Fannie, Freddie say mortgage servicers triggered foreclosure crisis

FINGER POINTING WON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM

The mortgages are invalid, the transfers are invalid, the notes are invalid, the transfers are invalid, the documentation is void, the obligation needs to be renegotiated and THEN we will be able to start putting things back together again with homeowners and investors restored as much as possible to the position they were in before this huge fraud began.

Gallery
A look at the leaders in Washington and beyond who are involved in the foreclosure mess.
»

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 1, 2010; 10:38 AM

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac defended their role in the foreclosure crisis in prepared testimony to Congress on Wednesday, while at least one federal regulator said the mortgage giants had contributed to the problem.

Speaking to the Senate Banking Committee at a hearing on the national foreclosure debacle, Fannie and Freddie executives emphasized that they are not responsible for managing payments by borrowers on home loans or foreclosing on homeowners when they default.

These tasks, executives say, are the responsibility of mortgage servicers and law firms with which the companies contract.

“I want to underscore that Fannie Mae does not service loans. We rely on the loan servicing divisions of major banks and other financial institutions as the primary front-line operators and points of contact with the borrowers,” said Terence Edwards, executive vice president for credit portfolio management at Fannie Mae. “We pay servicers significant fees during the life of a loan to work with borrowers. Servicers are required under our servicing contracts to help borrowers in trouble, not just collect payments.”

Donald Bisenius, executive vice president of the single family credit guarantee business at Freddie Mac, made the same point. “Freddie Mac provides guidelines for the origination and servicing of our loans, and contracts with sellers and servicers to carry out these operations.”

At the same time, a senior federal regulator, acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh, said Fannie and Freddie’s policies have contributed to the foreclosure mess.

The companies “require servicers to use law firms approved for particular geographies when preparing foreclosure filings,” he said. “For large mortgage servicers that operate nationwide, this often has resulted in use of a significant number of third parties – lawyers and other service providers – and a panoply of documents used in their mortgage foreclosure processes: one large mortgage servicer has indicated that they use over 250 different affidavit forms.”

Walsh acknowledged that the six large national bank servicers – Bank of America, Citibank, J.P. Morgan Chase, HSBC, PNC, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank – have deficiencies in their foreclosure processes. He said the OCC and other banking regulators are conducting in-depth exams of these processes.

Edwards of Fannie Mae defended the attorney network and said it was expanding to all 50 states. “Having the retained attorney network allows us to improve our oversight and management of both the servicers and the attorneys’ actions during the default process,” he said. “The network provides the framework to hold the attorneys accountable for their performance while giving us the authority to provide guidance to the firms, implement new policies and cost-saving structures, and audit actions by the firms.”

Meanwhile, Bisenius defended the dual-track approach to mortgage modification and foreclosure embraced by many of its servicers: Attempt to modify a loan to make it more affordable, but also prepare to foreclose if that is not possible.

“While we believe that borrowers who already are under significant stress arising from their financial situations should not be subjected to needless confusion, we also believe that unnecessary delays in an already lengthy foreclosure process would be ounterproductive,” Bisenius said.

He noted that foreclosures usually last well over a year, and sometimes close to two. “The dual-track process allows for a delicate balance between the need to minimize losses and protect communities while protecting borrower interests. Lengthy foreclosure delays impose substantial losses on Freddie Mac and taxpayers – by some estimates, $30 to 40 per day and $10,000 to $15,000 per year for every defaulted loan,” Bisenius said. “These costs do not include additional losses resulting

from depreciation in the value of the property.”

Mortgage industry executives have argued for weeks that they are foreclosing only on borrowers who deserve it for missing their monthly payments.

But consumer groups and attorneys contend that many homeowners are being pushed into foreclosure because of errors or bad advice by the companies managing their loans – an issue that will be a core focus of the Senate banking committee hearing.

Many borrowers, foreseeing financial difficulty ahead, were told by their mortgage servicers to miss payments in order to get a loan modification. But after doing so, homeowners were served foreclosure papers instead of getting the modification, the advocates say.

In other cases, borrowers accrued late fees without their servicer telling them about the fines. The company would then consider the borrower in default of the loan.

The hearing follows a similar one last month by the committee during which Diane Thompson, an attorney with the Consumer Law Center, estimated that over half of the foreclosure cases she defends involve servicer problems.

Lawmakers plan to probe the cause of such “servicer-driven foreclosures” – and question regulators over whether they are adequately watching the activities of mortgage servicers. Scheduled to testify are senior officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

“The problems currently in the news may be just the tip of the iceberg,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the committee chairman. “The mortgage servicing industry may be plagued throughout with more systemic failures.”

These “are problems that may result in homeowners being put at unnecessary risk of default and foreclosure,” he added.

Several of the nation’s largest mortgage companies have acknowledged problems with their servicing operations. The largest, Bank of America, has pledged to put an end to the “dual track” process of negotiating loan modifications with borrowers at the same time they are being foreclosed upon.

The hearing, the final one for Dodd before he retires from the Senate, will also feature testimony from senior Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, who will be on the witness stand for the first time since the uproar over foreclosures began.

Fannie and Freddie are expected to defend their practices while laying the blame for any problems in foreclosures on the law firm and mortgage servicers who oversee the process on their behalf. The companies have threatened financial penalties against these firms if they do not take corrective actions quickly.

Another issue that is likely to be raised this week on Capitol Hill is whether banks in many cases are trying to foreclose on borrowers when they lack the legal standing to do so. Besides Dodd’s committee hearing, a separate hearing on the foreclosure debacle is being held Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee.

Doubts about the legal standing of banks are being raised amid allegations that they did not properly transfer paperwork proving the ownership of mortgages as they repeatedly traded the loans to investors.

In a case in New Jersey, for instance, a Bank of America executive, Linda DeMartini, testified that it was customary for the big lender Countrywide to hold on to the ownership documents even after the loans were pooled together, turned into securities and traded around the world. Bank of America bought Countrywide in 2008.

In a Nov. 16 decision that alarmed the mortgage industry, Chief Judge Judith H. Wizmur of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Camden, N.J., denied a foreclosure against a homeowner based on Countrywide’s failure to pass the documents to the proper party.

Bank of America has said that the situation was an aberration and disputed DeMartini’s sworn testimony, saying she was mistaken.

chaa@washpost.com goldfarbz@washpost.com

45 Responses

  1. Tony, I cannot answer your question as I am not licensed to practice to law and it would be considered legal opinion. I am sorry. Fight on and find a good lawyer.

  2. The Fed purchased $293 billion in MBS from Deutsche Bank, and $287 billion from Credit Suisse

    Soliman – True…one foreclosure at a time. Great argument here. Foriegn banks like Deutsche are not allowed ot be a receipient of TARP, so what gives…

    MSoliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  3. If you live in GEORGIA & you are having problems with Bank of America. Contact me I might be able to help you. Sonya

    GEORGIA is the only state i am afraid to say that CAN lawfully allow foreclosures. Our arguments are the rest of the county does not allow for Georgia rules.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  4. -The mortgages are invalid,
    Soliman – Not true. Since the time of Christ one cannot escape the debt they owe.

    -The transfers are invalid,
    Soliman – Wrong the transfers are valid. This is something that hurts homeowner’s not help them.

    -The notes are invalid,
    Soliman – Wrong the notes are valid in form and substance

    -The documentation is void,
    Soliman – Void or voidable – no defenses here.

    -the obligation needs to be renegotiated
    Soliman Yes this is correct.

    Here and only here is the sole technical error or miscalculation than cannot allow a lender to foreclose. The transfer (not tender) of consideration and lack of mark to market valuation with potential for charged or valueless certificates will suffice as a formidable base to establish your arguments.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  5. Gwen you got it down. I’m baby steppin along I have a decent attorney But yes ther us much of the republican old boy network here in az doesn’t help one bit… And thankyou

  6. If you live in GEORGIA & you are having problems with Bank of America. Contact me I might be able to help you. Sonya sonya36767@yahoo.com

  7. Gwen,
    Is this Clear enough:

    I have the original NOTE endorsed in Blank,” Pay To The Order of __________.”with out recourse, signed by the Senior VP of RBMG. I have a sworn affidavit that states a written assignment of the note was never prepared and the SELLER into the securities stated that they WARRANT AND REPRESENT IT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLD TO ANY OTHER ENTITY.EMC(seller) was to sell the note to Bear Stearns which was the depositor into the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities,inc. Asset Backed certificate series 2003-2. Bear Stearns was to sell/ assign the Note to JP MORGAN CHASE as trustee of the Trust. There has been a foreclosure started on the mortgage on March, 3 2009 by The Bank OF New York Mellon as successor trustee for JP MORGAN CHASE who claims to be the owner and holder of the note. By way Of an assignment which was recorded at the ROD on March 19, 2009, 16 days after the LIS-PENDENS , and the summons and complaint . I have a letter dated July 13 2002 from Mers that states the loan has been removed from the MERS system and the MIN# deactivated. Mers had no authority to do an assignment and the assignment was done by a known “robo-signor” and in the Corporate name of RBMG that not only deactivated the MIN # but also removed the loan from MERS. RBMG was also defunct and has been since 2005 when it was aquired by NETBANK and subsequently shut down by the FDIC in 2007. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON produced in discovery two allonges the first was from RBMG to EMC and the second was an allonge directly to JP MORGAN CHASE from EMC. First thing is the PSA ( pooling and service agreement) the governing document of the securities describes in detail the percise chain of title it also describes who is the seller ,the depositor ,the master servicer and the trust. Even though the sworn affidavit produced by the successor trustee stated no written assignment was ever prepared, so the allonges was a direct attempt to decieve the investors and knowingly a misrepresentation which is fraud. BEAR STEARNS was the depositor into the securities. First let start with the allonges both are undated and one is not even signed: according to the UCC an allonge is only used when there is NO ROOM ON THE ORIGINAL NOTE FOR ENDORSEMENT and must be firmly attached as to become a part of the note. AN ALLONGE cannot be used to transfer interest and is invalid if there is room on the note for endorsements and is invalid it not attached. A lost note was produced from EMC but not anywhere in the document is there a conveyance, it is not a valid assignment. Here is an excerpt from the PSA;BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES, INC., Depositor EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Seller and Servicer WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer and Securities Administrator and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Trustee
    POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT Dated as of June 1, 2003
    BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2003-2 ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-2
    (DD) The assignment of Mortgage with respect to a Mortgage Loan is in recordable form and is acceptable for recording under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Mortgaged Property is located.

    Proper perfected chain of title:
    Originator to seller:RBMG to EMC
    seller to depositor: EMC to Bear STEARNS
    depositor to the trust:Bear Stearns to JP Morgan
    trust to successor trustee: Jp Morgan to The Bank of New York Mellon

  8. Deutsche Bank And Credit Suisse: The Two Top Beneficiaries Of Fed Mortgage Buying (DB, CS)

    Today, December 01, 2010, 10 hours ago | Katya Wachtel

     
    Thanks to Zerohedge, we know that the banks which were the top beneficiaries of the Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program were two foreign-based banks.

    This probably confirms suspicions that US banks loaded up foreign banks with mortgage junk, but there’s no reason to jump to conclusions.

    This is what we do know:

    The Fed purchased $293 billion in MBS from Deutsche Bank, and $287 billion from Credit Suisse.

    Rounding out the list’s top six, and with significantly less MBS bought by the Fed, was Morgan Stanley, then Citi, then Merrill Lynch, then Goldman Sachs.

    Background: the MBS purchase program was announced in November 2008, with a notable expansion in its scope in early 2009. The Fed says $1.25 trillion in agency MBS were purchased between January 2009 and March 2010.

    Share this:
    Email
    Digg
    Print
    Facebook
    Reddit
    StumbleUpon

    Categories: Uncategorized

  9. gwen caranchini

    Corrected – I agree with as to past judicial bias.

    Perhaps was is occurring now is more than personal bias – as judges are indirectly told to foreclosure by an administration/Congress/Government who failed to do anything to stop it, thus, setting the stage for massive foreclosures that we have not seen since depression. .

    Disagree, still, that good analysis will necessarily clear the path for you. We have discussed this here before. Judges do not have to anything they do not want to do. There is much judicial discretion to proceed as judge chooses. And, many will not even let you take that first step onto the path. And, what can you do about it??? Nothing.

  10. Deb Wynn: The problem deb is that there are a lot of bad judges and worse lawyers both of whom are incompetent and lazy. This is tough stuff to get a handle on. I posted my own problem as to why I can’t help more this morning in response to John who pisses me off. He’s clueless. You can be right and still loose unfortunately in our system. Arizona is not an easy state as you have alot of republican appointees who are not exactly pro “little guy” based upon my exp. at any rate you need to find a decent lawyer–try contacting christine springer at christine@DesertEdgeLegal.com to see if she knows of an attorney–she is not. Also contact Dave Krieger at cloudedtitles.com to see if he has an Ar attorney. I hope this wakes up people that judges are very important and the people who appoint thme are very important–you vote for republicans who appoint, you get really pro business judges. That’s my exp of 30 years. send me an email at gwencaranchini@sbcglobal.net if you want my own quiet title declaratory judgment and common law claims under mo. law. However, I am not a practicing attorney and therefore cannot modify them for you.

  11. Anonymous: Don’t tell me “never before have judges inserted their prsonal opinions”. In the 80’s an 90’sI did civil rights. Here are some commets from Fed Judges: “You’re client is a dumb slow nigger”. “All plaintiff’s lawyers are out for a fast buck” (he halved my fees after 8 years in ct –two trials, 2 appeals to 8th cir and one to sct and I won). When I questioned a GM supervisor in trial as to why the lesbian he claimed was having cosensual sex with him–the supervisor by thename of “Spivey” (good one huh?) said and I quote: “Because I last so long–5 minutes”. The fed judge wanted to sanction me for embarassing him!. So don’t tell me about this stuff. Rule 11 was used by republican judges 80 percent of the time against female civil rights att by studies and most of us had our licenses investigated for “being too aggressive”. One of my sanctions? O my clietn had a doc from a fed ex supervisor which said “You feel good carol”. The def claimed she made the doc up. Problem? The only one having access to the docs to mae that doc was the harasser and by the way the originals of those docs disappeared but by god we were guilty! And by the way who wrote my disbarment opinion? Stephen Limbaugh on the Mo. S.Ct–Rush’s brother== after the judge who heard the case said it was a witch hunt of law firms who wanted to get rid of m because I made them look bad and cost their clients’ money! Yeah, so don’t talk to me about “prejudice” or “personal opinions”–it has happenedbefore in the 80’s and 90’s to lawyers representing the litle guy–You just have to stand up and be counted.

  12. To Anonymous: You don’t need an armyto quiet title–you need a good analysis of your courthouse filed docs followed by a good analysis of stte law on that analysis. Its tough work, but you don’t need an army. Most lawyers don’t want to dothis simple work. Dave Krieger’s book CloudedTitles is on point. You also couple a Declaratory Judgment actiotion on the quiet title and put the burden on the defendants. I don’t know why you think a QT/DC needsan army. You need to sue or publish against a lot of people and you need to do your homework. But i it is not impossible. You also need patience.

  13. John–that does it–don’t know what I am saying? Check the local rules of most fed cts and see what the page limits are for filing briefs and reply briefs. When I was at Notre Dame they taught us how to reduce pages of latin St. Augustine to 250 words. Good exercise. I’ve written 7, 8, 10th and U.S. S.Ct. Briefs as well as trial court briefs. I had the first $1m verdict in civil rights in the St. of Mo. I’ve been shot at, nearly run over, had to send my family to live somewhere else and more things than you ever knew. I’ve sued GM, the FBI, Catholic Church (who refused to bury my husband) and every government agency and military branch. And when they could not stop me they disbarred me–in what one judge hearing the case called a witch hunt and one lawyer who used to work for GM testified to was GM’s intent. That was after my husband spent $500,000 defending me and paying sanctions, not earning a dime for 10 yaers to represent my clients. My book: What’s Wrong with GM, and how they got me disbarred” is about to be published. You have not got a clue. I’m sick and tired of people like you who are pro se’ers or attorneys who have never done a serious piece of litigation. I won more than I lost and a lot of fed and state judges were on my side–but republicans hated my success rate. They tried to say I was crazy and my docs said “O, not so and by the way she is really bright.” So, I don’t know what I am talking about? When you have written as much as I have and sued as many entities as I have and won as much as I have, then youcan pontificate. Until then, stop telling me I don’t know what I am doing. P.S. I am currently woring on my reinstatement and hope to be practicing in the spring again.

  14. The FED has handed out $3.3 TRILLION to the banksters since late 2007… And what has it bought them??

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a5e3ac4-fd89-11df-a049-00144feab49a.html#axzz16x79ehEg

  15. I’m telling you take care of your kids’pay for their education teach them not to get into debt take care of them find lower cost housing just walk away.

  16. Do not fight just save your money and walk away.

  17. No it does not take more then 15 pages to respond but the federal court will respond by saying your oppisition was cusory and dismiss your case.Gwen does not know what she is saying.

  18. Gwen ,you are another bull shitting attorney.

  19. I agree with Gwen. It doesn’t take 30 pages to say “Fails to state facts sufficient to support a valid cause of action” The thing these banks are lacking is FACTS sworn to by a competent fact witness with first hand direct knowledge of the truth. Perceived directly with the senses. STATEMENTS FROM ATTORNEYS ARE NOT FACTS. 90% of the contents of these affidavits can be stricken as insufficient hearsay.

  20. “Pushing back against concerns that the notes secured by the mortgages had not been properly endorsed and so had not been transferred into the trust, Deutsch cited a white paper put out by his group a couple of weeks ago, which was critiqued at the blog Credit Slips by Harvard Law Professor Adam Letvin. Deutsch responded directly to Letvin’s critique, but in doing so assumed two “facts” that have been challenged recently.

    Sponsored Links
    First, Deutsch presumes the notes were delivered as required, although a recent bankruptcy case involving Bank of America (BAC) and anecdotal evidence suggest that didn’t happen on a wide scale. Second, Deutsch presumes the notes were endorsed in a way he claims is proper. But again, the BofA case calls into question whether notes were endorsed at all.

    Similarly, the foreclosure document problems exposed to date have included notes with mysteriously changing endorsements. In short, assuming Deutsch’s arguments win the day, his testimony should reassure no one. At least not yet.

    If the notes were never delivered, or never endorsed at all — as a matter of routine practice, not just as isolated incidents — Deutsch’s arguments are irrelevant, all those securities aren’t backed by mortgages and more buybacks are extremely likely.”

    See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/bank-regulators-agree-the-mortgage-mess-poses-massive-risk/19740074/?icid=sphere_copyright

  21. These dirty bastards still do not understand. Borrowers are now force out of the nieghborhoods because Wall Street’s MBS scam and the Banksters foreclosure fraud has created negative equity across this country anywhere from 30 to 65 % . If you default , then you are smart. If you continue to make a payment then you are forking out money to pay for the crimes this government created.

    Screw the bastards ! Take a stand and fight. If you loose then walk away.

  22. Folks Ill get my phone fixed the words are defaulting to another language appologies for my awful typing

  23. Gwen: anonymous : my home was extorted
    from me whilst I had a lawsuit pending in az district court the bank ran over me refused yo defend my atty at the time did a disappearing act and a note was posted on my door to pack and move out one Friday as I cane home from work I have lus pendens on title thru try to sue me my counter defence included quiet title to which the bank say wr can’t quiet what we don’t have they got wild deed at trustees auction all fundamentally flawed from start to finish beginning with famous robo signer Roger stotts for mers in my case though he also signs got indymac and deutsche I later found out ( ofcourse we pleD thst too so I say I do hold title since the bogus sale and transfer of tustees deed upon sale should be void since at all times all parties lacked authority and standing AND knew it! so now what. I’m concerned my new atty isn’t terribly excited but I have a bias judge too to figure out what to do about.

  24. gwen caranchini,

    Just want to add that similar to you, I am not in foreclosure, never delinquent, not in bankruptcy, not underwater (have equity), and not in any modification. But, I have seen far more that you can even imagine.

    Mortgage titles are invalid. And, you need an army to get Quiet Title.

  25. gwen caranchini,

    Agree with your premise, agree with what you state. But, problem is that judges are injecting their personal opinions into decisions. Never before as this occurred in such magnitude. While some may be able to put forth their research to a “reasonable” judge – many stand before judges that are just deciding on personal bias. And, these judges know that the chance of succeeding on challenge to their decision – is slim. We have little substantive precedent setting law to back our research. Why?? Nothing of substance is being decided.

  26. listen folks–this is all about basic legal research. This is a new ballgame. I have 30 years in complex civiil rights practice and I spent 1500 hrs this year “getting up to speed” in an area of law I never did since law school because I got po’d at boa over my loan mod and decided to sue them. But most lawyers are lazy, they also don’t like to stand up to the court. If you don’t have your ducks in a row you get stomped on by big law firms. Trust me I’ve been there. So stop whining about the judges and the defense lawyers and do your homework. If you can’t say it in 5 to 10 pages don’t say it. Get to the point. Find the cases first in your juris then supporting juris.

  27. Spot freaking on Gwen!

    That is why we must do the research and spend time in the trenches locating the issues for the attorneys.

  28. local rules have nothing to do with it. In bankruptcy court, the trustee who is governed by the the chief bankruptcy judge out of new york sets the rules. The problem here is that lawyers who represent debtors do not have the background to know how to raise these issues. In foreclosure situations, again, you have lawyers who do not understand the issues. The rule (believe me) is KISS. In bankruptcy court that means “lac of standing”–produce the note and object in an adversary proceeding if necessary. In a non judicial state, that means when you get served with forclosure papers, file a quiet title action with lis pendens an also a declaratory judgment action. No sale until the qt/dc is determined . In a judicial state, raise as an affirmative defense to the foreclosure, no standing, produce the note and keep pounding away. The argument of “free house” is bs. You need to get the judge to understand there is a rule of law that applies to banks as well as debtors. If the bank can’t produce the note, if the bank can’t prove the note has not been paid off, if the bank can’t prove agency in an unbroken chain of title–it looses. These TILA, RESPA, HAMP arguments will not stand up in bankruptcy court in my opinion–they are “noise”. They are also noise iin foreclosure actions. QT actions make the banks have the burden of proof. You need to turn the argument on thebanks–its not that hard. But if your lawyer is stupid or won’t do the research you are F___ed!

  29. Hey Gwen, It must be that each district court has different local rules.No California is against the homeowner to say the least and the banks attorneys know how to push the judges buttons.

  30. Gwen,
    I say AMEN to your post.

  31. Well John, I don’t agree with your reply. I sued for quiet title (with a lis pendens) and added some fraud common law claim (no TILA, RESPA, HAMP which I think are a waste of time). I have not gotten the “free house ” argumet nor any of the other arguments you claim. Then again, the defnse counsel know better than to bs me. None of the other arguments are relevant to a quiet titl or declaratory judgment action or fraud ==I did not get foreclosed on nor am I in bankrtupcy. But our bankruptcy ct in the Western District of Mo will not let banks foeclosure or lift the stay i they do not have the note–for that matter they will not let them attend creditor meetings here. I don’t know why you are getting those arguments but it depends on juris.

  32. ahhh. Mr. Edwards should know, after leaving PHH in 09′ he lamds a plum job @ Fannie, to bad no one asked him to shed light on his former employer “servicer” PHH. Under the radar for way to long!

    “I want to underscore that Fannie Mae does not service loans. We rely on the loan servicing divisions of major banks and other financial institutions as the primary front-line operators and points of contact with the borrowers,” said Terence Edwards, executive vice president for credit portfolio management at Fannie Mae. “We pay servicers significant fees during the life of a loan to work with borrowers. Servicers are required under our servicing contracts to help borrowers in trouble, not just collect payments.”

  33. Wikileaks loses website. Boy the banks are fighting back hard! He’ll be back thats why it’s called leaks.

  34. A man….B davies still had to go to BK court. State court gave him nothing. I think…..he is Rambo….however I think he might even admit walking away might have been better for his sex life anyway. It’s a 24/7 job.

  35. Hey Gwen, I couldn’t agree more however when a person sue’s the bank the first thing that comes up is the debtor is trying to get a free house. That’s what they plead. Then they say that the holder of the note is held in confidence because that is how the investor wants it and any monies paid thru other means is not for the benefit of the debtor.They plead that they are restricted by the federal reserve and the debtor has no standing since he got the money to buy his house. Try to respond to that.

  36. Is there honor among thieves? I don’t think so. They are starting to eat each other. I love it. This like the good cop, bad cop. They gotta get one of them to rat on the other. It is happening, and Fannie and Freddie are in on it, too. Remember, the people who work at Fannie and Freddie incestuously work at private and then government agencies. It means CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It is the same scam as big pharma, big agriculture, big health care insurance, etc. It is the all new American way–scam yourself to riches. How do they live with themselves? http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

  37. I’m kinda old fashioned –as a former civil rights lawyer, I actually believe that if you break the law, you fail to follow the law, you pay the penalty. Its called the “rule of law”. I’m a little sick of hearing that people are getting free houses. I’m even more tired of hearing people say that we should waive a wand and make it go away or renegotiate the principal. My perspective is first and foremost let the banks show what they did with all that tarp and stimulus money and whether they got insurance money. If these notes have been paid off by those funds then the only issue for the homeowner is quietng the title solely in his/her name. As for the investors, they need to be suing the banks and MERS and whoever to get money back they invested. Let’s not complicate what is really quite simple–did they get money for the notes–what did they do with that money? Did they pay the investors off?? Clear the title and if there is nothing left of the “banks” and “mers” and the “servicers” and the “wall street biggies wo created the mess” so be it–that’s the rule of law–you pay the penalty for violating the law. But if the note has been paid, its been paid period. And if the papertrail is breached, then again the holder of the notes pay the penalty. The wrong people–the little guy–is getting penalized here. The people who created the mess, made the initial money on the mess and who have created the title nightmares, defrauded the county courthouses, and the investors need to be put out of business. End discussion

  38. John the judges in Southern California dont care.
    So what to do?
    Brian Davies how he does it I dont know? He is like the Navy Seals or Special Forces soldier. like Rambo.

    This is unbelievable. Like a bad nightmare.

  39. That’s a lot of BS, BiSenius.

    Dual track — one hand does one thing, the other hand does another. Loan mod / Foreclosure
    Banks tease you into modification applications so they have an excuse to turn you down and foreclose. It’s a trap. That is obvious by the small number of loan mods that have been done.

    Did you see this ad next to the same article? :

    Bank of America®
    Over 20,000 Associates Helping to Keep Customers Out of Foreclosure.
    http://www.BankofAmerica.com

    What a joke. Another dual track in the “consumer confidence” game.

  40. Love it…

  41. Judge Schack continues to hold banks to their burden of proof: Wash. Mut. Bank v. Phillip, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034
    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2010/12/judge-schack-continues-to-hold-banks-to.html

  42. Fannie and Freddie……have threatened financial penalties against these firms if they do not take corrective actions quickly.

    Ouch no! Anything but that! We’ll have to go all of the way over to the Fed window and get yet more of that 0% money from the taxpayers children to pay Fannie and Freddie their fines. Let’s not dwell on the fact that both Fan and Fred are owned (owed) by the taxpayers children already. What a sweet world we live in!

  43. Hey A Man…..right on……if the banks did everything right and I can renegotiate with my real lender I feel due process is mine. However that is not what the servicer wants. They tell me I have no right to this and threaten foreclosure on my family. It almost getting personal.

  44. This is what I have been saying……I have the right to know who my true creditor is so I can renogotiate my mortgage. Pure and simple. I do not want a free house but I do have claims to help reduce the debt.

  45. Couldnt have said it better.

    FINGER POINTING WON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM
    The mortgages are invalid, the transfers are invalid, the notes are invalid, the transfers are invalid, the documentation is void, the obligation needs to be renegotiated and THEN we will be able to start putting things back together again with homeowners and investors restored as much as possible to the position they were in before this huge fraud began.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: