October 7th, 2010

Ellen Brown

Amid a snowballing foreclosure fraud crisis, President Obama today blocked legislation that critics say could have made it more difficult for homeowners to challenge foreclosure proceedings against them.

The bill, titled The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009, passed the Senate with unanimous consent and with no scrutiny by the DC media. In a maneuver known as a “pocket veto,” President Obama indirectly vetoed the legislation by declining to sign the bill passed by Congress while legislators are on recess. The swift passage and the President’s subsequent veto of this bill come on the heels of an announcement that Wall Street banks are voluntarily suspending foreclosure proceedings in 23 states. By most reports, it would appear that the voluntary suspension of foreclosures is underway to review simple, careless procedural errors. Errors which the conscientious banks are hastening to correct. Even Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times characterizes the problem as “flawed paperwork.” But those errors go far deeper than mere sloppiness. They are concealing a massive fraud. They cannot be corrected with legitimate paperwork, and that was the reason the servicers had to hire “foreclosure mills” to fabricate the documents.

These errors involve perjury and forgery — fabricating documents that never existed and swearing to the accuracy of facts not known.

Karl Denninger at MarketTicker is calling it “Foreclosuregate.” Diana Ollick of CNBC calls it “the RoboSigning Scandal.” On Monday, Ollick reported rumors that the government is planning a 90-day foreclosure moratorium to deal with the problem. Three large mortgage issuers – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and GMAC — have voluntarily suspended thousands of foreclosures, and a number of calls have been made for investigations.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray announced on Wednesday that he is filing suit against Ally Financial and GMAC for civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation for fraud in hundreds of foreclosure suits.

These problems cannot be swept under the rug as mere technicalities. They go to the heart of the securitization process itself. The snowball has just started to roll.

You Can’t Recover What Doesn’t Exist

Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism has uncovered a price list from a company called DocX that specializes in “document recovery solutions.” DocX is the technology platform used by Lender Processing Services to manage a national network of foreclosure mills. The price list includes such things as “Create Missing Intervening Assignment,” $35; “Cure Defective Assignment,” $12.95; “Recreate Entire Collateral File,” $95. Notes Smith:

    [C]reating . . . means fabricating documents out of whole cloth, and look at the extent of the offerings. The collateral file is ALL the documents the trustee (or the custodian as an agent of the trustee) needs to have pursuant to its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement on behalf of the mortgage backed security holder. This means most importantly the original of the note (the borrower IOU), copies of the mortgage (the lien on the property), the securitization agreement, and title insurance.

How do you recreate the original note if you don’t have it? And all for a flat fee, regardless of the particular facts or the supposed difficulty of digging them up.

All of the mortgages in question were “securitized” – turned into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and sold off to investors. MBS are typically pooled through a type of “special purpose vehicle” called a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit or “REMIC”, which has strict requirements defined under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (the Tax Reform Act of 1986). The REMIC holds the mortgages in trust and issues securities representing an undivided interest in them.

Denninger explains that mortgages are pooled into REMIC Trusts as a tax avoidance measure, and that to qualify, the properties must be properly conveyed to the trustee of the REMIC in the year the MBS is set up, with all the paperwork necessary to show a complete chain of title. For some reason, however, that was not done; and there is no legitimate way to create those conveyances now, because the time limit allowed under the Tax Code has passed.

The question is, why weren’t they done properly in the first place? Was it just haste and sloppiness as alleged? Or was there some reason that these mortgages could NOT be assigned when the MBS were formed? Denninger argues that it would not have been difficult to do it right from the beginning. His theory is that documents were “lost” to avoid an audit, which would have revealed to investors that they had been sold a bill of goods — a package of toxic subprime loans very prone to default.

The Tranche Problem

Here is another possible explanation, constructed from an illuminating CNBC clip dated June 29, 2007. In it, Steve Liesman describes how Wall Street turned bundles of subprime mortgages into triple-A investments, using the device called “tranches.” It’s easier to follow if you watch the clip (here), but this is an excerpt:

    How do you create a subprime derivative? . . . You take a bunch of mortgages . . . and put them into one big thing. We call it a Mortgage Backed Security. Say it’s $50 million worth. . . . Now you take a bunch of these Mortgage Backed Securities and you put them into one very big thing. . . . The one thing about all these guys here [in the one very big thing] is that they’re all subprime borrowers, their credit is bad or there’s something about them that doesn’t make it prime. . . .

    Watch, we’re going to make some triple A paper out of this. . . Now we have a $1 billion vehicle here. We’re going to slice it up into five different pieces. Call them tranches. . . . The key is, they’re not divided by “Jane’s is here” and “Joe’s is here.” Jane is actually in all five pieces here. Because what we’re doing is, the BBB tranche, they’re going to take the first losses for whoever is in the pool, all the way up to about 8% of the losses. What we’re saying is, you’ve got losses in the thing, I’m going to take them and in return you’re going to pay me a relatively high interest rate. . . . All the way up to triple A, where 24% of the losses are below that. Twenty-four percent have to go bad before they see any losses. Here’s the magic as far as Wall Street’s concerned. We have taken subprime paper and created GE quality paper out of it. We have a triple A tranche here.

The top tranche is triple A because it includes the mortgages that did NOT default; but no one could know which those were until the defaults occurred, when the defaulting mortgages got assigned to the lower tranches and foreclosure went forward. That could explain why the mortgages could not be assigned to the proper group of investors immediately: the homes only fell into their designated tranches when they went into default. The clever designers of these vehicles tried to have it both ways by conveying the properties to an electronic dummy conduit called MERS (an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), which would hold them in the meantime. MERS would then assign them to the proper tranche as the defaults occurred. But the rating agencies required that the conduit be “bankruptcy remote,” which meant it could hold title to nothing; and courts have started to take notice of this defect. They are concluding that if MERS owns nothing, it can assign nothing, and the chain of title has been irretrievably broken. As foreclosure expert
Neil Garfield traces these developments:

    First they said it was MERS who was the lender. That clearly didn’t work because MERS lent nothing, collected nothing and never had anything to do with the cash involved in the transaction. Then they started with the servicers who essentially met with the same problem. Then they got cute and produced either the actual note, a copy of the note or a forged note, or an assignment or a fabricated assignment from a party who at best had dubious rights to ownership of the loan to another party who had equally dubious rights, neither of whom parted with any cash to fund either the loan or the transfer of the obligation. . . . Now the pretender lenders have come up with the idea that the “Trust” is the owner of the loan . . . even though it is just a nominee (just like MERS) . . . . They can’t have it both ways.

    My answer is really simple. The lender/creditor is the one who advanced cash to the borrower. . . . The use of nominees or straw men doesn’t mean they can be considered principals in the transaction any more than your depository bank is a principal to a transaction in which you buy and pay for something with a check.

So What’s to Be Done?

Garfield’s proposed solution is for the borrowers to track down the real lenders — the investors. He says:

    [I] f you meet your Lender (investor), you can restructure the loan yourselves and then jointly go after the pretender lenders for all the money they received and didn’t disclose as “agent.”

Karl Denninger concurs. He writes:

    Those who bought MBS from institutions that improperly securitized this paper can and should sue the securitizers to well beyond the orbit of Mars. . . . [I]f this bankrupts one or more large banking institutions, so be it. We now have “resolution authority”, let’s see it used.

The resolution authority Denninger is referring to is in the new Banking Reform Bill, which gives federal regulators the power and responsibility to break up big banks when they pose a “grave risk” to the financial system – which is what we have here. CNBC’s Larry Kudlow calls it “the housing equivalent of the credit financial meltdown,” something he says could “go on forever.”

Financial analyst Marshall Auerback suggests calling a bank holiday. He writes:

    Most major banks are insolvent and cannot (and should not) be saved. The best approach is something like a banking holiday for the largest 19 banks and shadow banks in which institutions are closed for a relatively brief period. Supervisors move in to assess problems. It is essential that all big banks be examined during the “holiday” to uncover claims on one another. It is highly likely that supervisors will find that several trillions of dollars of bad assets will turn out to be claims big financial institutions have on one another (that is exactly what was found when AIG was examined—which is why the government bail-out of AIG led to side payments to the big banks and shadow banks). . . . By taking over and resolving the biggest 19 banks and netting claims, the collateral damage in the form of losses for other banks and shadow banks will be relatively small.

What we need to avoid at all costs is “TARP II” – another bank bailout by the taxpayers. No bank is too big to fail. The giant banks can be broken up and replaced with a network of publicly-owned banks and community banks, which could do a substantially better job of serving consumers and businesses than Wall Street is doing now.


Ellen Brown is an attorney and the author of eleven books. In Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, she shows how the Federal Reserve and “the money trust” have usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are,, and

28 Responses

  1. Weekend Humor

    While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

    The Senator’s soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

    “Welcome to heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”

    “No problem, just let me in,” says the Senator.

    St. Peter says, “Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.”

    “Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,” says the Senator.

    “I’m sorry, but we have our rules”, replies St.Peter.

    And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

    Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

    They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

    Also present is the Devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

    Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…

    The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

    “Now it’s time to visit heaven,” St Peter says.

    So, 24 hours pass with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and the 24 hours in heaven passes by and St. Peter returns.

    “Well, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now which will you choose for your eternity?” St Peter asks.

    The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers, “Well, I never would have thought it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be happier and better off .. in hell.”

    So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

    Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

    He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

    The Devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.

    “I don’t understand,” stammers the Senator. “Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now
    there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?”

    The Devil looks at him, smiles and says, “Yesterday we were campaigning..

    Today … you voted.”

  2. dave

    YES, and why is no one mentioning that the plaintiff in all these foreclosure actions is usually a trustee – that is, US Bank, NA, Wells Fargo Bank, NA, and Deutsche Bank, etc.. My only conclusion is that all of these plaintiffs are false – and the bank that owns the loans, or sold the loan rights to third party, is the real party that is halting the foreclosures. But, the problem is – if the named plaintiff is someone other that the bank that is halting the foreclosures – how is any foreclosures being halted??????

    Only the plaintiff can halt the foreclosures. And, in your case – how did Indymac/Onewest ever get foreclosure rights?? Start with the FDIC – who knows – and was going to help – but, ultimately, did nothing. Heard those loans were sold at at steep discount. Lots of profit making in the makes- at your expense/hardship. Why did the FDIC do nothing?? They did nothing – even though they claimed they were going to do SOMETHING. They did nothing.

  3. why is nobody mentioning indymac/onewest is all of this talk, they are just as bad as countrywide

  4. Lucy

    Amazing! Love your post!!

    Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae – if you ever speak to them – have an arrogant attitude that ignores the fact that because of their “mess” – they are now owned by government (us!!).

    Freddie/Fannie will not speak to you – other than to tell you whether or not they CURRENTLY own/guarantee the loan. They only speak “business to business” ie. – with the servicer. And, we have all come to know, trust, and love our servicers right??? Yeah, right. Mortgage servicer fraud is massive – and has been ignored for years.

    Freddie/Fannie likely have records on many, many, mortgages – whether they own them or not.

  5. Chris Whalen: It’s Still 3-6 Months Until Foreclosure-Gate Really Gets Out Of Control:


  6. I’m glad I had that marker to call in with OPRAH!

  7. Would anyone else be interested in signing the petition to stop foreclosures now?

  8. ——————————————————————–
    a judicial question arises concerning necessary capacity to foreclose.

    Press release; October 8th 2010 / Los Angeles, CA – Upon receiving a loan from a lender, plaintiff alleges a judicial question arises concerning necessary legal standing required to assess a lenders recourse and capacity to foreclose. Only then will the lender selling its loan employ a clandestine and secretive “back room” means of parlaying risk for reward and being assured of ultimately little if any risk at all.

    Consideration for a loan is cash proceeds to purchase and or refinance a home. In actuality the borrower receives its loan proceeds far in excess of the subject properties value at a high cost and with little concern shown by a lender whereby the lender is relieved of liability at close of sale. A sale lease back arrangement disguised as a securitization assumes investors are left with nothing more than a broken promise to pay. Securitization however requires the lender to relinquish all rights to correct delinquency problems upon instances of default.

    Bank management is ill conceived in form policies and practices under a conventional foreclosure. Exchanging loans owned for massive deposits used to leverage bank balance sheets for traditional purchase and sale requirements is simply relying on the initial recording of each loan as a “muniment” for public display.

    Title rights to property are divided into two types: “real property” which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and “personal property” (sometimes called “personality”) which is everything else. The subject title held for the befit of the “Community” as “real property” is a form of joint ownership between husband and wife recognized in several states.

    “Separate property” is property owned by one spouse only in a community property state, or a married woman’s sole ownership in some states.
    A beneficial interest is distinguished from a “conditional” beneficial interest. Further distinction is required for demonstrating a mere economic interest that is not recognized as a holder in due course under a power of sale granted by a borrower.

    Property is lost, in general, as follows;
    by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God. It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfill his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By prescription. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

    Therefore , beneficiary claims to an encumbrance or recorded line for an interest in title to real property must be verifiable in order to demonstrate a holder in due course.


  9. Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) — Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray talks about the state’s lawsuit against Ally Financial Inc. Ohio’s suit alleges that Ally’s GMAC mortgage unit violated state consumer law and committed fraud by filing false affidavits in foreclosure proceedings. He talks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

    Attorneys general in about 40 states may announce a joint investigation into foreclosures at the largest banks and mortgage firms, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

    State attorneys general led by Iowa’s Tom Miller are in talks that may lead to the announcement of a coordinated probe as soon as Oct. 12, said the person, who declined to be identified because a final agreement hasn’t been reached. The number of states may change because several are still deciding whether to join the investigation, the person said. New Mexico Attorney General Gary King said today in a statement that his state will join a multi-state effort.

    Lawyers representing the banks are expecting a more widespread investigation, according to Patrick McManemin, a partner at Patton Boggs LLP, a Washington-based law firm that represents banks, loan servicers and financial institutions. Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender, today extended a freeze on foreclosures to all 50 states.

    “We are aware of or involved in a large number of investigations that lead us to believe there are in the neighborhood of 40 state attorneys general who have initiated investigations or expressed an interest,” McManemin said in a telephone interview.

    Officials in at least seven states have already announced investigations into claims that employees at home lenders and loan servicers signed court documents without ensuring the information was accurate. Yesterday, Miller said in a statement that he was working with state officials, banking regulators and the U.S. Justice Department to launch a coordinated review. Attorneys general in Ohio and Connecticut have said some of the practices may amount to fraud.

    Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. already froze foreclosures in 23 states where courts supervise home seizures amid allegations that employees used unverified or false data to speed the process.

    To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at; Prashant Gopal in New York at

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Alec McCabe at

  10. This is awesome, you must read this and share with everyone.
    Anonymous, enjoy it!

    Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge
    Twitter RSS

    * Home
    * About
    * Contact
    * Depositions
    * Foreclosure Support
    * Judicial Foreclosure
    * Message Board
    * Resources
    * Securitization
    * Videos

    Verification of Mortgage Foreclosure Complaints

    Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on March 23, 2010 · 10 Comments

    Florida Supreme Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases

    So the story goes like this…

    Administrative Order. The Chief Justice established the task force in March 2009 by Administrative Order in the wake of dramatic increases in residential mortgage foreclosure case filings.

    Petition. The original Petition to amend the rules of court was filed with the Court on August 17, 2009. Comments were due by October 1, 2009.

    Final Report & Comments. The Final Report was released August 17, 2009. Appendices of the report are below.
    Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C
    Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F
    Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I
    Appendix J Appendix K Appendix L
    Appendix M Appendix N

    Comments to the Final Report are available. You also can view Filings made during the amendment process.

    This was where it started to get interesting last year. “Comments to the Final Report are available“

    If you have time, I suggest you read all the comments, or at least the comments from the foreclosure mills and opposing entities.

    My absolute favorite comment came from Robert E. Bostrom Freddie Mac’s Executive Vice President & General Counsel & Corporate Secretary.

    Recommendation regarding verification of “ownership” of the mortgage

    “The Task Force has recommended a requirement for a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to verify that it owns and holds the note. Typically, the plaintiff in a foreclosure action does not own the underlying note or loan that is secured by the property subject to the foreclosure proceeding. Freddie Mac’s servicers initiate foreclosure actions in their names, even though they are not the owners of the notes or loans in question, because they are the mortgagees as shown on the land records (by fraudulent, fabricated assignments) and they are the holders (not in due course) or otherwise in possession of the (fabricated) notes. During foreclosure proceedings, our servicers and foreclosure counsel have authority to negotiate and execute loan restructurings (against what the pooling and servicing agreements state?) and other foreclosure alternatives (trial modifications that are ultimately denied) with borrowers as well as attend (pointless) mediation. To require investors who do not service the loan to be a party in the foreclosure action and attend mediation would be costly and unduly burdensome (because they do not even know it is in default?), which may result in additional costs being passed on to the borrower. The intended purpose of the mediation program could be achieved effectively without this verification requirement.”

    Robert E. Bostrom
    Freddie Mac
    Executive Vice President
    General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

    “TYPICALLY……….The Plaintiff in a foreclosure action does not own the underlying note or loan………”


    It IS Typical today!

    You know what’s the biggest crack up?

    Here we are struggling mightily to PROVE that the Plaintiff doesn’t own the mortgage or note in cases where the Plaintiff is forging documents to PROVE that they DO own the mortgage and note………………and la-de-da in waltzes Freddie Mac’s VP and bumbles his way into the most inane (and shockingly honest) comment in the world!

    My second favorite came from The Florida Bankers Associations’ Comments to the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Foreclosures.

    “It is a reality of commerce that virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities.”

    “The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file.”


    So after the comments were heard, the Chief Justice’s Statewide Model Order is entered. On December 28, 2009, Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince issued her Order implementing a statewide managed mediation program in new Florida foreclosure cases pursuant to the Task Force’s recommendations. Each of the 20 circuit chief judges now must adopt their own orders based on the model.

    Next up comes the Recent Rules Amendments. See related Rules Amendments issued by the Court on February 11, 2010.

    Here is where the fun begins…

    First, rule 1.110(b) is amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suits brought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.

    Whoa, some pretty strong language there coming from the Florida Supreme Court. Makes you wonder on how bad it really is.

    As you could imagine, some of the foreclosure mills are not too happy with this amended rule change. Kind of makes it a little harder to LIE.

    Actually, lets not imagine how unhappy they are, lets read their comments to the Florida Supreme Court on the matter…

    This one comes from SHAPIRO & FISHMAN, LLP (“the Shapiro Firm”),

    Mortgage foreclosure cases are unique in that the holders of the notes are often unfamiliar with the status of the loans and rely upon loan servicers to manage the loans, payments on the loans, and the foreclosure proceedings.

    Therefore, while the holder of the note may have some limited knowledge in order to verify portions of the complaint, it may not have the necessary knowledge to verify the remainder of the complaint. For example, while the holder of the note may verify that it is the holder of the note, it may not have personal knowledge when the last payment on the note was made or if a default notice was mailed to the client. While the holder of the note may not have that requisite knowledge, the loan servicer would, presumably, have that knowledge and be in a position to verify factual allegations of that nature, but likely will not have personal or direct knowledge of other factual allegations.

    Furthermore, mortgage notes are frequently assigned between lenders and other investors. Thus, subsequent holders of a note will not have personal knowledge as to the mortgagor’s execution of the original note or assignments that occurred prior to its acceptance of the current assignment and consequently will not be in a position to verify those alleged facts in a mortgage foreclosure complaint.It is also unclear whether an attorney or law firm representing a lender can verify a mortgage foreclosure complaint based upon information he/she/it obtained from the client or other parties, including the holder of the note and the loan servicer. The question remains whether an attorney or law firm representing a lender can verify the complaint after diligent review and inquiry into the matter with the various parties holding the necessary knowledge.

    As Foreclosure Hamlet puts it…

    TRANSLATION OF SHAPIRO FISHMAN’S Motion for rehearing: “Your Honors, all we know, “after diligent review and inquiry into the matter”, is that someone, at some point, owed something to someone else.”


    Oh, and additionally for that matter: “Your Honors, we also know, that the proceeds to the foreclosure sale will go to someone, that at some point had a right, maybe, to receive the windfall profits, probably, we think.“

    As it stands now, these aggressive, unprofessional foreclosure mills and their Plaintiff clients are still filing fabricated documents by the millions without any respect for the integrity of our official public records or the laws of evidence set by the judiciary system even after they were sanctioned by Judge Olson for these same issues.

    Makes you wonder doesn’t it?

    Florida Foreclosure Defense
    Law Offices of Carol C. Asbury

    Definition of Fraud from one common online resource:

    Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.


    THIS guy is a real fighter …I really like his spirit
    GO Matt Weidner

  12. Call your bank today and ask them to send you a copy of the note.

  13. this is far from over ….the banking cabal is only playing the obvious hand.The FTC & FDIC will nail the coffin closed so we never find the bodies, then the state AG’s can be relied on to settle this for chump change and more importantly with ” no admission of guilt ” – so no borrowers can never bring the Sanks [ i mean Banks] to court for our recourse or redress .
    I hope I am wrong.. the ensuing dissent & total rise of the police state is really what gives me that sick feeling.
    Thanks AGAIN Neil!!

  14. Another report has it that he signed the veto,

  15. the enemies know each other and talk to each other.

    we need to do the same.

    how can we do it effectivelly and mitigating any misconduct and mishandling of our info.




  16. guys let us take the initiative and set it up. I can bet the farm Mr. Garfield is barely sleeping these few days with all that is going on. let one of us who is really good at the FACEBOOK thing set it up and turn it over to him and his people unless he agrees to let us help him under his supervision.

    what do you think Mr. G.

  17. i tried calling the white house since 2pm and the lines were swamped.

    i sent about 15 messages via email and every one in my family about 150 nationwide, sent comments to the president.
    our mission is to continue to do so until they say STOP WE HEAR YOU!

  18. Read this article in the WallStreetJournal Bank of America is still talking Sh—t or double talk. We must be vigilant



  19. Lucy and all others –

    Finally – something is happening. Been battling myself for so many years.

    Kickbacks, repurchases, fraud, soliciting, targeting, fraud in origination, fraud in documents, fraud in foreclosure – fraud in courts – and why did all in authority turn a blind eye? Because they had already given away America. They needed the fraud to keep America alive. And, Mr. Henry Paulson got down on bended knee to plead that Congress keep the fraud ongoing. All could have been fixed at the height of the crisis. It was not. Those in power – knew what they were doing.

    No more.

  20. Who do we sue first?
    the Judge
    The Attorney for opposing side
    The pretender lender
    The Investor for they had the resources to check the fraud out. They could have done their due diligence
    The Escrow company
    the Real estate companies doing the short sale

    Dont worry America will make a big industry out of this.





  21. Check out this article from the

    Janet Tavakoli: This is the biggest fraud in the history of the capital markets. And it’s not something that happened last week. It happened when these loans were originated, in some cases years ago. Loans have representations and warranties that have to be met. In the past, you had a certain period of time, 60 to 90 days, where you sort through these loans and, if they’re bad, you kick them back. If the documentation wasn’t correct, you’d kick it back. If you found the incomes of the buyers had been overstated, or the houses had been appraised at twice their worth, you’d kick it back. But that didn’t happen here. And it turned out there were loan files that were missing required documentation. Part of putting the deal together is that the securitization professional, and in this case that’s banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, has to watch for this stuff. It’s called perfecting the security interest, and it’s not optional.

    Now you getting it folks?

    This is NOT a “minor clerical error.”

    It is NOT correctable at this point in time.

    These securities are FATALLY DEFECTIVE. The parties with the legal duty to check these facts did not do so.

    It gets worse.

    Most people don’t understand that these securities were (and are) typically “sold forward.”

    That is, the bank doesn’t take its own money, loan it to homebuyers, and then take the notes and securitize them, selling the pieces to recover its money.

    No, what happened then (and still does today) is that these MBS are sold first and filled after!

    That is, a pension fund calls up Vampire Squid Bank and says “I need $100 million of MBS that pay a 5% coupon.”

    Vampire Squid Bank takes the $100 million dollars and then proceeds to securitize loans.

    But in doing so it took the $100 million on a prospective pooling and servicing agreement in which they agreed to provide loans of a certain credit quality and specification to the buyer.

    So it’s much worse than “we didn’t know.” It’s “we took the money, then we build the security and didn’t look, even though we told you we would.”

    There’s no fix for this without something like an RTC structure. You have to put these loans back on the securitizers, and let them (if they can) stick them back on the originators.

    If this blows up the big banks (and it will) then use Dodd-Frank’s “Resolution Authority” and take them into receivership and resolve them.

    I’ve been pounding the table on this for three years. Everyone wants to make this sound “complex.” It’s not, as Janet described. It’s actually quite simple – the investors were swindled. Period.

    Just like they were in the 1990s by the exact same scam, but in a different sector.
    View this entry with comments (registration required to post)


  22. It’s official, Obama actually veto the HR-3808.

    Presidential Memorandum–H.R. 3808

    It is necessary to have further deliberations about the possible unintended impact of H.R. 3808, the “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010,” on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before the bill can be finalized. Accordingly, I am withholding my approval of this bill. (The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)).

    The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. My Administration will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

    To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval.


    October 8, 2010.

  23. What an emotional rollercoaster. I was just feeling more relaxed too, but, unfortunately, Don-Ca and Alan are right.

    I guess I’ll put the champagne away for now, gosh darn it. LOL

  24. I could be wrong, but as I understand it Obama CAN pocket veto this act because it originated in the House and the House is adjourned.

  25. They are in pro forma ( conducting meetings but no formal business is addressed) in the meetings. If they continue in pro forma through Oct 12, then the prez has to veto the bill – otherwise it will be law.






    The senate is still in session and since Obama didn’t actually do a full veto, the pocket veto can be declared not legal since the senate was still in sesion.

    It will became law without his signature by default. Anyone else wanna chime in on this because we may be in for quite a shock next week.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: