COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis 

EDITOR’S COMMENT: When regulators refer to the banks as “clients” you know you have a problem. The mess (chaos) left in the wake of invalid mortgages and notes, fraudulent foreclosures, fraudulent credit bids and resales is going to stay with us regardless of what efforts are made to paper over the stupid PONZI scheme based upon the illusion of securitization of residential mortgages. Title is still going to be a problem that won’t go away and pretending otherwise doesn’t help

Taking houses away from people that supposedly have not paid their mortgage payments may sound like normal business procedure. But giving those houses to parties who were not and are not the lenders is a gift to the banking interests that runs contrary to the interests of the nation and the fragile economic recovery.

It’s not as simple as it looks. It’s been said to me that when you boil it down, the foreclosure problem stems from people not paying their mortgage payments, with the hidden presumption behind that being the mortgage debt is valid. The fact that the lien was not and could not be perfected is too technical for most people to consider.

And the big fact that the deal was a fraud on both the lender-investor and the borrowers through deception as to the value of the property, the viability of the loan transaction and the value of the mortgage bonds is something that nobody wants to think through — because it would mean turning 80 million real estate transactions on their head.

In one way it is very simple. Nearly none of those 80 million transactions would have been completed but for the grand deception and grand illusion. The investors would not have advanced the money and the borrowers wouldn’t have taken it. No investor or borrower would have done a $300,000 loan transaction on property worth half that amount, but they did because they believed the inflated appraisals and ratings. If the proper disclosures were made, the mortgage bubble would not be part of our history and the recession might not either.

So for those people who want to “boil it down” and get it simple, here you go: the investors and homeowners were defrauded. They are the losers here, not the banks. But it is the banks that are getting the benefit of payments on loans that run from inflated to non-existent and the willingness of our system to give them the houses too — while the real parties in interest —- the investor-lenders and the homeowners — lose their money and their homes. And let’s remember that when “investors” lose money that includes pension funds that now won’t be able to come up with promised retirement benefits that were part of the deal when employees worked for those companies.

Letting the Banks Off the Hook


Judging by last week’s performance, it sure looks as though the country’s top bank regulator is back to its old tricks.

Though, to be honest, calling the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency a “regulator” is almost laughable. The Environmental Protection Agency is a regulator. The O.C.C. is a coddler, a protector, an outright enabler of the institutions it oversees.

Back during the subprime bubble, for instance, it was so eager to please its “clients” — yes, that’s how O.C.C. executives used to describe the banks — that it steamrolled anyone who tried to stop lending abuses. States and cities around the country would pass laws requiring consumer-friendly measures such as mandatory counseling for subprime borrowers, or the listing of the fees the banks were going to charge for the loan. The O.C.C. would then use its power to either block or roll back the legislation.

It relied on the doctrine of pre-emption, which holds, in essence, that federal rules pre-empt state laws. More than 20 times, states and municipalities passed laws aimed at making subprime loans less predatory; every time, the O.C.C. ruled that national banks were exempt. Which, of course, rendered the new laws moot.

You’d think the financial crisis would have knocked some sense into the agency, exposing the awful consequences of its regulatory negligence. But you would be wrong. Like the banks themselves, the O.C.C. seems to have forgotten that the financial crisis ever took place.

It has consistently defended the Too Big to Fail banks. It opposes lowering hidden interchange fees for debit cards, even though such a move is mandated by law, because the banks don’t want to take the financial hit. Its foot-dragging in implementing the new Dodd-Frank laws stands in sharp contrast to, say, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is working diligently to create a regulatory framework for derivatives, despite Republican opposition. Like the banks, it views the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the enemy.

And, as we learned last week, it is doing its darndest to make sure the banks escape the foreclosure crisis — a crisis they created with their sloppy, callous and often illegal practices — with no serious consequences. There is really no other way to explain the “settlement” it announced last week with 14 of the biggest mortgage servicers (which includes all the big banks).

The proposed terms call on servicers to have a single point of contact for homeowners with troubled mortgages. They would have to stop the odious practice of secretly beginning foreclosure proceedings while supposedly working on a mortgage modification. They would have to hire consultants to do spot-checks to see if people were foreclosed on improperly. (Gee, I wonder how that’s going to turn out?)

