeowners facing foreclosure.

The complaint unsealed Wednesday was filed by whistleblower Gregory Mackler, a Colorado resident who said he worked alongside Bank of America executives while an employee at Urban Lending Solutions, a company to which Bank of America contracted some of its HAMP work.

While working at Urban Lending, Mackler said he saw BofA and its loan servicing subsidiary, BAC Homes Loans Servicing LP, implement “business practices designed to intentionally prevent scores of eligible homeowners from becoming eligible or staying eligible for permanent HAMP modification.”

The bank and its agents routinely pretended to have lost homeowners’ documents, failed to credit payments during trial modifications and intentionally misled homeowners about their eligibility for the program, the complaint alleged.

BoA let through just enough HAMP modifications to avert suspicion and allay congressional critics, while not enough to incur any substantial losses to its own bottom line, according to the complaint.

“In other words, BoA has had it both ways. BoA has continued to maximize the value of its mortgage portfolio with anti-HAMP modification practices and managed to make money by committing fraud on homeowner,” the lawsuit said.

A lawyer for Mackler could neither confirm nor deny that the complaint was tied to the settlement. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office and a representative for Bank of America declined to comment.

In February, a whistleblower complaint was unsealed from Kyle Lagow, a former employee in a Countrywide appraisal unit which detailed allegations of Countrywide’s “corrupt underwriting and appraisal process.” Bank of America purchased Countywide in June 2008.

Under the False Claims Act, successful whistleblower complaints can earn that whistleblower up to 25 percent of the settlement amount.

According to the docket, the U.S. Department of Justice has until March 16 to decide whether to intervene in both the Mackler and Lagow case. The case is United States of America v. Bank of America NA et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 11-3270.
 
 
 
If you have not already, please sign our petition to audit the National Land Record at: www.Landtegrity.com
 
 
Best, 
 
Chloe Williams
540.341.1481 (office)
202.841.2306 (cell)

Naming & Shaming powers ‘reserved’ : Consumers ‘still in the dark’ on crooked lawyers as identities of rogue solicitors & law firms yet to be published by Legal Ombudsman

petercherbi's avatarThe Justice Diaries

Legal OmbudsmanMuch promisedNaming & shaming of rogue lawyers yet to happen in England & WalesMORE THANTWO YEARS after much debate and numerous consultations which received widespread support from consumer groups and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) of England & Wales to name & shame rogue solicitors & law firms in published complaints data, the policy decision taken by the LeO in April 2012 to publish the identities of lawyers involved in client complaints, has not yet resulted in publication of a single solicitor or law firm’s identity.

Shedding some light on the lack of publication of lawyer’s names to-date, the latest annual report covering 2012-1013 from the Legal Ombudsman states “In one of the key decisions taken during the year related to the publication of the statistics about ombudsman decisions. While there was general agreement that it was desirable for us…

View original post 1,167 more words

Great Story by David Dayen: Bank of America whistle-blowers

TUESDAY, JUN 18, 2013 07:45 AM EDT

Bank of America whistle-blower’s bombshell: “We were told to lie”

Bombshell: Bank of America whistle-blowers detail horrid schemes to fleece borrowers, reward foreclosures (UPDATED)

BY 

TOPICS: BANK OF AMERICA, FORECLOSURE, MORTGAGE CRISIS, MORTGAGE FRAUD, MORTGAGE, HAMP,WHISTLEBLOWERS, EDITOR’S PICKS, LOANS, JP MORGAN CHASE, WALL STREET, , 

 

(Credit: Sashkin via Shutterstock/Salon)

Bank of America’s mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure: Yes, these allegations were suspected by any homeowner who ever had to deal with the bank to try to get a loan modification – but now they come from six former employees and one contractor, whose sworn statements were added last week to a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts.

“Bank of America’s practice is to string homeowners along with no apparent intention of providing the permanent loan modifications it promises,” said Erika Brown, one of the former employees. The damning evidence would spur a series of criminal investigations of BofA executives, if we still had a rule of law in this country for Wall Street banks.

The government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which gave banks cash incentives to modify loans under certain standards, was supposed to streamline the process and help up to 4 million struggling homeowners (to date, active permanent modifications numberabout 870,000). In reality, Bank of America used it as a tool, say these former employees, to squeeze as much money as possible out of struggling borrowers before eventually foreclosing on them. Borrowers were supposed to make three trial payments before the loan modification became permanent; in actuality, many borrowers would make payments for a year or more, only to find themselves rejected for a permanent modification, and then owing the difference between the trial modification and their original payment. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner famously described HAMP as a means to “foam the runway” for the banks, spreading out foreclosures so banks could more readily absorb them.

These Bank of America employees offer the first glimpse into how they pulled it off. Employees, many of whom allege they were given no basic training on how to even use HAMP, were instructed to tell borrowers that documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or that the file was “under review” when it hadn’t been accessed in months. Former loan-level representative Simone Gordon says flat-out in her affidavit that “we were told to lie to customers” about the receipt of documents and trial payments. She added that the bank would hold financial documents borrowers submitted for review for at least 30 days. “Once thirty days passed, Bank of America would consider many of these documents to be ‘stale’ and the homeowner would have to re-apply for a modification,” Gordon writes. Theresa Terrelonge, another ex-employee, said that the company would consistently tell homeowners to resubmit information, restarting the clock on the HAMP process.

Worse than this, Bank of America would simply throw out documents on a consistent basis. Former case management supervisor William Wilson alleged that, during bimonthly sessions called the “blitz,” case managers and underwriters would simply deny any file with financial documents that were more than 60 days old. “During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time,” Wilson wrote. “I personally reviewed hundreds of files in which the computer systems showed that the homeowner had fulfilled a Trial Period Plan and was entitled to a permanent loan modification, but was nevertheless declined for a permanent modification during a blitz.” Employees were then instructed to make up a reason for the denial to submit to the Treasury Department, which monitored the program. Others say that bank employees falsified records in the computer system and removed documents from homeowner files to make it look like the borrower did not qualify for a permanent modification.

Senior managers provided carrots and sticks for employees to lie to customers and push them into foreclosure. Simone Gordon described meetings where managers created quotas for lower-level employees, and a bonus system for reaching those quotas. Employees “who placed ten or more accounts into foreclosure in a given month received a $500 bonus,” Gordon wrote. “Bank of America also gave employees gift cards to retail stores like Target or Bed Bath and Beyond as rewards for placing accounts into foreclosure.” Employees were closely monitored, and those who didn’t meet quotas, or who dared to give borrowers accurate information, were fired, as was anyone who “questioned the ethics … of declining loan modifications for false and fraudulent reasons,” according to William Wilson.

Bank of America characterized the affidavits as “rife with factual inaccuracies.” But they match complaints from borrowers having to resubmit documents multiple times, and getting denied for permanent modifications despite making all trial payments. And these statements come from all over the country from ex-employees without a relationship to one another. It did not result from one “rogue” bank branch.

Simply put, Bank of America didn’t want to hire enough staff to handle the crush of loan modification requests, and used these delaying tactics as a shortcut. They also pushed people into foreclosure to collect additional fees from them. And after rejecting borrowers for HAMP modifications, they would offer an in-house modification with a higher interest rate. This was all about profit maximization. “We were regularly drilled that it was our job to maximize fees for the Bank by fostering and extending delay of the HAMP modification process by any means we could,” wrote Simone Gordon in her affidavit.

It is a testament to the corruption of the federal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that we’re only hearing evidence from inside Bank of America now, in a civil class-action lawsuit from wronged homeowners, when the behavior was so rampant for years. For example, the Treasury Department, charged with specific oversight for HAMP, didn’t sanction a single bank for failing to follow program guidelines for three years, and certainly did not uncover any of this criminal conduct. Steven Cupples, a former underwriter at Bank of America, explained in his statement how the bank falsified records to Treasury to make it look like they granted more modifications. But Treasury never investigated. Meanwhile, the Justice Department joined with state Attorneys General and other federal regulators to essentially bless this conduct in a series of weak settlements that incorporated other bank crimes as well, like “robo-signing” and submitting false documents to courts.

These affidavits, however, should return law enforcement to the case. William Wilson, the case management supervisor, alleges in his statement that this “ridiculous and immoral” conduct continued through August of 2012, when he was eventually fired for speaking up. That means Bank of America persisted with these activities for at least six months AFTER the main, $25 billion settlement to which they were a party. So state and federal regulators could sue Bank of America over this new criminal conduct, which post-dates the actions for which they released liability under the main settlement. Attorneys general in New York and Florida have accused Bank of America of violating the terms of the settlement, but they could simply open new cases about these new deceptive practices.

They would have no shortage of evidence, in addition to the sworn affidavits. According to Theresa Terrelonge, most loan-level representatives conducted their business through email; in fact, various email communications have already been submitted under seal in the Massachusetts civil case. State Attorneys General or US Attorneys would have subpoena power to gather many more emails.

And they would have very specific targets: the ex-employees listed specific executives by name who authorized and directed the fraudulent process. “The delay and rejection programs were methodically carried out under the overall direction of Patrick Kerry, a Vice President who oversaw the entire eastern region’s loan modification process,” wrote William Wilson. Other executives mentioned by name include John Berens, Patricia Feltch and Rebecca Mairone (now at JPMorgan Chase, and already named in a separate financial fraud case). These are senior executives who, if this alleged conduct is true, should face criminal liability.

Bank accountability activists have already seized on the revelations. “This is not surprising, but absolutely sickening,” said Peggy Mears, organizer for the Home Defenders League. “Maybe finally our courts and elected officials will stand with communities over Wall Street and prosecute, and then lock up, these criminals.”

Sadly, it’s hard to raise hopes of that happening. Past experience shows that our top regulatory and law enforcement officials are primarily interested in covering for Wall Street’s crimes. These well-sourced allegations amount to an accusation of Bank of America stealing thousands of homes, and lying to the government about it. Homeowners who did everything asked of them were nevertheless pushed into foreclosure, all to fortify profits on Wall Street. There’s a clear path to punish Bank of America for this conduct. If it doesn’t result in prosecutions, it will once again confirm the sorry excuse for justice we have in America.

Update: Read the full affidavits from the active court case here.

David Dayen is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on Twitter at @ddayen.

The Great Disappointment!!!

The Great Disappointment!!!.

REMIC Armageddon on the Horizon?

Deadly Clear’s Marvelous Post on Banks, Trusts, and Truth!

Deadly Clear's avatarDeadly Clear

explosionIt’s about time somebody recognized it.  David Reiss and Brad Bordon posted a dynamic review of the most recent ‘slap down the banks’ cases of Saldivar and Erobobo and the potential impact on the [failed] REMIC tax shelters in REFinBlog.

David Reiss writes: “Brad Borden and I have warned that an unanticipated tax consequence of the sloppy mortgage origination practices that characterized the boom is that MBS pools may fail to qualify as REMICs.  This would have massively negative tax consequences for MBS investors and should trigger lawsuits against the professionals who structured these transactions. Courts deciding upstream and downstream cases have not focused on this issue because it is typically not relevant to the dispute between the parties.

View original post 2,301 more words

Be sure to visit our latest new Blog, DeKalb County Sux:

http://dekalbcountysux.wordpress.com/

Living Lies Gives Us Important Information!

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/new-york-getting-ready-to-prosecute-banks-for-violations-of-settlement/

New York Getting Ready to Prosecute Banks for Violations of Settlement

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Neil Garfield
At the end of the day everyone knows everything. If you start with the premise that the securitization of debt was a farce and that the necessary element of the false securitization of mortgage loans was the foreclosure of those loans, then you move one step closer to understanding the mortgage and foreclosure mess and a giant step forward to understanding and implementing a solution. All the actions, statements and myths promulgated by the Wall Street banks become clear, including their violation of every consent decree,order and settlement they ever made with respect to mortgage loans.
Attorney General Schneiderman of New York seems to understand this and he is taking the mega banks to task for violating a settlement that looks like pennies on the dollar. He doesn’t care why they violated the $26 Billion settlement but he is taking action for their consistent violation of the settlement. But I care about the reason and so should you. The reason is nothing less than the obvious: the mega banks expose themselves to liability that far exceeds the terms of the settlement.
In any normal circumstances when a big company enters into a settlement that amounts to pennies on the dollar, the company rushes to make the settlement final by paying the money and performing the actions required in the agreement. Thus they commit illegal acts and get away with it by entering into an agreement that looks big but doesn’t put them out of business. They are nothing but anxious to put the settlement behind them.
So why are the mega banks refusing to abide by a $26 billion settlement on a multi- trillion theft? The answer by pure logic and my sources is that if the banks actually performed on the material portions of the agreement they risk going out of business. Why?
The answer is arithmetic. The purpose of the settlement was to stop illegal foreclosure practices and compensate those who lost their homes in illegal Foreclosures (as opposed to simply reversing the Foreclosures and starting over again which is what any court of law would require if there was an admission that the documents and claims in foreclosure were false).
Arithmetic is the answer. Without Foreclosures, the banks cannot support their claim of failure of the mortgages. If the loans are reinstated then the “sales” of loans and mortgage bonds become immediately subject to an accounting and to payback to investors who bought empty bogus bonds issued by a trust that existed in name only. If the loans must be considered performing loans because of any of the reasons contained in those multistage settlements, consent decrees,orders and agency settlements, then the banks must reimburse the insurers, buyers and counter-parties on hedge products like credit default swaps.
Thus satisfactions the settlement agreement exposes the banks to a reduction in their tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 capital such that the reality and empty underbelly of the banksia displayed for all to see. Those banks and are not nearly as big as they say they are and must be resolved by the FDIC because they actually do not have the minimum capital requirements that all banks must have to continue operations. That is why the Brown bill in the U.S. Senate is dead on right.
If the Foreclosures were invalid there is only one way to correct them, just like any title problem. Correct the defect In Title by reversing the foreclosure or get an affidavit from the homeowner joining in some correction of the corrupted title resulting from fake Foreclosures.
With trillions in liability at stake of course the banks are violating the settlement agreements and consent decrees. All they can do is try to control state and federal action by providing photo opportunities and planted articles around the media to make people feel good. But neither the housing market nor the economy will get the stimulus necessary for a full recovery until the truth is addressed instead of pretending you can fix this mortgage and foreclosure mess with Tiny settlements and promises that nobody intends to keep.

Eric Schneiderman: Banks Have ‘Confidence’ That Law Enforcement Is Not Taking Violations ‘Seriously’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/eric-schneiderman-banks_n_3226992.html

 

Wells Fargo appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court

Wells Fargo appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which certified the above questions to this Court at the Trustee’s request. We address each certified question in turn.

1. In order for a security deed to be in recordable form, it must be attested by an official witness and an unofficial witness. OCGA §§44-14-61 and 44-14-33. Specifically, OCGA §44-14-33 provides that a security deed “must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer as prescribed for the attestation or acknowledgment of deeds of bargain and sale; and, in the case of real property, a [security deed] must also be attested or acknowledged by one additional witness.” This Court has recently held that “a security deed is ‘duly filed, recorded, and indexed’ only if the clerk responsible for recording determines, from the face of the document, that it is in proper form for recording, meaning that it is attested or acknowledged by a proper officer and (in the case of real property) an additional witness.” U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gordon, 289 Ga. 12, 15 (709 SE2d 258) (2011). A deed that is not properly attested is ineligible for recording. Id. The recording of a properly attested security deed serves as constructive notice to all subsequent bona fide purchasers. OCGA §44-14-33. In this case, because the eight-paged security deed lacked the signature of an unofficial witness, it was not in recordable form as required by OCGA § 44-14-33 and did not provide constructive notice. See U.S. Bank N.A.  v. Gordon, supra, 289 Ga. at 15; Higdon v. Gates, 238 Ga. 105, 107 (231 SE2d 345) (1976). See also In Re Yearwood, 318 B.R. 227, 229 (M.D. Ga. 2004) (a patently defective security deed does not provide constructive notice).

Despite the facial defect in the security deed at issue, Wells Fargo urges that because the waiver was attested in accordance with OCGA § 44-14-33 and because the waiver was incorporated into the security deed by reference, the security deed was thereby properly attested and in recordable form. We disagree. While we are not bound by the United States bankruptcy courts’ interpretations of Georgia law, we nevertheless find In re Fleeman, 81 B.R. 160 (M.D. Ga. 1987) to be analogous to this case and persuasive to our resolution of the question before us. In Fleeman, the debtor executed a security deed and an adjustable rate rider. While the rider contained the signature of an unofficial witness, the security deed did not. As with the instant case, the deed and rider were contemporaneously submitted to the superior court for recording. After the debtor filed for bankruptcy, the unofficial witness issued and recorded with the superior court an affidavit stating that she had witnessed the debtor sign the security deed. One of the arguments advanced by the lender was that the attached and fully attested rider was sufficient to validate the security deed, in particular because the security deed incorporated the covenants and agreements of the rider. Id. at 162-163. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia rejected this argument reasoning as follows:

By attesting a document, an individual signifies that he has witnessed the execution of the particular document. Black’s Law Dictionary  117 (5th ed. 1979) (citations omitted). 

Thus the signature of [the unofficial witness], which appears on the adjustable rate rider, attests to the proper execution of that document only. Although the adjustable rate rider is incorporated into the terms of the deed to secure debt, the deed to secure debt itself remains improperly attested and ineligible for recordation.  Id. at 163.3

We agree with the above analysis. As in Fleeman, the attestation of the waiver in this case cannot be substituted for the proper attestation of the security deed. Such a construct would be false and contrary to the purpose of attestation, namely for the witness to verify that the document in question has been executed by the signatories. Allowing a more lenient rule as Wells Fargo urges would likely lead to more  complications than it would resolve for lenders, debtors, and subsequent purchasers alike. As we admonished in Bank N.A. v. Gordon, supra, 289 Ga. at 17, it costs nothing for lenders or their agents to review their paperwork to make sure the proper signatures are in place before submitting documents to the superior court clerk for recording. Accordingly, we answer the first certified question in the negative.

2. Having answered the first certified question in the negative, we now address the second certified question. Wells Fargo argues that the fully executed, attested, and recorded waiver in and of itself was sufficient to provide “inquiry notice” 4  such that a bona fide purchaser would be prompted to maie inquiries as to the existence of a security deed in the property’s chain of title.

We disagree. The rule regarding inquiry notice is summarized as follows:

[A] purchaser of land in this state “is charged with notice of every fact shown by the records, and is presumed to know every other fact which an examination suggested by the records would have disclosed.” [Cits.] …Although “it is essential that the description of the land in the conveyance should be reasonably certain and sufficient to enable subsequent purchasers to identify the premises intended to be conveyed; but while the description may be inaccurate, meager or erroneous, yet if it is expressed in such a manner or connected with such attendant circumstances as that a purchaser should be deemed to be put upon inquiry, if he fails to prosecute this inquiry he is chargeable with all the notice he might have obtained had he done so.” [Cit.]  Deljoo v. SunTrust Mortgage, 284 Ga. 438, 439-440 (668 SE2d 245) (2008).

4  See OCGA § 23-1-17 provides that “inquiry notice” is “[n]otice sufficient to excite attention and put a party on inquiry shall be notice of everything to which it is afterward found that such  inquiry might have led.”

When, however, a property description is “manifestly too meager, imperfect, or uncertain to serve as adequate means of identification,” a court may adjudge it “insufficient as a matter of law” for a subsequent purchaser to be put upon inquiry. Id. at 440. In this case, while the waiver identifies the lender and grantors (debtor and co-debtor), it only generically references a security deed and fails to identify or describe the property purportedly to be conveyed or encumbered by the referenced security deed. In the total absence of identification or description of the property subject to the security deed, the waiver itself would not place a bona fide purchaser on notice that he should make further inquiry. Accordingly, we answer the second certified question in the negative.

Certified questions answered. All the Justices concur.

 

 

Journey Visits Ashland

Beckie Elgin, Freelance Writer's avatarWolves and Writing

It was reported today that OR 7, better known as Journey, has returned to Jackson County and has been hanging out near Emigrant Lake. Emigrant Lake is a large reservoir and popular recreation site five miles south of Ashland. An interesting bit of trivia is that when the lake was expanded in 1960 it completely submerged the tiny town of Klamath Junction.

Emigrant sign

Journey has gone as far south as Yreka in his recent travels, twice crossing over busy Interstate 5. This is as far west as he has ever traveled. Before returning south on his travels, he trotted north to Douglas County, near Diamond Lake.

Ashland is where I live, and people here are excited to know that a wild, grey wolf is close at hand. If there were ever a place where wolves would be accepted, Ashland is it. Our population tends to be progressive and environmentally concerned. Ashland was a…

View original post 252 more words

Oregon Woman Wins 3-Year Fight Against Wells Fargo Foreclosure By Susanna Kim

Oregon Woman Wins 3-Year Fight Against Wells Fargo Foreclosure

  • Oregon Woman Wins 3-Year Fight Against Wells Fargo Foreclosure (ABC News)

    Oregon Woman Wins 3-Year Fight Against Wells Fargo Foreclosure (ABC News)

 

A woman in Tualatin, Ore., is breathing a sigh of relief after a three-year battle to prove Wells Fargo had wrongfully moved to foreclose on her home, saying she had missed mortgage payments.

A judge ruled Wednesday that Wells Fargo failed to prove she was actually behind in her payments, which Delores Dingman, 80, attributes to the bank’s simple “accounting errors.”

“I just praise God for it all because I kept praying so many times about this, because I knew I had made the payments, but their accounting errors made it hard,” she said.

The judge heard six hours of testimony and then ruled to cancel the judicial foreclosure.

Dingman and her late husband moved into their four-bedroom home in 1967, 46 years ago.

After her husband, Leland, died in March 2008, Dingman took out a new mortgage with Wachovia while she paid off his medical bills, never missing a payment. Court records show she promised to pay $308,000 plus interest June 16, 2008.

The next year, after Wells Fargo’s acquisition of Wachovia was completed in Jan. 2009, Dingman began receiving foreclosure notices. She believes the bank did not correctly process her payment since around October 2009.

But her bank records show her mortgage payments have been deposited by Wells Fargo. Despite efforts to clear up the mistake and paying more than $12,000 in attorney fees, her home went into judicial foreclosure.

Read more: U.S. Foreclosures Up 2 Percent, Second Straight Monthly Increase

She had been employed by the local Kmart since it opened 40 years ago but stopped working when the store closed last year.

She continued to pay her monthly mortgage amount of more than $2,300 while paying her attorney, Terry McLaughlin , to help her clear up the mistake.

“There is going to be more litigation,” McLaughlin said, declining to comment further.

Wells Fargo said in a statement, “We are reviewing the court’s decision and considering all of our options at this time.”

Dingman said, “I’m very sorry to say I don’t feel confident in their accounting whatsoever.”

This is not the first time Wells Fargo has been involved in an error on a foreclosed home. The bank’s contractors mistakenly cleared out the home of a retired couple twice in Twentynine Palms, Calif., after confusing it with a neighboring foreclosed home.

The bank previously said it worked with Dingman “since 2009 to identify options that would allow her to stay in the home.”

Dingman said there has been no cooperation from the bank.

“Foreclosure is always the very last option we explore with any customer,” Wells Fargo said November in a statement. “We feel foreclosure is bad for the customer, bad for their neighborhood, bad for their community and bad for us as the lender. Our goal is to keep our customers in their homes, have them pay off their loans, and own their homes outright. Given that there is active litigation around their loan we can’t discuss the case in any more detail at this time.”

In the past few years, her payments were considered missing even though she has checks that have Wells Fargo’s stamp on the back after they have been deposited, Dingman said.

When Dingman visited a Wells Fargo Branch to try to clear up the matter, they were directed to talk to a representative over the phone, White said. That person said the bank could not discuss the matter with her because her home was in foreclosure.

In the spring of 2011, Dingman wrote a certified letter asking Wells Fargo to send her a payment history. She said the bank provided her with a payment in the fall of 2012.

According to court records, Wells Fargo says that Dingman’s unpaid principal balance was $299,672.08.

Elizabeth Warren Blasts Regulators For Protecting Banks

Senator Warren Gives Them Hell!

Deadly Clear's avatarDeadly Clear

Elizabeth-Warren2“The Fed messed with the wrong senator…” posted David Dayen on Salon.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled federal officials about illegal bank foreclosures at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday. She wanted to know if they would give information to victims of illegal foreclosures–or if they just want to protect the banks. Warren asked, “You now know individual cases where the banks violated the law, and you’re not going to tell the homeowners, or at least it’s not clear yet whether you’re going to do that?”    

View original post 1,044 more words

Elizabeth Warren Blasts Regulators For Protecting Banks

From Deadly Clear Blog

Post navigation← Previous
Elizabeth Warren Blasts Regulators For Protecting Banks
Posted on April 16, 2013
“The Fed messed with the wrong senator…” posted David Dayen on Salon. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled federal officials about illegal bank foreclosures at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday. She wanted to know if they would give information to victims of illegal foreclosures–or if they just want to protect the banks. Warren asked, “You now know individual cases where the banks violated the law, and you’re not going to tell the homeowners, or at least it’s not clear yet whether you’re going to do that?”

ELIZABETH WARREN: “So do you plan to give the families this information? That is, those families that have been victims of illegal foreclosures, will you be giving them the information that’s in your possession about how the banks illegally foreclosed against them?”

RICHARD ASHTON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL RESERVE: “I think that’s a decision that we’re still considering making. We haven’t made a final decision yet.”

ELIZABETH WARREN: “So you have made a decision to protect the banks, but not a decision to tell the families who were illegally foreclosed against?”

“Elizabeth Warren vs. Captured Banking Regulators. Guess who wins.

Brand new clip from Senate hearing Thursday on illegal foreclosures. Warren blasts the Federal Reserve lawyer for shielding big banks and hiding fraud.

WATCH: Elizabeth Warren Kicks Bank Regulator’s Ass” writes the DailyBail.

“You work for the people not the banks!”

ELIZABETH WARREN:”You have made a decision to protect the banks but not to help the families who were illegally foreclosed on. Families get pennies on the dollar for being the victims of illegal activities. And you know of cases where the banks broke the laws, but you are not going to tell the homeowners. People want to know that their regulators are watching out for the American public, not the banks.”

Now we’re getting to the real nitty gritty! The Senate realizes these bank settlements are not equitable. Senator Warren states it very clear – “pennies on the dollar for being victims of illegal activities” – you can’t get much clearer than that! Then let’s change how these settlements are calculated.

It’s a fact that many, if not nearly all of these loans from 2003-2008 (over 84 million mortgages) had inflated appraisals. It’s a fact that the banks patented nearly every aspect of these defective mortgage loans from birth to death as if to legitimize the process. The loans were based primarily on the borrowers credit score and willingness to pay – rather than on the a legitimate appraisal (which was really only a sales tool to fool the borrowers into over-mortgaging their home). And this is why so many homes are underwater.

Most homeowners would prefer a reduction in principal as opposed to a meaningless financial settlement. Why not reduce the principal by 20% for each modification violation, another 30% for dual tracking and fraud, another 20% for filing false documents?

And for wrongful foreclosures – why not a 50% reduction in principal in addition to attorneys fees and costs? Percentage Principal Reductions. This would seem like a more equitable approach.

Reducing the principal would help the economy and get the courts over the “free house” crutch they keep leaning on. It would also keep the cash in the banks and given the recent draft of the Brown-Vitter bill – the banks are going to need to keep the cash.

“Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and David Vitter (R-La.) have been working on a bill to block the largest banks and financial firms from receiving federal subsidies for being deemed Too Big to Fail. On Friday, a draft version of that bill was leaked to Tim Fernholz of Quartz, much to Vitter’s chagrin,” wrote the Washington Post.

Seeking Alpha says: ”The Brown/Vitter bill being rolled out in Congress is essentially Armageddon to the TBTF banks, says Goldman, seeing it as mandating another $1.1T in equity for the banking system. Banks would need 12 years of earnings to build this amount organically, though the bill would give just 5 – say goodbye to lending. Break up the banks? BAC, C, JPM, and WFC all have multiple divisions with more than $400M in assets – the level at which the bill gets tough on lenders.”

REDUCING THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST MAKES MORE SENSE

It is clear that there have been illegal activities in the mortgage securitization scheme and lame attempts at modification by the banks. Certainly, there were investors whose pension and retirement funds were lost as a result of the banks’ bad acts. It all boils down to the fact that banks screwed everybody – only the investors had more warnings. The investors probably bought the bonds because they were told they would be AAA+ and liquid and that foreclosures would be covered by insurance. Of course, nobody has ever grilled a pension fund financial director for public record, but you really have to wonder why anyone would have been buying these securities after January 2007 when credit had stopped rolling for the banks, especially, if they were doing their due diligence.

Actually, after the RTC v. Key Financial [appeal] decision in 2002 – don’t you think you’d do some research into what and where you were investing Billion$ of other people’s pension fund dollars? Yeah, this has been going on for quite a while.

We’re only addressing the modification abuses here, although we all know there are many more claims and fraudulent paperwork. Not to mention the rigged LIBOR interest rates which should be stripped out of each and every defective ARM loan and the homeowners allowed to apply all of their payments (past, present and future) toward the principal.

Want to get tough on banks?

If you’re not going to send the banksters to jail consider an equitable alternative: Settlement penalties for the banks due to their modification abuses and violations, fraud and other bad acts that are intended to benefit the homeowner should be factored in percentages that reduce the principal and interest. Reduce the principal accordingly on the mortgage notes and cut the interest rates to 2%; and 0% on LIBOR ARMS. Only then will we start to see some stability on the home front.

We can push for “percentage principal reductions” (PPR) in lieu of cash penalties if we don’t like the $300 pittance checks. Even the U.S. Senate realizes how lame these bank settlements are for homeowners.

There are still those, however, it appears – that fail to understand homeowner frustration such as one assistant AG who remarked to his constituent when the small size of the settlement check was brought to his attention,

“[O]f course, you are always free to return the check to them or throw it away and not cash it.”

Bill Windsor prevails of false charges he was a “threat”

Way to go Bill! What needless Bullshit!

Weekend Reading: The Property Illusion

Americans are acting like a bunch of damned cattle!

Deadly Clear's avatarDeadly Clear

How many people have to lose their savings, their equity and their pensions before there is a revolution – or is the intellectual revolution already here – “refuge to reconstruction”? That is the $54 Billion dollar question.

Posted by Larry Doyle, Sense on Cents

One man’s wealth tax becomes another man’s wealth confiscation

Property RightsI have no doubt that given the need for sources of revenue by Uncle Sam and other sovereign governments, the topic of “the protection of property rights” will be increasingly brought front and center in the public arena.

We saw this play out in Cyprus just a few weeks back, and we witness another example of this topic just the other day in a WSJ article, Now He’s After Your 401(K).

View original post 799 more words

Save “Dude the Dog” in Reno, NV from Death by DA Dick Gammick and John Helzer!

Pit bulls are very loyal animals; they make great search and rescue animals. They have gotten a bad rap from idiots that fight dogs.

Nevada courts attempt to use fabricated “Mental Health” issues to jail people and take away firearms

Now that is scary!

Foreclosure Processor Prommis Holdings Files Chapter 11

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/prommis-holdings-files-for-bankruptcy-protection-in-delaware.html

By Michael Bathon – Mar 18, 2013 3:29 PM E

Prommis Holdings LLC, which provides processing services for defaults and foreclosures in the residential mortgage industry, sought bankruptcy protection from creditors without citing a reason.

The company, based in Atlanta, listed debt of more than $50 million and assets of as much as $50 million in Chapter 11 documents filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware. Ten affiliates also filed for bankruptcy.

Prommis officials determined that it’s “in the best interests of the company, its creditors, and other parties in interest,” to seek court protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, according to court documents.

The company said in the filing that it plans to sell virtually all its assets in a court-supervised auction. No terms were disclosed.

Prommis is also seeking to implement retention and incentive plans for key employees, singling out those “who are essential to both the company’s ongoing business operations and their sale and wind-down efforts.”

The company helps mortgage servicers and law firms with foreclosure proceedings in 19 states and provides bankruptcy and loss-mitigation services throughout the U.S., according to its website.

Ares Capital

Ares Capital Corp. (ARCC), a New York-based investment firm, owns 17.3 percent of the Prommis’ common stock and 43.2 percent of its Class B units, according to court papers.

Steven K. Kortanek, a lawyer representing Prommis, didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the bankruptcy filing.

The 30 largest unsecured creditors of the company and its affiliates are owed about $3.3 million, according to court filings.

The case is In re Prommis Holdings LLC, 13-10551, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Bathon in Wilmington, Delaware, at mbathon@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives license.

Living Lies/Neil Garfield on Georgia

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/wake-up-georgia-courts-are-opening-the-door-on-wrongful-foreclosure/

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/wake-up-georgia-courts-are-opening-the-door-on-wrongful-foreclosure/

Wake Up Georgia: Courts Are Opening the Door on Wrongful Foreclosure

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Neil Garfield

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN GEORGIA

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 (East Coast, including Georgia – the Atlanta Area) and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.

The selection of an attorney is an important decision and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Note: For years Georgia has been considered by most attorneys to be a “red” state that, along with states like Tennessee showed no mercy on borrowers because of the prejudgment that the foreclosure mess was the fault of borrowers. For years they have ignored the now obvious truth that the defective mortgages and wrongful foreclosures do make a difference.

Now, reflecting inquiries from Courts below who are studying the the issue instead of issuing orders based upon a knee-jerk response, the State has taken a decided turn toward the application of law over presumption and bias. There is even reason to believe that the door is open a crack for past wrongful foreclosures, as the Courts grapple with the fact that thousands of foreclosures were forced through the system by strangers to the transaction and thousands of wrongful foreclosure suits have been dismissed because of the assumption by judges that no bank would lie directly to the court. It was a big lie and apparently the banks were right in thinking there was little risk to them.

Look at Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law February/ March Issue for an article on “Foreclosure Law in the Wake of Recent Decisions on Residential Mortgage Loans: The Situation in Georgia” by Ashby Kent Fox, Shea Sullivan and Amanda Wilson. Our own lawyers have out in front on these issues for a couple of years but encountering a lot of resistance — although lately they are reporting that the Courts are listening more closely.

The Georgia Supreme Court has now weighed in (Reese v Provident) and decided quite obviously that something is rotten in Georgia. Focusing on Georgia’s foreclosure notice statute but actually speaking to the substantive defects in the mortgages and foreclosures, the majority held, as a matter of law, that

o.c.G.a. § 44-14- 162.2(a), requires the person or entity conducting a non-judicial foreclosure of a residential mortgage loan to provide the borrower/debtor with a written notice of the foreclosure sale that discloses not only “the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor” (the language that appears in the statute), but also the identity of the “secured creditor” (not required by the statutory language, but which the majority inferred based on legislative intent). the majority further found that the failure to identify the “secured creditor” in the foreclosure notice renders the notice, and any subsequent foreclosure sale, invalid as a matter of law.

Once again I caution litigators that this will not dispose of your case permanently and that such rulings be used strategically so that you are not another hallway lawyer explaining how you were right but the judge ruled against you anyway. Notice provisions can be cured, non-existent transactions cannot be cured. Leading with the numbers (the money trail” and THEN using decisions like this to corroborate your argument will get you a lot more traction than leading with defective paperwork.

As I have said repeatedly, no judge, no matter how sympathetic to borrowers is going to give much relief when the borrower has admitted the debt, note, mortgage and default. These must be denied and lawyers should study up on the subject as to why they can and should be denied, and to persevere through discovery to show that the note, mortgage, default and even the debt have all been faked by strangers to the transaction.

Forcing the opposing side to show that they are a bona fide holder FOR VALUE will flush out the truth — that originator in nearly all cases was never the lender, creditor or even broker. They were simply paid naked nominees just like MERS, leaving no real party in interest on the note or mortgage, no consideration between the parties stated on the note and mortgage or notice of default, and no meeting of minds between the real lender (who is NOT in privity with the nominee lender) who, as an investor received a prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement and advanced money under the mistaken belief they were buying bonds of an entity that either did not exist or was simply ignored by the investment banker and the other participants in the false securitization scheme that was used to cover-up a PONZI scheme.

Practice tips: DENY and DISCOVER. Ask for proof of payment and proof of loss. The assignments, the note and the mortgage are not proof of the debt, they are potentially evidence of the debt and the security agreement ONLY if the foundation is there (testimony by witness with personal knowledge, with exhibits of wire transfer receipts and wire transfer instructions, cancelled checks etc.) to show that the originator shown as payee and “Secured party” or “beneficiary” was lender of money.

Make them show that they booked the loan as a receivable with a reserve for default. Discover that they actually booked the transaction as a fee for service (shown on the income statement) and never entered it on their balance sheet.

And PLEASE study up on voir dire, objections and cross examination. If you are not quick and ready objections to leading questions and other issues might well be waived unless you interrupt the questioning as fast as you can stand up. If you study up on hearsay and the business records exception to hearsay you will discover that in practically no case were the business records qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule. But if you don’t raise it, if you don’t have statutory and case law and even a memo on the subject the judge is going to rule against you. We are talking about good lawyering here and not bias amongst judges.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives license.

Land Records, Foreclosures, tax evasion

It is no secret that the foreclosure hell sweeping the country has resulted in a nightmare from hell. 

The land records of the past 300 years is in peril, as is your right to know who owns your Note, and who you are obligated to make your payments to.

There is an important Petition to sign to help your county keep the records in order.  It is one of the only safeguards that you, as a borrower have against the banksters.

Click the link, there are 100,000 signatures needed!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/mandated-national-land-record-audit.html

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives license.

Something to Seriously Consider…

A Lesson Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded Knee

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/01/very-powerful-stuff-gun-control-and-the-massacre-at-wounded-knee-2560028.html
By Anonymous

December 29, 2012, marked the 122nd anniversary of the massacre of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.” The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round pierced the air, of the 297 dead or dying, two-thirds (or 200) were women and children!

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed. Over half of the dead were by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns, which were in the hands of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heroes” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. Historians do not mention it in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen. Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment–The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States drafted the Constitution, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night. “Target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America and were certainly not wasted “target shooting.” People who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe wrote the Second Amendment, which refers to the right to arm American citizens for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.

As time goes on, the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or “liberty.” Far too many times, unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection.” The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, which was expanded and continued by Barack Obama, is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety.” Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table and will most likely be abolished for “our safety.”

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be voted upon, they should stop and think about something for just one minute—Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible, one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We cannot legislate away “evil.” Good people will abide by the law; defective people will always find a way around it.

Furthermore, evil exists all around us. However, looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? They are found in the hands of those with power—tyrants in governments. We can attribute the worst human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life to governments. Who do governments target? They target “scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer, “We were disarmed before it happened.” Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was—confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should not be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment, we have no right to defend ourselves and our families. “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” ~ John Adams, 1826

blah blah blah

Lenders, Banksters, Courts, and all you other liars and thieves…

¤

COMES NOW… proceeding in Propria Persona, and respectfully files Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association’s Motion to Dismiss, and shows this Honorable Court the following pertinent facts:

Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) has filed their Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-12(b), and on the claims that Plaintiff is a borrower who defaulted in repayment of his mortgage loan, resulting in the foreclosing on the real property which served as collateral for the loan. Plaintiff contends that had the banking and mortgage industry not been so greedy, they would not have over inflated the values through falsified appraisals on properties; they would not have been telling Borrowers not to worry, they can work out an affordable loan that will get you into that house you always dreamed of, while knowing in the back of their minds, that when the Borrower claims that they believed and relied upon their lenders, and what they had been told; the response would then be that the relationship had been nothing more than creditor – debtor and that you should not have relied upon the lies you had been told, because you are at different ends of the spectrum, with totally different interests. My Grandmother would say that America has gone to hell in a handbag.

We have headed into an era where the foreclosing entities are allowed to forge and falsify documents, because the borrower defaulted on their payments, and they need those documents that they are forging and falsifying in order to foreclose upon that Borrower, and the original documents no longer exist. Plaintiff was of the belief, that if you signed a contract, that the Original contract had to be kept in order for it to be collected upon, simple contract law. As it is in these foreclosure/wrongful foreclosure cases, the only time the documents are referred to contracts, is when the documents are referred to as in the Borrower failed to honor the contract by timely making their payments every month. Any other time, the words contract, does not exist. Should a Borrower mention the word, or words Note or Promissory Note, it is sacrilege and the Borrower is “claiming the show me the note theory”, or “vapor money theory”, which is a cue to the Court to dismiss because Georgia does not have a law that the foreclosing entity has to show you the Note. And then, there are the entities that think that they can talk to, and treat the pro se litigants any way they please.

No one would be in this mess, if Fannie Mae, US Bank,Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Aurora, Litton, Taylor Bean and Whitaker, Cenlar, GMAC, Wachovia, Popular, Countrywide, MERS, and a whole slew of other entities had not gotten greedy, eased the underwriting, slacked off on checking tax forms and employment, and had not lied that the borrowers could afford it, this loan will allow you to buy the home you always wanted.

DOC X IN HOT WATER AGAIN!!!

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL
BILL SCHUETTE FILES CRIMINAL CHARGES
AGAINST FORMER MORTGAGE PROCESSOR
PRESIDENT FOR ROLE IN FRAUDULENT
ROBOSIGNING
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-46849_47203-290350–,00.html

http://www.linkedin.com/osview/canvas?_ch_page_id=1&_ch_panel_id=1&_ch_app_id=49029150&_applicationId=103900&appParams=%7B%22document%22%3A%22cf986799-3863-43e3-91bd-69e1d8db8438%22%2C%22method%22%3A%22document.view%22%2C%22layout%22%3A%22layout_blank%22%2C%22target%22%3A%22blank_content%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22canvas%22%7D&_ownerId=57736655&completeUrlHash=_Vxg
November 26, 2012

LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced he charged Lorraine Brown, former president of mortgage document processor DocX, with racketeering for her alleged role in authorizing the fraudulent signing of mortgage documents filed in Michigan. The felony charge comes as the result
of an ongoing Attorney General investigation into questionable mortgage documentation filed with Michigan’s Register of Deeds offices during the foreclosure crisis.
“Shortcuts like robo-signing are just one piece of the mortgage foreclosure crisis,” said Schuette. “Our investigation remains ongoing, and we will bring to justice every lawbreaker we find.”
In April 2011, Schuette launched an investigation after county officials across the state reported that they suspected Assignment of Mortgage documents filed in their offices may have been forged. A “60 Minutes” news broadcast had shown that the name “Linda Green” was signed to thousands of mortgage-related documents nationwide, but with many different variations in handwriting. County officials in Michigan reviewed their files and found similar documents, thus raising questions about the authenticity of the documents filed.
As part of his investigation, Schuette reviewed documents filed in Michigan and prepared by DocX, a document processing company located in Georgia. DocX processed mortgage assignments and lien releases for residential lenders and servicers nationwide. Schuette’s investigation revealed that former DocX president Lorraine Brown, 51, of Alpharetta, Georgia, allegedly established and orchestrated a widespread scheme of “robo-signing,” a practice in which employees were directed to fraudulently sign another authorized person’s name on mortgage documents in order to execute these documents as quickly as possible.
Internally, DocX identified this practice as “facsimile signing” or “surrogate signing.” Schuette alleges that from 2006 through 2009, these improperly executed documents were created and recorded at Brown’s direction. Schuette’s investigation revealed that more than 1,000 unauthorized and improperly executed documents were filed with county registers of deeds throughout Michigan.
Lorraine Brown has been charged with one count of Conducting Criminal Enterprises (Racketeering), a 20-year felony, in Kent County’s 61st District Court. Arrangements are being made for Brown to surrender to Michigan authorities, and arraignment will be scheduled at a later date.
In 2010, DocX suspended operations, halting its work as a mortgage document processor. Schuette noted that while the criminal charges against Brown address her role in the scheme, his office’s overall investigation into robosigning remains ongoing and is not yet complete.
A criminal charge is merely an accusation, and the defendants are
presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

BANK OF AMERICA STRIKES AGAIN!!!

Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud: Feds Sue For Over $1 Billion Alleging Multi-Year Scheme

Posted: 10/24/2012 12:20 pm EDT Updated: 10/25/2012 10:27 am EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/bank-of-america-mortgage-fraud_n_2009791.html

Bank Of America, Bank Of America, Video, Bank Of America Fraud, Business News, Mortgage Fraud, Wells Fargo Lawsuit, Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud, Firsthand, Business News

Federal prosecutors sued Bank of America for $1 billion on Wednesday, alleging that the bank’s former Countrywide unit concocted a mortgage scheme it called the “Hustle” in order to sell thousands of fraudulent and otherwise defective mortgage loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“In order to increase the speed at which it originated and sold loans … Countrywide eliminated every single checkpoint on loan quality and compensated its employees solely based on the volume of loans originated,” the lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal district court, alleges.

This led to “rampant instances of fraud and other serious loan defects,” all while Countrywide was telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy up mortgages for resale, that it had strengthened its lending requirements, the lawsuit claims.

When the loans “predictably” defaulted, Fannie and Freddie, which in 2008 required a massive taxpayer bailout due in large part to the purchase of toxic mortgages, incurred more than $1 billion in losses, the lawsuit alleges.

The mortgage scheme, called the “High Speed Swim Lane” or the “Hustle,” for short, continued through 2009, well after Bank of America acquired Countrywide, according to the lawsuit.

In a statement, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara characterized the activity as “spectacularly brazen in scope.”

Bank of America did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The government’s lawsuit comes quick on the heels of two other high-profile mortgage fraud cases filed by federal and state law enforcement officials, who have taken fire for not aggressively pursuing those responsible for the financial crisis.

Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Bear Stearns, now a unit of JPMorgan Chase, accusing it of stuffing mortgage bonds with bad loans without informing investors of the risk.

A week later, the Department of Justice sued Wells Fargo, claiming the bank lied about the quality of thousands of loans it certified for a federal insurance program. Both of those cases are pending.

The government’s case also comes after years of allegations by whistle-blowers that Countrywide railroaded borrowers into bad loans and in some cases even fraudulently altered documents so that they would qualify.

One of these whistleblowers, Eileen Foster, told the Center for Public Integrity last year that Countrywide allegedly used scissors, tape and Wite-Out to create fake bank statements, inflated property appraisals and other phony paperwork — and that the company tried to cover it up.

Countrywide was once the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. From 2004 to 2007, it originated more than $1.3 trillion in loans. But the company’s remarkable growth was built on the issuance of subprime mortgages, often to borrowers with bad credit or no ability to repay.

In 2007, though, market growth began to slow and air began to leak out of the housing bubble. The mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or control more than half of all loans in the U.S., began to push the lenders to impose stricter limits on underwriting, which is the process of qualifying someone for a home mortgage loan.

But rather than tightening up those standards, Countrywide crafted a new program meant to move more loans through the pipeline more quickly than before, according to internal documents in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the aim of the Hustle was to have loans “move forward, never backward” and to remove unnecessary “toll gates” slowing down the loan origination process.

For instance, instead of reviewing the loans, Countrywide allegedly assigned critical underwriting tasks to loan processors who were previously considered unqualified even to answer borrower questions. The mortgage company also eliminated previously mandatory checklists that provided instructions on how to do this vital task, the lawsuit says.

“Under the Hustle, such instructions on proper underwriting were considered nothing more than unnecessary forms that would slow the swim lane down,” the lawsuit says.

Countrywide put the new program in place in August 2007, just as Fannie and Freddie tightened their repurchase requirements due to escalating default rates. The company also concealed from Fannie and Freddie quality control reports that showed instances of fraud and other defects were “legion,” the lawsuit alleges.

Specifically, the lawsuit says Countrywide’s own quality control reports identified defect rates of nearly 40 percent in some months, rates that were 10 times the standard industry defect rate.

One of these loans, which closed on Oct. 12, 2007, was made to a borrower in Tampa. Countrywide sold the loan to Fannie Mae with the promise that it complied with underwriting requirements.

But that’s not what a post-default review of the loan revealed, according to the lawsuit. The mortgage application showed that the borrower, a nurse, earned $8,000 a month, when in fact she earned $4,112 a month. Moreover, the home appraisal misrepresented the size of the home and the decline of home values in the neighborhood, the lawsuit says.

The loan defaulted 12 months after closing. Countrywide’s internal fraud investigator later confirmed fraud in connection with the loan.

The Bank of America lawsuit alleges violations of civil fraud statutes, meaning that potential penalties will be measured in dollar terms, not jail time. It also does not single out any current or former officials at the beleaguered bank or at Countrywide.

Bank of America purchased Countrywide in 2008, a decision that has cost the bank an estimated $40 billion in real-estate losses, legal expenses and settlements with state and federal agencies, the Wall Street Journal recently reported.

jdouglasslaw's avatarJ. Douglass Law

Ohio Supreme Court Opinion October 31, 2012

Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5017

What does this opinion mean to thousands of Homeowners!

The legal process that banks seeking to foreclose on homeowners in Ohio changed dramatically on October 31, 2012 when the Ohio Supreme Court released the much anticipated decision in Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Schwartzwald 2012 Ohio 5017. The Supreme Court ruled that a party foreclosing on a mortgage must demonstrate that it is the owner or holder of the note and mortgage on the date the foreclosure case is filed.  No longer may a party foreclose on a home and acquire the legal right to do so after the fact.  The court ruled that standing, or the right to sue is a jurisdictional requirement and thereby voided thousands of foreclosures in Ohio.  Homeowners who have been the victims of “robo-signers” and…

View original post 73 more words

DeKalb County Strikes Again!!!

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/interspire/news/2012/05/09/3am-home-eviction-in-dekalb-sparks-outrage.html

3am Home Eviction in DeKalb Sparks Outrage

Written By: APN STAFF

5-9-2012

By Scott Brown, Special to the Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) DEKALB COUNTY — In the early morning hours of Wednesday, May 02, 2012, over twenty deputies from the Dekalb County Sheriff’s Department, under orders from Sheriff Thomas Brown, drilled the locks and kicked in the doors of the Christine Frazer’s home with guns drawn in order to evict four generations of family members.

Frazer, the homeowner, had fallen behind on her mortgage payments and was foreclosed upon in October 2011.

According to Frazer, her family members, including her 85-year-old mother and 3-year-old grandson, were told by officers to “act like it was a fire drill” and grab what they could and get out.

Frazer said they were not even allowed a shower before being escorted from her home of eighteen years at three in the morning.

She described the event as “literally a nightmare.”

Her three dogs were taken to the pound and all of her belongings were put out on the street, which police had completely closed off.

At a press conference in front of her belongings hours after the eviction, Frazer lamented, “I’ve been in this home eighteen years. My daughter was raised here. My husband died here. My grandson came home here. This is my home.”

“They came in as if they were executing a warrant to find drugs. It makes no sense,” Frazer’s lawyer, Joshua Davis, said of the eviction.

Sheriff Thomas Brown told Fox 5 television news that he attributed the unusual timing and the large number of officers used in the eviction to the presence of Occupy Atlanta protesters who had been camping in the yard for the past four months in an attempt to prevent what they described as an illegal eviction based on an illegal foreclosure.

Frazer has filed a lawsuit, which is currently pending in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against the company that foreclosed on her home last October, Investors One Corporation.

Ownership of the mortgage has changed three times in the past six months and, according to Frazer’s lawyer, the chain of title was broken when the previous owner of the mortgage, a bank based in Indiana, failed to uphold their legal obligation to transfer the title, rendering the foreclosure by Investors One Corporation fraudulent.

“There are judges that are in place that could have done a little research, if they’d done a little title search they’d have seen that something in the milk wasn’t clean,” Frazer said.

Frazer, 63, began to fall behind on her mortgage payments after losing her husband and her job in 2009. She has been unable to find a job ever since and is currently on early retirement social security.

Sheriff Brown told Fox 5 he gave the homeowner ample time to reach a settlement with the mortgage holder before serving the eviction notice.

Frazer said she tried to restructure the mortgage, but Investors One Corporation was uncooperative and intent on foreclosure, only offering to reinstate the loan if she was able to pay 20,000 dollars in cash. Currently she has paid over 240,000 dollars on the mortgage on a house currently appraised at only 40,000 dollars.

On Monday, May 07, 2012, in response to the early morning eviction ordered by Sheriff Thomas Brown, Occupy Atlanta held a protest in front of the Dekalb County Sheriff’s office.

At one point, more protesters pulled up in a van full of Frazer’s belongings, and Occupy Atlanta unloaded mattresses, furniture, and bags of other items that deputies had left on the curb nearly one week prior and piled them in front of the doors to the Sheriff’s Office, along with signs reading “Fraudclosure” and “Wall St. criminals are not convicted. The people are evicted.”

Standing before a pile of her belongings in front of the Sheriff’s Office during a press conference, Frazer said, “This is not just about me and my family, this is about families across America.”

Frazer is certainly not alone in her struggle to keep her home. According to Corelogic, Inc., a company specializing in financial analysis, over 1.4 million homes in the US are currently in the foreclosure process, and states like Georgia have been ground zero in the housing crisis.

A recent Case-Shiller Home Price Indices report shows Metro Atlanta home prices fell 17.3 percent between February 2011 and February 2012, a fact that is fueling the continuing foreclosure crisis in the state.

Occupy Atlanta has taken up home defense as a tactic for combating what protesters view as unfair and illegal practices by banks and the financial industry as a whole.

Leila Abadir, one of the Occupy Atlanta protesters who had been camping on the lawn at the Frazer household, says the fight is not over. Occupy Atlanta will continue to assist the Frazer family in finding proper housing, she said.

They will also keep working to shed light on what she believes to be unethical and potentially criminal activity on the part of Investors One Corporation.

According to Fox 5, after most of the protesters left the sheriff’s office, police surrounded a remaining protester’s vehicle, which they impounded for possible evidence. They issued two citations to two people for littering and arrested one of them because he did not have identification on him.

PRICELESS LAWSUIT

See more news releases in Real Estate | Residential Real Estate | Legal Issues

Major Banks, Governmental Officials and Their Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group, LLP’s Racketeering and Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to the United States Treasury

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-175828861.html

GoogleShare with deliciousShare with diggShare with FacebookShare with GoogleShare with LinkedInShare with MySpaceShare with NewsvineShare with RedditShare with Repost.usShare with StumbleUponShare with Twitter

Share with Repost.us

NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — Spire Law Group, LLP’s national home owners’ lawsuit, pending in the venue where the “Banksters” control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) – known as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History and identifying $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the “Banksters” and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers – now pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the “Banksters” located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.

In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) – involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver – Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation): Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former “communications director” for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits. The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.

In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP — on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws — has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000.00) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other “bailout money” advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress. Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the “Banksters” criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama’s campaign from these same “Banksters” to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiff home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the “Bankster” Defendants.

The complaint – which has now been fully served on thousands of the “Banksters and their Co-Conspirators” – makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very “Banksters” located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be “bailed out” and to be “bailed out” in the future.

The Havens for the money laundering schemes – and certain of the names and places of these entities – are located in such venues as Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Cypress and entities controlled by governments adverse to the interests of the United States Sanctions and Embargo Act against Iran, and are also identified in both the United Nations and the U.S. Senate’s recent reports on international money laundering. Many of these entities have already been personally served with summons and process of the complaint during the last six months. It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by “Banksters”, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners’ and taxpayers’ money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.

This District Court Complaint – maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP — is the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.

James N. Fiedler, Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP, stated: “It is hard for me to believe as a 47-year lawyer that our nation’s guardians have been unwilling to stop this theft. Spire Law Group, LLP stands for the elimination of corruption and implementation of lawful strategies, and that is what we’re doing here. Spire Law Group, LLP’s charter is to not allow such corruption to go unanswered.”

Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals’ offices in NY, CA, NV, NH , OH, MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.

About Spire Law Group

Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is “the public should be protected — at all costs — from corruption in whatever form it presents itself.” The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated.

Contact:
James N. Fiedler
877-438-8766
http://spire-law.com

SOURCE Spire Law Group, LLP

RELATED LINKS
http://spire-law.com

PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1r0wJ)

http://biscuette.com/2012/07/16/fake-gregory-adams-debra-deberry-fun-new-characters-in-the-tragi-comedy-of-dekalb-county-government/#comment-2552

le biscuette Has It Right, Thank You For Your Truthful Rendition of DeKalb County, Georgia!!!

Fake Gregory Adams, Debra DeBerry Fun New Characters in the Tragi-comedy of Dekalb County Government

July 16, 2012

By

Ah, Dekalb County, what a thriving bastion of the American spirit. We’ve been blessed with such American heroes as Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who proudly took to Libyan state television to decry US involvement in the movement against brutal dictator Moammar Gaddafi; there’s former Dekalb CEO Vernon Jones, for whom Dekalb taxpayers are on the hook for upwards of five million dollars in legal fees for a reverse discrimination lawsuit; we’ve got Dekalb school superintendent Crawford Lewis, indicted for operating a “crime ring” from his post. And these are just the most visible of our trusted public servants. Beneath the crusty surface of Dekalb County’s political life–embodied by McKinney, Jones, Lewis, and the like–is a colorful cast of crooks and con artists whose power to defraud derives from their elected or appointed post.

The July 31, 2012 political primary election has brought forth at least two fun new characters. And that’s sort of exciting, isn’t it? It’s like getting a new Angry Bird, or a zany addition to the cast of the Simpsons. It’s a fun addition to what is already a colorful and hilarious mix of deviants, a new car full of clowns to delight and entertain us as they bilk our precious tax dollars, and wreck our sacred institutions, for their own corrupt ends.

Let’s turn first to Debra DeBerry, who currently sits as the Clerk of Superior Court of Dekalb County. This is basically the person in charge of administering the functions of the highest county court, where death penalties can be issued, huge civil verdicts reached, marriages dissolved–basically, all the most important and consequential events that can happen in the life of a county. How did DeBerry become the Clerk? You’d assume she was elected, right? Nope. Or appointed by the governor, something to that effect? Not exactly. Deberry became Clerk in 2011 after the long-term Clerk, Linda Carter, resigned. No big deal, right? Well…

According to lawyers representing Linda Carter, Carter didn’t write her resignation letter. It was written by–guess who?–Debra DeBerry, signed by Carter, and then delivered to the governor’s office that very day by one of DeBerry’s subordinates. At the time, Carter was suffering from an Alzheimer’s-like mental illness. The kicker: not only did the DeBerry-drafted letter announce Carter’s resignation, it also named DeBerry as Carter’s replacement. Some coverage of the scandal below:

Now, of course, DeBerry denied wrongdoing. And apparently the lawsuit was settled before trial, so we’ll never know who was “right or wrong” here. But the entire situation smells incredibly nasty, doesn’t it?

FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices « Livinglies’s Weblog

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/fdic-677-4-billion-charges-banks-with-fraud-illegal-underwriting-practices/

FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices

Posted on August 22, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Has Obama Awakened?

Appraisal Fraud Alleged by this Blog

is found to be Centerpiece of this Action

Editor’s Note: The FDIC claims it studied a rough sampling of the securitized loans and alleges more than 60% of the loans packed into each deal contain material untrue or misleading statements.

In a resounding acceptance of the principles enunciated first on this blog, the FDIC, being the best regulator to file the charges, has moved against the big banks and servicers in the false scheme of securitization resulting in trillions in losses to the government, investors and homeowners.

Central to the allegations are that “defendants made untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.”

The allegations are so serious that it is unlikely that there will be any slap on the wrist coming out of this. The result of this lawsuit will have a profound impact on the housing market, the financial community and best of all, homeowners who have been using these allegations as defenses for years. It is apparent that the false premises upon which the bogus mortgage bonds were sold, combined with the complete avoidance of the supposed securitization scheme that was “in place,” has prompted this huge lawsuit. It is the tip of an iceberg where the administration is finally bringing the war to the door of the banks and will most likely lead to criminal charges as the cases progress.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. filed three lawsuits against big banks, alleging the lenders misrepresented the quality of securitized loans sold to the now defunct Texas firm, Guaranty Bank.

The FDIC took Austin, Texas-based Guaranty Bank into receivership back in Aug. 2009.

This week, the regulator filed multiple lawsuits in Austin, Texas, suggesting Guaranty suffered major losses from toxic RMBS loans sold and packaged by mega banks and other financial institutions.

Defendants named in the multibillion-dollar lawsuits include Countrywide,  JPMorgan Chase ($38.04 0%),  Ally Financial, Deutsche Bank Securities ($34.07 0%),  Bank of America ($8.190%) and Goldman Sachs ($105.32 0%) among others.

FDIC, on behalf of Guaranty, claims the banks misrepresented loan-to-value ratios, underwriting criteria and appraisal amounts when selling, packaging and underwriting home loans that became collateral for mortgage securities sold to Guaranty.

Specifically, the FDIC alleges the financial firms violated federal and Texas securities laws by failing to fully disclose or truthfully represent the quality of mortgages backing the security certificates.

In the first case, the FDIC accuses Countrywide Securities, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs of playing a role in the packaging, selling or securitization of mortgages sold off to Guaranty Bank for $1.5 billion. The suit says Guaranty Bank acquired 8 certificates in the transaction.

The FDIC claims it studied a rough sampling of the securitized loans and alleges more than 60% of the loans packed into each deal contain material untrue or misleading statements.

The FDIC is suing for an undetermined amount that is no less than $559.7 million in damages.

The bank regulator also sued Ally Securities, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank Securities and JPMorgan Securities among others. In that suit, the regulator claims, the firms were involved in the packaging, underwriting and sale of eight RMBS certificates valued at $1.8 billion.

The FDIC alleged in court records that the “defendants made untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.”

In that complaint, the FDIC is asking for at least $900.6 million in damages.

The regulator also sued JPMorgan Securities, Merrill Lynch, RBS Securities and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., making similar claims about 20 RMBS certificates that Guaranty paid $2.1 billion to acquire. The FDIC is requesting at least $677.4 billion in damages.

FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices « Livinglies’s Weblog

Assignment must exist in writing, even if the court says it doesn’t need recording « Livinglies’s Weblog

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/assignment-must-exist-in-writing-even-if-the-court-says-it-doesnt-need-recording/

Editor’s Note:

With Banks and servicers playing fast and loose with the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence and black letter law it well to remember BASIC BLACK LETTER LAW. An assignment without delivery is probably a nullity. An assignment that isn’t even in writing is (a) not proper under most existing laws and (b) requires the allegation of an oral “assignment” to be explained as to why it wasn’t in writing before, just like a lost or destroyed note.

The assignment can only be valid and used if the assignee is capable of accepting it, paying for it and either acceptance is for the assignee or as an authorized agent. The Notice Default does not give the Trustee or even the original mortgagee where there has been an assignment, the right to declare default. Then it becomes the representation of the trustee, who is supposed to be objective and disinterested in the result.

For the Trustee to issue a notice of sale and notice of default on behalf of the supposed beneficiary, means that the trustee is no longer accepting the responsibilities of the trustee to act with due diligence and good faith toward both the trustor and the beneficiary.

Hence the substitution of trustee is an offer which has not and cannot be accepted. Any actions taken by the trustee in a notice of default or any other notice or collection letter is out of bounds. The only reason the banks do this is to hide behind yet another layer of people and entities so when the arrest warrants are issued, they can claim plausible deniability that the wrong procedure was being followed. This is poppycock. The beneficiary supposedly knows whether or not he is the creditor entitled to submit a credit bid at auction based upon the the existence of a properly kept loan receivable account reflected on the CREDITOR’s books.

This is just another example where the banks and servicers have borrowed the identity of the creditor, claimed that said identity is private and privileged, and then used it for their own advantage to the detriment of both the lender-investor and the borrower.

Assignment must exist in writing, even if the court says it doesn’t need recording « Livinglies’s Weblog