If you’re thinking: that’s what they should have done in the first place, you’re right. If you’re wondering what the consequences will be if the banks don’t abide by the terms, the answer is: there aren’t any. And although the O.C.C. says that it might add a financial penalty, I’ll believe it when I see it. While John Walsh, the acting comptroller, called the terms “tough,” they’re anything but.

No, the real reason the O.C.C. raced to come up with its weak settlement proposal is that last month, a document surfaced that contained a rather different set of terms with the banks. These were settlement ideas being batted around by the states’ attorneys general, who have been investigating the foreclosure crisis since late October. The document suggested that the attorneys general were not only trying to fix the foreclosure process but also wanted to penalize the banks for their illegal actions.

Their ideas included all the terms (and then some) included in the O.C.C. proposal, though with more specificity. Unlike the O.C.C., the attorneys general had devised a way to actually enforce their settlement, by deputizing the new consumer bureau, which opens in July. And they wanted to impose a stiff fine — possibly $20 billion — which would be used to modify mortgages. In other words, the attorneys general were trying to help homeowners rather than banks.

By jumping out in front of the attorneys general, the O.C.C. has made the likelihood of a 50-state master settlement much less likely. Any such settlement needs bipartisan support; now, thanks to the O.C.C., there’s a good chance that Republican attorneys general will walk away. The banks will be able to say that they’ve already settled with the federal government, so why should they have to settle a second time? If they wind up being sued by the states, the federal settlement will help them in court.

“It’s a vintage O.C.C. move,” said Prentiss Cox, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who was formerly an assistant attorney general. “It is clearly an attempt to undercut the A.G.’s”

Old habits die hard in Washington. The O.C.C.’s historical reliance on pre-emption should have died after the financial crisis. Instead, it’s merely been disguised to look like a settlement.

31 Responses

  1. Nancy,

    I didn’t find the connection to AHMSI in the link unless I missed something. There may be a confusion as to American Servicing Company being a Division to Wells Fargo. But American Home Mortgage was entirely separate.

    The story with AHMSI started with American Home Mortgage (AHM) owned by Micheal Strauss until bankruptcy in 2007. It was sold to billionaire ‘Wilbur Ross & Co.’ for servicing rights only, so they’ll say sorry we’re not your loan originator and we don’t have your loan origination records. They changed the name temporarily to ‘American Home Acquisition’. Now they have refiled and call it AHMSI.” The problem then and now is who regulates them. According to this link

    W L Ross & Co., LLC is classed as a domestic entity other. And so is or was American Home Mortgage Corp. So who regulates them?

    I was told the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). The FRB told me to take the matter up with my state reps. My reps said take the problem up with HUD or said they voted for the Frank Dodd Act which made no sense to my complaint (it just goes to show they don’t get it).

    So out with the old AHM and in with the new AHMSI and never to be a subsidy to a National Bank. Therefore never to be regulated by OCC or the OTS.

    Thank you for the link. But I’m part of the loan group that doesn’t get mentioned in the crisis or is even regulated. At that same link, look up Saxon and Litton. There was a lot more lenders out there then the top 5 banks they always talk about.

  2. Steve,

    Details in ‘Watters v. Wachovia Bank, NA will explain how ‘OCC’ regulators have harmed economy and consumers and vest powers of national bank to AMHSI.

    ‘Discussion’ OCC under Supremacy Clause of US Constitution
    Federal law trumps state laws which are inconsistent and/or prevent a national bank from doing any business.

  3. Sadly Annomyous you’ll find out that the US Attorney General is vested literally Jurisdiction over unlawful business matters is prevented by CONGRESS from taking your complaint having been harmed by a bank making you John Doe 1 – 9,999,999,999.
    Congress by committee cloud jurisdiction and pass off your opinion through their rookies who fence all issues and I’m beginning to wonder in the event we could bring a lawsuit against each Congressperson they would claim ‘but for we did not know.”

    See for yourself that the Federal Reserve Board will not answer your complaint!

    Please see for yourself that the AG will turn your complaint over to the State AG of Consumer Affairs who will say sorry you had a bad experience with ‘Whoever’ but not our problem.

  4. To protect this blog I provide the GOOGLE LINK I used to reference the information and cut/paste of key paragraphs.

    “[PDF] National Banks and the Dual Banking System File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    Five months later, Lincoln sent to Congress legislation to establish the ….. 14 Representative Samuel Hooper, who reported the bill to the House, ….. 31 1863 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency First Annual Report to Congress …

    We the LivingLies Members are a group of consumers who are getting educated and no longer ignorant share because we care as Patriots who harmed our nation, identify the loopholes and protect ourselves from unlawful seizure of our property.

  5. Please stop the misconception that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) has authority to prevent enforcement of law.

    The OCC is a federal administrative agency created by CONGRESS who are vested powers to create federal administrative agencies with limited powers AND ARE NOT PART OF THE ‘JUDICIARY’ under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

    United States ‘dual’ system Federal Republcci – separate federal and state component systems.

    Federal system based on federal bank charter, powers defined under federal law, operation under federal standards, and oversight by a federal ‘supervisor.’

    State system characterized by state chartering, bank powers established under state law, and operation under state standards, subject to state supervision.

    National banks would not be created until 1863.

    BACKGROUND OF ‘OCC’s” “Unique Authority” to Supervise and Regulate National Banks

    The OCC with nationwide jurisdiction over banks ranging from modest-sized community banks to some of the largest banks in the world 9NOTICE WORLD) also contributes to the agency’s ability to develop and maintain highly expert credit examination and risk management capabilities that benefit all sizes and types of banks in the national system.

    OCC’S nationwide reach enables the OCC to take actions to protect national bank customers.

    As stated the OCC’s customers are the BANK’s.

    Has the OCC combatted unfair or deceptive practices?

    Has the OCC’s progressive approach to customer privacy issues, have had nationwide consumer benefits.”

    I answer this question – clearly with evidence ‘NO!”

    June 11, 2010, The OCC sent Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen a letter after 17 month investigation into alledged unlawful buisness acts and OCC given evidence of such unlawful business acts, did ignore and share with Wells Fargo & Co. division Wells Fargo Home Mortgage dba ‘Wells Fargo BankNA’ and their clients are the banks LEHMAN BROTHERS, Bear Stearns, Nationsbank, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, BONY, for example.

    What did the OCC say to Congressman Frelighuysen, R District 11, OCC#854370 and many related complaints?

    And did the OCC send the letter having pre-discussed with Congressman Frelinghuysen the authority?

    “We the OCC are without authoritiy to adjudicate the alleged unlawful business matters.”

    OCC Attorney’s supervise the largest, most complex national banks are supervised by teams of examiners actually stationed on premises at those banks.”

    The long-range goals of Congress for the national banking system — supporting a stable national currency, financing commerce, acting as private depositories, and generally supporting the nation’s economic growth and development — required a type of bank that was not just safe and sound, but whose powers were dynamic and capable of evolving, so that national banks could perform their intended roles, well beyond the Civil War. Key to these powers is language set forth at 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Seventh), which provides that national banks are authorized to exercise “all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes.”
    Congress had modeled this authority on the bank charter authorized by the New York Free Banking Act, a type of charter that the New York courts explicitly had found to possess flexible and adaptive powers. Shortly before enactment of the National Bank Act, the New York Court of Appeals described the dynamic nature of the New York bank charter, stating that “[t]he implied powers [of a bank] exist by virtue of the grant [to do the banking business], and are not enumerated and defined; because no human sagacity can foresee what implied powers may, in the progress of time, the discovery and perfection of better methods of business, and the evervarying attitude of human relations, be required to give effect to the express powers.””

    The National Bank Act: OCC typically looks to the objectives & mechanics of the Act, approaching the statute, as one commentator put it, as “an architect’s drawing and not a set of specifications.”

    “As a result, the powers of national banks to engage in the business of banking and activities that are “incidental” thereto have been continually updated and consistently interpreted by the OCC — and accepted by the courts — as evolutionary; capable of developing and adjusting as needed to support the evolving financial and economic needs of the nation.



    characterization of the powers of national banks was settled with the Supreme Court’s decision in NationsBank v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. in which the Court expressly held that the “business of banking” is not limited to the enumerated powers in section 24(Seventh) and that the Comptroller has discretion to authorize activities beyond those specifically enumerated in the statute.”

    “The Comptroller of the Currency is charged with the enforcement of banking laws ? No they are not! They intimidate others who don’t understand the U.S. Constitution and perhaps are afraid of getting shot!

    We do not thank you Senator Summer in 1864, for he said:

    “[C]learly, the bank must not be subjected to any local government, State or municipal; it must be kept absolutely and exclusively under that Government from which it derives its functions.”

    “Congress, accordingly, established a federal supervisory regime and vested responsibility to carry it out in the newly created OCC. Congress granted the OCC the broad authority “to make a thorough examination into all the affairs of [a national bank],”17 and solidified this federal supervisory authority by vesting the OCC with exclusive “visitorial” powers over national banks. These provisions assured, among other things, that the OCC would have comprehensive authority to examine all the affairs of a national bank and protect national banks from potential state hostility by establishing that the authority to examine national banks is vested only in the OCC, unless otherwise provided by federal law”

    Act of June 3, 1864, c. 106, § 54, 13 Stat. 116, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 481.

    Currency Act and National Bank Act were enacted, then-Secretary of the Treasury, and formerly the first Comptroller of the Currency, Hugh McCulloch observed that “Congress has assumed entire control of the currency of the country, and, to a very considerable extent, of its banking interests, prohibiting the interference of State governments.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., Misc. Doc. No. 100, at 2 (Apr. 23, 1866).

    So could you please clarify that CONGRESS not the OCC is letting banks off of the HOOK!



    Yes, FTC was a dead end. OTS said file complaint to Fed Reserve Board which will get forward to AG.

    Glad I’m not the only one noticing servicers slipping through the cracks:

  7. Dear Annoymous:

    FTC has no authority over states nor banks.

  8. Steve

    Believe Federal Trade Commission has authority over AHMSI — but, FTC just files complaints — rarely acts.

    Maybe, also state DOJ where incorporated — same story there –

  9. The OCC does not regulate or have jurisdiction oversight of American Home Mortgage Servcing Inc. (AHMSI). AHMSI is not a National Association Bank and they are not a subsidiary to any National Bank.

    As far as I can tell AHMSI answers to no one. They are or were their own bank, American Home Bank.

    Who is examining AHMSI practices?

  10. Saveamericaone I’ve stopped bloggin because ibsay rude words these days but have to commend you on thst piece keep it coming

  11. @saveamericaone – enjoyed your rant and perspective.

  12. When is a bank not a bank? When Congress allows banks to license to financial holding company subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, dealers, brokers, distributors all who are in agreements the right to use their name in a franchise like manner?
    Consumers are the weakest link. Now homeless. Deliberately targeted by foreign organizations. Sure the old conspiracy theory. Let’s consider how easy it was for – Nationsbank to methodically acquire retail servicing entities doing business as general purpose entities late 1980′s thru late 1990′s. Purpose specifically secure retail and wholesale non-conforming loan products funded by the private family trusts you know (wink wink) behind Nationsbank and in front of Federal Reserve Bank of NY. Let’s see Nationsbank acquired INDYMAC – Countrywide Funding and Norwest Corp / Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association / Wells Fargo & Co/MN – BOA – …
    Consumers you are the weakest link. What are you going to do when you want a mortgage? It’s bad enough Congress has done nothing to protect the welfare of the nation for the past decade. It’s sad the people elected a President who entered office with a polan to only look forward, has abdicated all authority and done nothing to protect the welfare of the nation, the economy, third element of our national security. Except of course to look forward to his next term when everything will magically be better.
    Consumers what will you do if you need a mortgage this year? Are you really going to sign mortgage documents? My professor K. Petrides says “Stupid People Sign Stupid Contracts All The Time.” Congress, hello – anyone home?
    What a travesty! Congress blew it big time. Had my professor been assigned as Chief of Staff she would have been awake and paid attention drafting consumer protection laws and regulations? Who was asleep and looking the other way? What exactly was the plan to just life Glass-Stegal? Why did President Clinton listen to his advisors and who were they? He thought highly of them and slipped through the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act end of 1999″
    The Federal Reserve which represents foreign organizations best interests creates a brand new federal reserve classification that applies only in the United States, Congress (which Chief of Staffs now) don’t create any regulations allowing foreign organizations to destory America in a decade?
    Are the foreign organizations on target of their current three and five year rolling plans? Let’s see HSBC has up and left and is in Africa and who else? That means if Congress is still asleep they are no longer doing the same business over the financial exchanges. Now what Congress?
    Do you realize as a consumer, you are safer purchasing a sump pump which literally sits in water with electricity passing through the unit than you are purchasing a United States mortgage.
    When you purchase a sump pump, Congress put into place regulations holding the manufacturer accountable for manufacturing defects forcing products to be placed into the public domain for consumer consumption to be free of defects.
    In the event there is a manufacturing defect in a sump pump at the time of sale, the consumer can go to court and file a complaint.. Thanks to due process of law, consumers can file a complaint and seek remedies, both tort and punitive damages if there is a defect at the time of sale–of the sump pump.
    Why, Who, What, When, Where, How financial holding companies operate. Where are the disclosures? Had there been disclosures and the manufacturer been held accountable for placing into the public domain financial products without defects or suffer consequences this disaster could have been averted.
    How sad, millions of us no longer have basements to install the safe sump pumps
    As consumers, we don’t have to pre-inspect the sump pump to be safe from defects. As a consumer, we have to pre-inspect the mortgage as constructed by the manufacturer. Who is that by the way?
    I know if frogs had wings they would not bump their — when they jump.
    Please ask your congresspersons why they did not put into place any protections for consumers yesterday – today – tomorrow? SUMMER BREAK APPROACHING! Why would Congress let the Federal Reserve push out Elizabeth Warren? Why Congress was sleeping she paid attention and knows how to fix this mess!
    Just who is responsible for perhaps looking the other way during this diabolical madness! Encouraging others to look the other way. Oh no not collusion, or collaboration or negligence. No, nothing like that could happen in America with our balanced system.
    Consumers, remember we learn the hard way. For example you know all of those documents during a mortgage the government agencies spend billions of tax payer money on over the past decade in printing, marketing, salaries’, pensions, to create user-friendly 5th grade level understanding into the HUD TILA RESPA. Guess who they protect? Yep, they only exist for the pretender lenders placing a statue of limitations on intentional harms against consumers.
    Where are the disclosures and warnings I need to see glaring back so I’ll know the next time a ‘mortgage banksters’ asks me to sign a credit authorization form.
    • WARNING! MAY CONTAIN DEFECTS FOUND TO BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH! Divorce, Strokes, Suicides, Heart attacks, tool of mass destruction of the Federal Republic.
    WARNING YOU MAY NOT FOLLOW THE MONEY – STRANGER DANGER…We “__________________”mask all transactions with ‘___________Bank NA or FSB’ and are withholding substantive material facts and are providing inaccurate business statements and false information.
    WARNING! Your advised that your signature and initials mean you clearly understand that our intentions are clearly deceptive intent to take your property by deception and allow third parties to take possession of your property, both real and personal, in a larcenous manner.\
    We :_______________” reaffirm that we will take advantage of you coming and going!
    CONSUMER WARNING: You are not safe signing a credit application. By allowing our employee ‘somebody’ to make an inquiry places you into a virtual world-wide database where we will share with all of our affiliates around the globe your information.
    Why can’t consumers bring forth claims against the manufacturer of the financial products which were created with defects and placed into the public domain for consumer consumption? Indeed the products were found to be defective at the time of sale.
    Is Congress actually going to continue to look the other way and hide behind the federal administrative agencies who are without authority to adjudicate the alleged unlawful business acts and are allowing the welfare of the nation to be harmed?
    Where is Elizabeth Warren my hero?
    Are mortgages yet to be handled by the same pretender lenders, temporary lenders or agents, brokers, dealers, distributors retail and wholesale who are allowed to use — private brand labels – like Wells Fargo Bank NA TRUSTEE, Wells Fargo Bank NA LENDER.
    Great, there are laws and regulations to protect us from a defective sump pump but not mortgages and dam it we no longer have basements and don’t need those safe sump pumps!
    Congress is negligent! The President of the United States looking the other way unacceptable you took an oath to protect us! Congress I read the chapter in my US Constitution class that the OCC and OTS and FRB do not have the authority to enforce laws unless you create those laws and vest them with the powers which you did not in the version of the text book I studied. I read that the Attorney Generals serve at the pleasure of the President, as part of the Executive Branch the President has a duty to enforce the laws!. Let us send the President our three wishes for use of his Executive Powers:
    1) All financial holding companies as manufacturers of financial products and financial services must place into the public domain for consumer consumption products safe from manufacturing defects. The manufacturer and their subsidiaries and affiliates no matter what label they affix to the private brand label are indeed responsible for fiduciary accountability and are to be subject to regulations. Consumers are to be safe in life and property and live in pursuit of happiness. When harmed entitlements under Article IV allow for due process of law. All Manufacturers beware you will be liable for tort and punitive if found to have placed defective products into the public domain for consumer consumption found to be defective at time of sale.
    2) The manufacturer required to provide express and implied warranties, full-disclosures, acknowledging they have pre-inspected their products to be safe not to pillage, plunder and marauder the general population.
    3) All consumers may be protected by their State Attorney General and US Attorney General who will work together with all state and federal administrative agencies and be allowed to bring into court as Plaintiff in Joinder holding all of the manufacturers’ subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, dealers, brokers and distributors accountable for alleged unlawful business acts Congress vested Jurisdiction. In the event Congress wants to also sanction these manufacturers consumer’s evidence will be shared upon request.
    Sadly, there are no consumer protection laws regarding purchasing financial products and financial services. None! Even the name of the institution can be deceiving. Consumers have been targeted by deceptive advertising since 2000.

  13. OCC Consumer Complaint #854370 and many related complaints against Wells Fargo, Lehman Brothers, Structured Asset Securities Corp, Cendant Mortgage, Title Resources, Atlantic TItle Trust, Realogy, Captial Home Mortgage dba Southstar Funding, Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Securities LLC a pass thru agency who does not report federal taxes you know they are (wink wink) reported elsewhere.

    Well after 16 months and while under a congressional inquiry both the OCC and Congress ignored the loan origianton frauds, deceptive advertising, and more.

    OCC sent a letter June 11, 2010 to Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ stating that the OCC are without authority to adjudicate the unlawful business matters.

    Now did my Congressman not know that?

  14. […] View the original article here GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_bg", "ffffff"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_border", "dfdfdf"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_text", "000000"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_link", "9c4617"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_url", "9c4617"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "business"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "money"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "banks"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "letting"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "nocera"); GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_below_post"); LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  15. This Bastards going to Jail
    I hope he doesn’t drop the soap

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A jury has convicted the majority owner of what had been one of the nation’s largest mortgage companies on all 14 counts in a $3 billion fraud trial that officials have said is one of the most significant prosecutions to arise from the nation’s financial crisis.

    The jury returned its verdict late Tuesday after more than a full day of deliberations.

    Prosecutors said Lee Farkas led a fraud scheme of staggering proportions as chairman of Florida-based Taylor Bean & Whitaker.

    The fraud not only caused the company’s 2009 collapse and the loss of jobs for its 2,000 workers, but also contributed to the collapse of Alabama-based Colonial Bank, the sixth-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

    Farkas testified in his own defense at the trial and claimed he did nothing wrong.

    I hope he doesn’t drop the soap

  16. Thanks BSE.

  17. Boots, you probably got that all right. Major bummer. Someone here turned us onto “BONY v Raftogianis”. The judge did a lengthy discussion of numerous issues – MERS, UCC, securitization – before he addressed Bony’s claim that the note had been properly transferred to the Trust., which would necessarily include a finding of WHEN.
    Here is what the judge said:
    “Separate questions are presented, however, as to whether the note was in fact physically transferred to plaintiff, when that would have occurred, and whether the note had been endorsed prior to that time. Those are issues that would have to be addressed before one could determine whether the plaintiff was a person entitled to enforce the note pursuant to the UCC at any particular time.”

    This is a paragraph to cite, to “help’ your judge follow the law. There is nothing new about Judge Todd’s law. The only thing new is that this judge chose to apply the law properly: who, why, when, where. i.e., prove it.
    That’s what we’re after, proper application of existing law, is it not?
    Unfortunately , that’s not the end of it. The judge reasoned that no one would WANT to bifurcate a note and a mortgage; therefore, there was no bifurcation! As we know, a collateral document without the debt is a worthless piece of paper. In the judge’s defense, however, in this particular case, he really did not have to reach the issue of “MERS'” (i.e., the members in MERS name – tweaked, tweaked, tweaked) history of enforcing mortgages and dot’s thru foreclosure, because it was BONY as trustee for the Trust who sought to enforce the note and foreclose. This is apparently the new order, the shape of things to come, with MERS bowing out after buying time for the banksters to mount their new offensive.

    BONY attempted enforcement based on three separate theories, one of which was reliance on an assignment from MERS (I am going to hazard a guess that the good judge does not know that the assignment was actually done by BONY to itself
    by way of its own employee, the MERS’ straw / qualifying officer) which alleged to essentially assign the debt as well as the mortgage. Judge Todd knows better, not to mention the collusion and conflict of interest he would have found had he known the truth about who actually executed the alleged assignment. But, this is what Juge Todd DID said about that:

    “MERS as nominee does not have any real interest in the underlying debt or the mortgage which secured that debt.”
    The judge therefore disregarded the assignment.
    But, interestingly, the judge appeared to pick up on the fact that if BONY already had the interest it claimed, why would BONY attempt to rely on an assignment to it of that same interest? This is a question posed to a court in NV, and the jury is still out.
    The court in this case granted BONY numerous continuances to prove up its claim. The court ordered BONY to bring in everything but the kitchen sink which would bear on the issues – was the note actually transferred to the trust? When? How?

    Despite the many opportunities it was given, and all the paper produced relevant to the formation of the trust, the psa, the loan schedule, etc., BONY was unable to convince the court that transfer occurred prior to institiution of the suit.
    Also interestingly, the court considered what should happen accordingly – should the action be dismissed, and with or without prejudice? The court ultimately dismissed the suit without prejudice, allowing BONY to bring it again once it could prove to this judge’s satisfaction that BONY
    had all its ducks in a row on the date of the new suit.
    I am pretty unhappy with that part of his ruling. Does it not encourage the BONY’s, etal, forcing homeowners into frivolous suit defense? This is not a message we want sent. They did this for years and got away with it, just in different hats.
    In fact, this whole mess has more than one-upped the Great Olive Oil Scandal. (Like the King’s Invisible Clothes, there was no olive oil.)

    This part of the decision is a pig with lipstick. (Sorry, your honor) It’s just more ‘throwing it up against the wall to see if it will stick’ by the banksters. It is NOT no harm, no foul. It clogs court and the defense of these bs suits is not without great consequence / damages to the homeowner.

    There are probably actually reasons courts should not dismiss without prejudice, other than the inequity of it. If we dig thru our cases, we can find them. They’re there. Just won’t’ come to mind just now. Judge Schack manages to find them.

    I do think kudos are in order for Judge Todd nonetheless.

  18. trespass unwanted,

    Thank you !. You are intelligent.
    I am in great hope this crime against humanity will someday be resolve.

  19. That was good, direct writing. Thank you Mr. Nocera.

  20. Tell The DOJ: Investigate the criminals-Goldman Sachs ,perjury is a felony & GODS WORK!?

  21. let me try that again

  22. if loan servicer will allow another third parties to do the auditing of mortgage loans for homeowners who have been victims of foreclosure fraud, then i assume that it will be a second wave of fraud. these loan servicer hired a debt collectors to initiate a foreclosure process and intentionally destroy the chain of title of our properties with fraudulent documentations. and then part of the settlement, loan servicer will hire an independent audit firm to check on victims of foreclosure fraud? how could we trust them again when the truth is the audit firm they will hire probably a subsidiaries of their company , or it will put up another company to do their second wave of another fraud? what compliance are the going to follow when all the original lenders of our deed of trust went bankrupt or no longer in business.? how would we know that our loan is part of securitization when we can’t find any evidence that it was physically transferred to the trust? how could it correct the assignment of deed? the substitution of trustee? the notice of default? the fake trustee sale, the fake credit bid? the fake ” trustees” on a securitized loan and the fake beneficiaries.

  23. Thanks Neil, that is the grand illusion. It’s unbelievable and thus it is unbelievable.

    “The few who could understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

    inimical: Tending to obstruct or harm: “actions inimical to our interests”.
    2. Unfriendly; hostile.

  24. Can anyone say Captive Agency? This is no suprise at all.

  25. “Since the invention of paper, people have been writing bogus notes, and if there are two time-tested methods to become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams, they are: 1)Selling stuff that doesn’t exist and 2) Selling stuff you don’t actually own. Unless you believe there has been a sudden outbreak of integrity in the banking industry, there’s no reason to believe these dynamics are not still in play, is there? ”

  26. DOOM & GLOOM!

  27. hehehehe,

    read this article and extrapolate to your morgtage market of MBS ABS.

    extrapolate: to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area.

    Article written 2007.

    “The issue specifically concerns whether Morgan Stanley and many other large financial organizations who claim to hold and store silver for their customers, actually possess the silver.”


    “I offered a simple solution for any investor with stored silver to determine if the real metal existed or not. Most stored silver is in 1000-ounce bars, and they are always identified with serial numbers and a specific weight. If an investor was concerned, all he or she had to do was request the serial numbers and specific weights of the bars they owned.”


    “I found it appalling that Morgan Stanley would claim to store silver that didn’t exist and even have the chutzpah to charge for the storage.”

    OH BOY OH BOY. Sounds familiar?

    “On a purely financial basis, the institution is given cash by the client and does not have to return it until the client sells his silver, which may not be for years or decades. For the entire time the client does not sell, the firm has full use of his money on a zero cost of funds basis”


    “I am sure that eventually we will read about the great losses some institutions have suffered from very high silver prices because they sold silver to clients that they never actually purchased. People will scratch their heads and ask how those firms could do something so foolish, just like many today question how big firms could offer mortgages to borrowers of poor quality.”

  28. Disclosure:
    Black’s Law 5th edition:

    Client. A person who employs or retains an attorney or counsellor, to appear for him in courts, advise, assist, and defend him in any legal business. It should include one who disclosed confidential matters to attorney while seeking professional aid, whether attorney was employed or not.

    Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, 2(1).

    Corporeal. A term descriptive of such things as have an objective, material existence; perceptible by the senses of sight and touch; possessing a real body. Opposed to incorporeal and spiritual. Thre is a distinction between “corporeal” and “corporal.” The former term means “possessing a body,” that is, tangible, physical, material; the latter means “relating to or affecting a body.” that is bodily, external. Corporeal denotes the nature or physical existence of a body; corporal denotes its exterior or the co-ordination of it with some other body. Hence we speak of “corporeal hereditaments,” but of “corporal punishment,” “corporal touch,” “corporal oath,” etc.

    Being aware is one’s first understanding.
    OCC represents the banks. Explains why it was easy for them to sign a Consent Order. Settlement may come through OCC, so it would seem the banks have to give full disclosure to OCC per the terms of the consent order of who’s home was taken without a right to do so. Probably through info to OCC we will find out whether the banks are solvent or need to be dissolved.

    If FDIC has shuttered some banks and allowed their assets to be absorbed by others, maybe OCC is for the TBTF ones. All I know is there is public knowledge of a investigation of things from January 2009 to December 2010 and a settlement.

    I’m happy that the Consent Order with their, client, has real names of real ‘corporeal’ persons, not corporations, who can be held liable for the provisions of the Consent Order and for the Cease and Desist Order with MERS.

    This is something we have not seen before. I’m willing to watch to see what happens. I don’t know the security agreements the higher ups had in these corporations that protected them from their actions and placed the blame on a building without a ‘corporeal body’. If the OCC is the settlement arm of the ‘incorporeal’ building, then lets see how this plays off.

    Banks aren’t real, people are real. So letting banks off the hook doesn’t make sense…it’s not real, how is it on the hook. Who (real, corporeal) is being let off the hook? Does the Consent Order with ‘real’ signatures from ‘corporeal/real’ people prevent that? I don’t know. I am willing to watch.

    No one gets away with anything. The Creator within me, knows what the Creator within them has done. They may choose to walk and life on the dark side, that is their right, but they cannot violate the Free Will of the Creator that chooses to walk and live on the ‘light side’. All is from the Creator, picking a side in duality is allowed. Trespassing is not.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, alive, allodial, corporeal, life, live born, born alive, free, whole blood, freeman, in jure divino, in jure proprio, people, adult

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: