COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Large US Banks Submit Plans To Fix Foreclosure Operations


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The largest U.S. banks have submitted plans to fix their troubled mortgage-servicing operations, responding to orders issued in April, a bank regulator said Wednesday.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, said eight institutions–including Bank of America Corp. (BAC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Citigroup Inc. (C).–have met a July 13 deadline for submitting detailed plans. The OCC will now review the banks’ action plans, which will remain confidential, a spokesman said.

The four big banks, along with 10 other home-loan servicers, have been under investigation by federal regulators and state officials over breakdowns in procedures for handling foreclosures and requests for loan assistance.

Banks, state attorneys general and federal officials are working on a broad settlement of the allegations, which emerged last autumn after several mortgage services acknowledged using what are known as robo-signers, who filed documents to foreclose on homeowners without personally verifying the documents’ contents.

Each bank is required to hire an independent consultant to conduct a “look back” of all foreclosure proceedings from 2009 and 2010 to evaluate whether they improperly foreclosed on any homeowners.

The OCC is establishing a public-complaint process through which borrowers who contend they were harmed by banks’ foreclosure practices can have their complaints reviewed by an independent consultant. The banks are also required to have their consultants conduct reviews of certain segments of borrowers, including military members, for improper foreclosures.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats who have long called the OCC too friendly to banks have been skeptical that the review process is going to be thorough or fair. They are pressing the regulator to make public the findings of the bank consultants. The OCC has said it plans to publish only general reports on the reviews.

“There is a loss of credibility by the regulators–specifically by the OCC– that more disclosure would address,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D., N.C.) said in an interview this week. “We’re still at a stage where we have a hope of shaping [ the look-back process] to make it tough and appropriately independent.”

Miller also said he is pushing to make the bank consultants’ reports be subject to a second review by an interagency group of regulators, which would examine the consultants’ work.

An OCC spokesman said the agency “may require changes” to the banks’ plans and said the agency aims to coordinate the banks’ plans with the efforts of other regulators.

-By Alan Zibel, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263;

45 Responses

  1. @john – your fly on the wall questions assumes it was all made up in a fancy meeting. i’m more and more convinced that they’re still making it up as they go along…

  2. Oh, crud – that’s why those assignments to the trust were done in blank.
    They sure try to get a lot of wiggle room whereever they can, and up against the most unwary, they get away with “it’s this way” one day and “that way” the next. If they’d put the trust or trustee’s name in there, it would have been a real assignment. Unbeknownst to the apparent idiot investor reps, they did not want to assign the dots away from MERS. Would mess up their plans to snarf homes thru MERS more than they might have been concerned with transfer taxes. And if the notes weren’t really true sales , which we are debating these days are we not, then they would have by the assignments of the dots to the trust/trustee done a number of things, including really separating the note and deed of trust.

    Since they also knew blank assignments are crap, they could pretend depending on which way the wind was blowing they didn’t exist. Then, ala the wiggle room they created for themselves, they could also argue as necessary the assignments were good.

    Wouldn’t you have liked to be a fly on the wall when they formulated all this

  3. I sure am getting confused here. I keep hearing that an abc did an assignment to xyz and then a week or so later did another one. NOT. An unrecorded assignment is valid between the parties to the assignment, so if abc already assigned to xyz, abc has nothing left to assign xyz in a second assignment.

    XYZ would have to assign back to abc and then abc could do the ‘second’
    assignment to xyz.
    It never ends.

  4. Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:41 AM


    Subject: Comments regarding RIN 2590-AA42

    I’m writing because my family and I were affected by the economic collapse of 2008,

    and we don’t want it to happen again.

    Wells Fargo has lied to homeowners and the public.

    Wells Fargo not only originated us a fraudulent mortgage based on hugely inflated

    appraisal, sold its fraudulent mortgage loan to a pool of investors, but also wrongfully

    foreclosed our home in 2010. Now, Wells Fargo went one step further by not only

    defrauding us, but also falsifying IRS 1099 form defrauding the nation, investors and the

    taxpayers based on its fraudulent mortgage loan which it no longer owns. Wells Fargo

    sold its fraudulent mortgage loan to a pool of investors shortly after it originated the

    fraudulent mortgage loan.

    We received the 2010 1099-A form from Wells Fargo. On the form, Wells Fargo listed

    Freddie Mac as our mortgage lender. After we verified with Freddie Mac, Freddie Mac

    confirmed in writing that our mortgage loan was not Freddie Mac’s mortgage loan.

    Couple of weeks after we confronted Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, Wells Fargo’s CFO

    and Freddie Mac’s COO both resigned just one day apart from each other. We highly

    suspect the resignations were triggered by irregularity of fillings.

    We are disputing that Wells Fargo originated us this fraudulent mortgage loan in 2005

    and wrongfully foreclosed our home in 2010. Please refer to our fight against Wells

    Fargo’s mortgage origination fraud, wrongful foreclosure and predatory lending

    practices at our website

    Wells Fargo can not lawfully originate fraudulent mortgage loan and wrongfully

    foreclose home based on the fraudulent mortgage loan in the State of Nevada under

    Nevada State Statute NRS 205.372.

    After we presented the written email from Freddie Mac confirming that Freddie Mac was

    not our mortgage lender.

    file:///O|/…ts%201220-1239/Incentive-Based%20Compen%20Arrangements%20(Dodd-Frank%20Joint)/Comments/547_Donna%20Vieira.txt[5/19/2011 7:40:10 PM]

    1. Wells Fargo first denied in its February 23 letter that it falsified the 1099-A form by

    listing Freddie Mac as our mortgage lender.

    In its February 23 letter, Wells Fargo clearly stated that it found no error on its 1099-

    A form by listing Freddie Mac as our mortgage lender knowing that Freddie Mac has

    confirmed to us that Freddie Mac doesn’t own our mortgage loan. Wells Fargo also

    clearly stated in this letter that after it originated us a “FRAUDULENT” mortgage loan,

    Wells Fargo sold our loan to a pool of investors which was managed by U.S. Bank.

    2. In its March 7 letter, Wells Fargo updated its 1099-A form by changing the mortgage

    lender from Freddie Mac to Wells Fargo. However, in the written letter on February 23,

    Wells Fargo has admitted that it sold our mortgage loan to a pool of investors which is

    managed by U.S. Bank.

    Since the mortgage loan Wells Fargo originated was fraudulent and it was already sold

    to a pool of investors, how can Wells Fargo defraud us by issuing the 2010 1099-A

    form, and also defrauding all the taxpayers by writing off the taxes.

    This is tax fraud upon us. This is tax fraud upon IRS and this is tax fraud upon


    Wells Fargo refused to disclose the list of investors who owns our mortgage loan. We

    demand Wells Fargo to disclose the list of investors. All the investors who own our

    mortgage loan have rights to know the fact that Wells Fargo sold them a fraudulent

    mortgage loan.

    Wells Fargo has repeated proven to us that it has built a business model based on

    fraud. Please help us to expose it and hold it accountable!

    Thank you very much.

  5. Guess I’m on my own rant. Here’s some more: underlying every foreclosure done in MERS’ name is a rule of MERS that said to f/c
    in MERS’ name, the stinking servicer was warranting to MERS that the servicer had possession of the note. Since the servicer had a stinking straw MERS’ officer on board, MERS decided that if the servicer had possession, this meant MERS had possession and was entitled to enforce the bearer note. And of course, that’s why they’re bearer notes: so MERS could claim possession, even tho they never said so.
    And we all know, but will prob never prove, the servicer never had the note to start with. This was MERS’ own tweaked idea of Article 3’s holder provisions: the servicer’s straw officer had possession, so MERS had possession (Article 3 ,according to Max Gardner etal, is not the bomb, anyway, but outside this deal).
    They never had to allege this possession. Nope, never had to. Sneaked up on us majorly and poof! House gone.
    Let’s leave the dot out of this for this deal, but just briefly, MERS we know alleged variously to be the nominee, agent, or beneficiary of the dot, so to MERS they were entitled to enforce the note and also had the dot. Well, actually, we can’t leave out the dot in this discussion, if you will, because possession of the note was needed by MERS to ‘skip’ an assignment of the dot to anyone else. (But, remember according to the psa’s, the assignment of the dot was already to have been done to the trust or the ultimate bs, in blank. All this agency cr– was just that – bs. They were really relying on MERS’ possession of a bearer note at the servier’s by their straw officer.

    And by the way, if a member alleged to have the note and didn’t, MERS fined them 1k for the first ‘infraction” and 5k for any
    subequent ‘infractions’. Beats the hell out of me how MERS would ever know one way or another, since it did absolutely zero diligence.
    The recitation in MERS’ rules for fines must have been a cya to make it appear MERS did some kind of diigence. But think of the audacity and or utter, supreme, unbelievable legal ignorance demonstrated by that. Who ARE those guys? To put it in writing if you make MERS turn out to not be a holder, you’re going to be fined?! You’re not gonna return the house you stole in MERS’ name, you’re gonna get a fine!
    This isn’t just malfeasance, it’s criminal – literally. Now if anyone thinks I’m nuts, I’ll be happy to refer you to MERS’ membership rules.

    But, back to the querry. The Koontz court just ruled, upon learning the assigment was executed by an employee of the bankster (aka straw MERS’ officer) and not by a MERS’ employee (which is the case with EVERY assignment or substitution of trustee EVER done in MERS’ name ftr), that the assignment was invalid and a sham.

    On that same right-on reasoning of the Koontz court, don’t you think that if courts knew (yeah, yeah but assuming they didn’t and I don’t think they did at all) of the scam ‘possession’ by MERS of the note as described above, the courts would rule it the same sham (or worse – fraud would be good) and find against possession by MERS? Because if so, this might be a path back to homes stolen by this collusion. Because, I need to make this clear if I may, while you will never prove the member – bankster didn’t have possession of the note, that’s not the question. The question is, did this constitute possession by MERS? We can be assured the Koontz court would say NO, and probably “go to jail and don’t pass go”.

  6. Yup, it’s the Wild, Wild West with millions of wild, wild deeds—yee-haa and yippeekayay.

  7. Ian, yes show us a substitute 1099. I’m surprised we’re not all stark-raving mad: substitute trustees appointed by who knows who, principals as agents of their alleged agents, agents of trustee’s agent, agent of principal’s nominee oh excuse me, nominee, agent, holder of note of unknown lender, principal, beneficiary, agent, nominee or robosignor of boogie man, boogie man appointed by the Shadow.

  8. Do you take it that Laurie M’s material is saying there was legislation in 2007, wherein the homeowner doesn’t have to claim the 1099 he got for alleged debt forgiveness? Does the material also appear to say the bankster can still expense that amount?! Say it aint so. I misunderstand, right?
    They got TARP (read TARP and TREASON) and bogus write-offs? No wonder we’re stinking broke. I guess they could totally legalize pot and rake in monster tax revenue. And how bout a little crack cocaine?I mean, hey, anything goes, right, when morality and law have already left the building? When just about everyhing said at this site is true.

    Well, whatever, I’d sure as heck like to know how any bankster is expensing anything. What? Is this “pass-through” write off? Oh, got that wrong. It must be “pass-BACK” write-off. There are two circumstances which might justify an expense, I think. And that’s 1) if the bankster always owned the note, that is, the trust did NOT or 2) if all those major jerkies are co-obligors on the notes – maybe. Can’t
    get thru that one tonight.

    There’s a reason that 2007 Act was passed and I just don’t believe it was largess. It’s more likely recognition the whole thing was and is cr–.
    You know, maybe we should just foreclose on each other, as someone suggested here once. We can fashion docs as well as anyone and by the time the banksters find out, we’ll stand on the same finality of our trustee’s deeds the buffoons do.

  9. Sorry- meant 1098s not 1099s

  10. JohnGault: you would assume that an entity is deducting the same amount as shown on a 1099. Some 1099s are “substitute” 1099s, not the standard IRS 1099. This leads me to believe that these deductions are either not being taken, or have already been taken by someone else. Legally or illegally, I am not sure. Probably illegally. If I can find a copy of one this week, I will post the details. Anyone who has been 1099d should call the IRS and check to see if anyone has filed a matching deduction with the IRS. Of course, the deduction may just be part of a larger “pool” of deductions, where the identity of individual 1099s can’t be discerned. Just kidding.

  11. RE: 1099
    ps i got my information concerning the 1099 of of the IRS web site. im by no means a lawyer and i by no means am giving legal advise.

  12. It looks to me like deficiency judgments are only available with judicial foreclosure and the bankster has to get one and I don’t know at what
    point this would give rise to a 1099. Maybe the 1099 is an election of remedies regarding the def judgment, as in the banster feels it will never collect on the judgment. Still, only the creditor who has suffered the alleged loss should have a right to issue a 1099.

  13. Well, here’s another one on those 1099’s. In order to issue a 1099, the amt of the 1099 has to be expensed by someone, right? For those who slept thru accounting, expensed means deducted against income, like if a business pays a janitor service, it’s expensed and is a deduction against income. I made 100, but wait! I had to pay the janitor 5, so I owe taxes on 95. The homeowner’s 1099 is creating a tax deduction for the bankster. I know – try to remain calm. In securitization, who the heck would that be, given that AT BEST a gazillion people own fractional interests in the note. Isnt’ it so that if a bankster issues a 1099, the bankster is conceding
    the investors don’t own the note? I guess the 1099 could be issued by an entity which did not even purport to securitize the note, unless a 1099 is not consistant with the foreclosure as an election of remedies.

  14. One more. If the bankster is laying a 1099 on a homeowner, than that
    bankster has expensed that amount, which tells me they’ve got nothing else to turn over to some debt collector – and- you won’t see a deficiency judgment. What an expense-free way to avoid the hassle of getting a deficiency judgment. But aren’t certain statutes / rules implicated here, including election of remedies? Wasn’t the foreclosure an election of remedies? May they also issue a 1099? And if a state prohibits deficiency judgments where foreclosure is involved, is a 1099 for the alleged deficiency really allowable?

    If 1099’s are really going out, this is going to change lives even more because you know when the tax man gets you, well, you know. So if anyone knows these answers, tell, tell because people are going to need to know them.

  15. Opinion,
    If they reveal the review process, those still trying to take homes or where homeowners have not paid but have not been foreclosed will find a surprise in that they’ll initiate the process and do everything that the review process ironed out as right and avoid everything it ironed out as wrong.

    Sometimes you have to know that it’s best to (keep your mouth shut) and ‘not allow’ things to be made public.

    There’s a remedy for both sides. Those foreclosed on, they will give us an audience. We can bypass the State AG’s who have no real estate experience and don’t know how to protect the property of their states from unlawful trespass, and we have the people who are in a bind because the banks squeezed the economy of liquidity and want to take more homes…they are safe under their roofs as long as these banks don’t know what is being revealed and what’s being focused on.

    Me, I prefer some bankers go to jail before anything in the review is made public.

    The public, in my opinion, do not have a clue. Their ideas come from t.v. and talking heads on their favorite news shows, and those companies and people are employed by the few who are elite enough to be behind this mess.

    The public, in my opinion, don’t know when something works toward their benefit or not and don’t believe anything unless they heard it somewhere else first.

    The public, in my opinion, don’t even know what’s right for them. Half signed the mortgage agreement and will admit they signed something they didn’t read and want someone else to fix what they’d created.

    In my opinion, the public needs to be protected from itself, and that’s another reason to not disclose the review information until it’s deemed proper to do so.

    Oh and in my opinion, someone in the public, don’t even know they are in the public, because they’ve never tried to go private and haven’t realize how hard it is to do that.

    That’s my two cents.
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, freeman, in jure proprio, jure divino

  16. If those 1099’s are going out, it would be grand if someone who understands them better would explain it here. What might need explaining is that the actual debt relief of say 100k is not actually ‘owed’ in one year, is that not so? A homeowner owes the debt relief at the amt realized each future year pursuant to the note? Or is that not so – have to claim it all in the year you got it? Yes, that must be it or they would have to issue 1099’s each year, right? Has anyone else received these sucker?

  17. @trespass unwanted: now that’s nasty, but interesting. I don’t know much about those 1099’s, but know a little. I take it the bankster is laying a 1099 on the homeowner for ‘debt relief”, which is the difference between what the bankster claims was realized on the sale of the home and what was allegedly owed. This means the homeowner has to report the amt on the 1099 as income. I didn’t know these 1099’s were going out.
    But if they are, then it might be an avenue for the most tenacious to dispute
    the banksters right to give you that 1099, as in are they the proper party?
    I would think the charges against the bankster could be amazing if the bankster is found to have wrongfully laid the 1099 on you because it was not entitled to.

  18. “The OCC is establishing a public-complaint process through which borrowers who contend they were harmed by banks’ foreclosure practices can have their complaints reviewed by an independent consultant.”

    I know nothing, and if I think I know something; I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    This (option) is better than filing for bankruptcy to keep what is already yours. This is better than paying for an attorney who is not strong enough in real estate law to show the fraud.

    We need to be people and not ‘persons’ who were defrauded by entities we didn’t have contracts with.

    When I go over everything done wrong, it’s amazing a judge would put their signature on the document and tell a sheriff to go move me out of what I’d paid for.

    * They were ‘not’ the lender of record.
    * There was no assignment.
    * They attempted to substitute the trustee.
    * The issued a Notice of Default stating they were trustee and designated a sale date, then created the fraud assignment of trustee naming the homeowner as the Grantor. You’d think a Grantor would have been there, creating the agreement to have a trustee over them.
    * The Notice of Default did not have the proper description of the property.
    * The Title Deed / Warranty Deed did not have the proper description of the property as per the Deed of Trust on file in the county.
    * The entity they stated they were foreclosing for, had not existed for over a year.
    * Two of three credit reports had the name of the company doing the foreclosure, when all three were disputed, all three came back as correct. Excuse me…one of the was none existent for over a year.
    *The records showing payment indicated they were paid starting in February of that year, but SEC filings showed they took over in November of that year, so how can you modify payments to indicate you were the recipient when you didn’t take over for the whole year, only for two months of that year.
    * I had to move into a smaller space which means I had to get rid of things I’d had in my home because I had already been dispossessed and didn’t have the money for multiple moves.
    * My credit was ruined with the fraud foreclosure on that record.
    * Emotional distress…having to pay rent and sign extended rental agreements to keep from being gauged by the apartment complex when the lease expired.
    * Receiving tw 1099A’s from the company that did the fraud foreclosure and from Fannie Mae, both claiming to be the creditor of the home, naming the homeowner as the borrower, and expecting the homeowner to file that as part of a tax return so they can be indemnified for their actions. Homeowner had no agreement with neither. Didn’t file a false claim of either being the creditor. NO money changed hands at the auction. The law firm placed the bid on the ‘pretender’s behalf. If it was truly conveyed to Fannie Mae, the pretender should not have sent out a 1099-A form trying to get the homeowner to state they ‘abandoned’ the property to a ‘pretend’ creditor.

    So much fraud. But I would never clear my account via no bankruptcy. That’s an even worse fraud then the other stuff. People think it only sits on their credit report for 10 years…that thing ruins you in more ways than one. That’s my opinion and I stick by it.

    Never a person, never an individual

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, freeman, in jure proprio, jure divino

  19. “The American government is going to look just like Greece and just like Ireland. They’re going to be told, ‘The states can’t pay, there’s no federal revenue to share with Minnesota or Wisconsin or the city of Chicago. They’re going to have to sell off their roads, sell off their streets, sell off their infrastructure, sell off their public utilities, sell off their business. The government will sell whatever it has, the Postal Service, to essentially buyers who will now borrow the money from the banks making a huge new market for banks and investment bankers, in privatizing and cutting up what used to be the public domain and turning it over to the wealthiest 10 percent of the economy. So people realize yes, the class war’s back in business. We’re going into a depression. We’ll buy back all these stocks after they go but meanwhile, the game’s over. Let’s grab what we can and just bail out. And that’s what’s happening now.”

    ” to essentially buyers who will now borrow the money from the banks making a huge new market for banks and investment bankers,”

  20. JohnGault:

    F”ix has two meanings. One is to handle a problem, like fix your leaking sink. The other
    “fix’ is to rig, like a sporting event or an election. That is the only ‘fix’ available to handle the f/c problem – to rig. Apparently the OCC would like the ‘fix’ to be more seamless. Whoa, thanks dudes. This is dishonest to ‘demand’ a fix which isn’t the kind where you fix a leak. ”

    Oh my god, you are correct. Everything in the Gov’t and/or Wall Street is a code. One has to always decipher the code. Double meaning of words.


  21. “There is a loss of credibility by the regulators–specifically by the OCC– that more disclosure would address,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D., N.C.) said in an interview this week. “We’re still at a stage where we have a hope of shaping [ the look-back process] to make it tough and appropriately independent.”

    THEN PASS MS. KAPTUR’S MORATORIUM HR 344. Stop the fraudlent foreclosures. Get us into repair-the-harms mode.

    DEMAND TRANSPARENCY. Black Letter Law. Sarbanes Oxely. FFTA. Glass Steagal. Dodd-Frank. Elizabeth Warren. The Congress. The Senate. What’s the sense of the ‘spirit of all these laws’ if they will not be allowed to apply in this instance of ‘the biggest fraud ever?’

    The Ugly American has the entire Global economy tied up. EVERYONE knows what went on here (or at least part of it) and still will not take action to clean up its mess leaving the perpetrators in charge? ‘They couldn’t foresee. They didn’t look. They didn’t know.’ Now that they do, what’s any different? Just keep pumping citizens into the shredder. Is that the best solution?

    The system is not working, the economy is not rebounding because someone’s thrown a crowbar into it. Don’t continue to feed us with ‘the best and the brightest ‘simply don’t know what to do.’

    This is a humiliation of the highest order. This country is Nation-building around the Globe?!? Come now.

  22. @ carie my thoughts exactly

  23. can anyone find out if before digitization the mortgage notes were recorded to prove ownership? when i went to the court house to look for assignments i ask the woman there why the notes are not recorded. she told they are never recorded. but i garantee she did not work there 10-15 years before when i think they were. if they were not recorded there has to be a reason. i hearing a buz that once the banks sell the mortgage in to securtization that the notes become null and void,, unless some is ignorant to the fact about the rules of securitization which is 99.9% of our country, judges, and lawyers. we need to get some information. i am sure it is hidden in uuc8 because as a mortgage note promissory it i sunder ucc3 when securitized it becomes ucc8. this is the answer we all need. where the note is makes no difference if the note was sold and is now null and void. they do not want this uncovered. it would be a mess for the tbtf banks. it is something kept very quiet. they going to court and fighting ownership that does not exist. example i was told there was an investor, so i go to court and welsl fargo presents the note that they own it. my lawyer would immediate ask for the assignments. in a case where iperson does not know about securtization and investors when wells fraudgo presents the note. the judge looks at it. and thats the end. you see whe are educating ourselves . is it fair that not everyone knows. no it is not fair to steal homes because someone does not know. sad times we are in keep fighting

  24. A little info on Genworth:

    In May of 2004, Genworth Financial was formed out of various insurance businesses of General Electric Company in the largest IPO of that year, topping the more publicized Google IPO of that same year.. Today, Genworth Financial has over $100 billion in assets and employs approximately 6,500 people with a presence in more than 25 countries.

    Now I am so wondering if Genworth is related to Genpact, the Bahama corp utilizing workers in India, which contracted with MERS to take over our land records.

  25. @usedkarguy, I’m not Harry of course, but until he responds, I’ll say I dont think requests for admissons may ‘go out’ with the summons.

    But here’s something everyone should make more use of in federal jurisdiction. Actions in state court may have a similar rule.

    Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    (a) Required Disclosures.
    (1) Initial Disclosures.

    (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:

    (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for

    (ii) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all
    documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

    (iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the
    disclosing party — who must also make available for inspection and
    copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and (iv) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment…………

    (C) Time for Initial Disclosures — In General. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order, or unless a party objects during the conference that initial disclosures are not appropriate in this action and states the objection in the proposed discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be made and must set the time for disclosure.

    (D) Time for Initial Disclosures — For Parties Served or Joined Later. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the Rule 26(f) conference must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order.

    (E) Basis for Initial Disclosure; Unacceptable Excuses. A party must
    make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s disclosures or because another party has not made its disclosures…….


    Wachovia Lobbyists Tried Influencing Bailout

    In the darkest days of the financial crisis, lobbyists for Wachovia frantically sought to influence the shape of the government bailout, according to emails obtained by the Charlotte Observer. The main priority was to ensure that the bank’s worst-performing loans would be included in the Treasury Department’s initial plan to buy distressed assets from the banks.

    Wachovia lobbyists wanted to add the word “loans” to the legislation’s original definition of such assets, likely broadening the pool to include the bank’s struggling adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio. The bank was sitting on a $120 billion portfolio of such mortgages, and getting rid of them would have enormously benefited its balance sheet.

    Conflicts Of Interest Taint Academic Research

    Conflicts of interest in the world of academic research have made headlines in recent years, particularly with drug studies conducted by doctors who have been paid by pharmaceutical companies or medical device companies.

    But such issues also arise among economists, as noted in the Oscar-winning documentary, “Inside Job.”

    In the most recent example, two professors at George Washington University released a research report last month that forcefully argued that the Federal Housing Administration should play a smaller role in insuring mortgages — without revealing that the paper was partially underwritten by private mortgage insurance company Genworth Financial, reports American Banker.

    Any pull-back in the trillion-dollar mortgage insurance market would naturally benefit private insurers like Gemworth. “FHA Assessment Report: The Role of the Federal Housing Administration in a Recovering U.S. Housing Market,” by Professor Robert Van Order, chair of the school’s Center for Real Estate and Urban Analysis there, and Professor Anthony Yezer, director of the university’s Center for Economic Research, states that the FHA could reduce its loan limits by 50% and still serve its core mission of helping low and moderate-income homebuyers.

    Yezer confirmed that Gemworth helped fund the report but said that that was the extent of their involvement.

    “I am not getting anything out of it, and Bob Van Order is not getting anything,” he told American Banker.

    Ferguson tells HuffPost via email that he’s not surprised by the allegations. “There has been lots of talk in academia, several universities and departments have announced new conflict of interest rules, in some cases meaningful (Stanford, the Wharton School), in most cases cosmetic,” he wrote. In addition, he noted that the American Economics Association formed a committee to study whether it should have ethics guidelines or standards, which it has never had in its history but it’s not clear where those efforts stand.

  27. tony, you’re an astute young man. the correlation between the debt limit and the bogus bond market is that they indeed need to “launder” the money. There can be no equity without extinguishment of debt. The creation of money by “Uncle Ben”continues as the banks write off the bad paper and pass it to the ex-middle class as a collection action.

    Harry, got a question: If service of summons (sounding in tort) allows 45 days to answer, and Request for Admissions is served with summons and the lawsuit, when would those admissions be required to be answered?

    ” When a party fails to respond to a request for an admission within thirty days of service, or within a shorter or longer time period set by the court, the matter is admitted. WIS. STAT. § 804.11(1)(b). A matter admitted is conclusively established unless the court permits withdrawal. WIS. STAT. § 804.11(2). A court’s authority to permit withdrawal is constrained by the following language found in § 804.11(2):

    The court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice the party in maintaining the action or defense on the merits.
    Thus, the statute provides that a court “may” permit withdrawal or amendment only if “the merits of the action will be subserved” and if the party who benefits from the admission “fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal . . . will prejudice” the benefiting party.”

  28. Time to stock up on Reynolds Wrap!

  29. @cubed2k – the banksters took the money and its out of circulation.

    The title of Mr. Garfield’s post is scary. “Fix” f/c problems? Fix has two meanings. One is to handle a problem, like fix your leaking sink. The other
    “fix’ is to rig, like a sporting event or an election. That is the only ‘fix’ available to handle the f/c problem – to rig. Apparently the OCC would like the ‘fix’ to be more seamless. Whoa, thanks dudes. This is dishonest to ‘demand’ a fix which isn’t the kind where you fix a leak. Some procedural cr–is gonna change that?

    To really fix it, MERS records would be made public, MERS and the banksters would hire thousands and thousands of out of work Americans to assist in returning our land stinking records where they belong – in the recorders’ offices. Many people would never see a claim made on their homes because there is no legit claim, a situation inherently denied in the
    OCC’s ‘demand for a plan’. UNless the OCC’s idea of a plan is for the banksters to out-of-the-gate meet evidentiary standards for their alleged claims and clearly define those, leaving no room for debate, such as the NV SC court just ruled.
    Is it such a devestating thought to tthe OCC etal that the beneficiaries of this ‘fix’ would be the middle class homeowners, the backbone of our economy? I mean, the other team got away with every crime and theft in the world for how many years now? Who got the ‘free’ homes all this time?It’s time for the pendulum to swing this way. I’d say conservatively we’ve got a good five years coming.

  30. Maybe Neil is only interested in himself. He just deleted something I wrote as to how to use the OCC Consent Decree in arguments for your own benefit.

    Of course, I also mentioned that I had a OCC Compliant Foreclosure exam ready to go.

    People, the bottom line that you need to know is that he is only interested in selling his own products. He doesn’t care that many arguments that he proposes are not going anywhere in the courts. He just wants his own business.

    Otherwise, he would not have deleted a helpful post for all of you on how to use the OCC Decree to your benefit.

    Ask him why he deleted my post, before he deletes this one.

  31. To All you Neil Garfield Player Haters. I pray that Neil Garfield becomes a Multi Billionaire from this website and that he does what ever he wants from now on.

    Billions of Dollars Okay $100’s of million

    G-d Bless Neil his family and his crew.

    And all the people who are on this blog.

  32. Florida Fraduclosure Investigations: A Snuff Film
    July 15th, 2011 ·
    For an instant, a brief moment in time, Floridians and consumers across this country had public officials and fighters who were standing up to the banks and institutions and fighting for the good of the American people. But all of that has changed now. The fighters are getting snuffed out, one by one.
    The most dramatic example is firing of two attorneys who worked for Florida’s Attorney General, Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson. No one knows just how far their investigations took them, but what we do know is they had issued countless subpoenas to the foreclosure mills, the process servers and other companies and parties that are responsible for Fraudclosure. Who knows just how much information they had collected, how many crimes were documented? What we do know is that these investigations did not sit well with the people that are now in power in this state. In the wake of the disclosures of wrongdoing, one Senator (Joe Negron-R) had the gall and audacity to suggest that “foreclosure mill” was not a bad term at all, it merely meant that the law firm was fast and efficient.

    Well all of that is done now, I’m sure the investigations are dead. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer dollars are wasted now because these promising investigations were just snuffed out? These attorneys and fighters, shown to the door? But the facts and the information they uncovered cannot hide forever. If you’re in the Broward County area, and you’re in foreclosure, you should hire these two attorneys to fight for you….they know where the skeletons are buried. As for Florida’s Attorney General, I just hope voters have a decent memory and that this whole stinking episode becomes a big nail in the coffin of her young political career….from the Washington Post:

    Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson had headed up investigations on behalf of the Florida attorney general’s office for more than a year into the fraudulent foreclosure practices that had become rampant in the Sunshine State. They issued subpoenas and conducted scores of interviews, building a litany of cases that documented the most egregious abuses.

    That is, until the Friday afternoon in May when they were called into a supervisor’s office and forced to resign abruptly and without explanation.

    “It just came out of nowhere,” said Edwards, who had worked in the attorney general’s economic crimes section for more than three years. “We were completely stunned.”

    Less than a month before they were forced out, a supervisor cited their work as “instrumental in triggering a nationwide review of such practices.” Now, Edwards is convinced their sudden dismissals will have “a chilling effect” on those probes into the shoddy foreclosure practices that caused national outrage when they made headlines last fall.


  33. People,

    In April, when the OCC Consent Decree came out, I reviewed it extensively, and the Foreclosure Review findings previously done by the OCC.

    I adapted my foreclosure exam to meet and exceed ALL the guidelines of the OCC Decree. Then, I contacted the OCC personally to see what it took to be one of the firms that would conduct the review.

    The OCC explained that each lender had the discretion to hire the firm of their choice, so I immediately knew that the whitewash would be in. Even then, I contacted the lenders and servicers about my exam, and was told that the firms had been selected. So, that was dead.

    In the Decree, the lenders do not have to reveal their findings to anyone but the OCC. The OCC will not publish findings.

    Only a sampling of foreclosures will be conducted, not every foreclosure as the article suggests. Those foreclosures sampled will be kept secret, and the homeowners not notified of what is found.

    The program for concerned homeowners being established by the OCC means little. It is left up to the lenders to review complaints.

    Now, the important news. How to fight this.

    1. You need a competent attorney.

    2. You need a Foreclosure Exam, compliant with the OCC Decree.

    3. You use the Exam and the Decree to allege wrongful foreclosure.

    Now, there are critical things in the Decree that you must be aware of.

    1. Nebulous arguments are not going to work. You need to be able to argue your points, with proof to back them up, and to meet a heightened pleading standard.

    2. The Consent Decree identifies that MERS is an agent for lenders. So attempting to argue MERS will be extremely difficult, unless you understand your state laws. Even then, thanks to the OCC, there may be a claim of Federal Preemption, but in some states, the MERS issue may be valid.

    (There are other issues, but I am not going to educate firms claiming to do exams that don’t have a clue how to interpret this stuff.)

    Know this.

    The lenders have arguments that they will present as to why your arguments are not valid. Your attorney and examiner need to know what these arguments are ahead of time, and how to write the complaint so as to avoid these arguments.

    You cannot do this Pro Se. An attorney is needed. Period.

    Damages must be specifically alleged. If you go in and cannot be specific, then your lawsuit will be greatly reduced in effectiveness.

    Don’t go in thinking that you are going to get the home for free. You are looking for loan modification, and nothing else. Anything else will be ineffective.

    Now, at least you have an idea how to use the Decree to your advantage.

    One final thing.

    Most attorneys go in without a clue as to what modification terms to seek. Therefore, they let the lender control any argument regarding such terms. This gives the lender all the control in the outcome. Don’t do this.

    FYI, I have developed and have filed for patent a new product. It evaluates quantitatively the Default Risk of a loan. It is used for both approving new loans, and for determining Risk Default of Modified loans. At this time, two banks are involved with the product, and a major bank is considering it. Meetings are being held again this coming week about it. (No one else has such a product. In fact, the GSE’s said that it was too difficult to develop.)

    The Modification version allows for determining the terms that will lower Default Risk on modified loans. Presenting this, in context with modification requests, or with bankruptcy proceedings offers a powerful and logical reason for modification, as long as it is NPV positive.

  34. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  35. The other news of the day, for those who believe that the capture of our government is simply tin foil hat theory, is the fact that the GOP led appropriations committee is preparing to cut the SEC’s budget by a quarter billion dollars, even though the banks pay for ther SEC’s budget….go figure. This means a HUGE savings to the criminals on Wall Street as well as this from the SEC on the ramifications:

    An S.E.C. memo on the committee’s proposed budget warns: “We may be forced to decline to prosecute certain persons who violate the law; settle cases on terms we might otherwise not prefer; name fewer defendants in a given action; restrict the types of investigative techniques employed; or conclude investigations earlier than we otherwise would.”

    More “Get Out Of Jail Free” passes for Wall Street, as well as more Monopoly money passed around amongst the elite. You have to hand it to them, they’ve constructed an extremely well oiled machine that churns out product 24/7/365. So what if it steamrolls the citizenry? That concerns them how?

  36. What a pile of steaming hot s*it!!!!!!!! I read the “article”, and i notice two things that had happened in to the past whenever i read bulls*it like this happened again:

    1.- almost threw up
    2.- Secrecy from the bank’s azz kissers, why keep anything in secrecy, publish everything!!!!

  37. Have to say Neil, a bit disappointed with the headline. “is getting real” Aw, come on! You of ALL people know what a sham this all is!


    “The administration is not expected to nominate Elizabeth Warren, the popular consumer advocate who has been helping set up the agency as a special adviser to President Barack Obama, these people said.”

    Why? Well, she’s just TOO damn HONEST! We simply CAN’T have total transparency and honesty ANYWHERE in government and the banks…NEVER! It just isn’t done…just think what would happen! Mayhem! Chaos! The horror of absolute truth and honesty is unfathomable…We MUST keep the “sheeple” ASLEEP…at ALL costs. We must nominate someone who will pretend to do a good job, and then dissolve the Bureau…why, the name alone makes one shudder: “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”…Protect consumers from financial fraud??? NO NO! It can’t happen!!! It mustn’t!!!! The foreclosures, suicides, murders, depression and despair MUST continue—NO MATTER WHAT!!!

  39. All the actions by the OCC, much like Mers, are hidden behind a veil that only the key players can pierce, which gives it the appearance from an outsiders perspective as a regulator regulating. In both cases, the view behind the curtain reveals knaves attending their lords and masters of industry.

    One day the citizenry will awaken from their mass slumber, wipe their collective eyes and grasp the realization that there’s simply nothing left inside the beltway even slightly resembling our former republic. The capture was complete, carried out with grand precision. We now work for them. We serve at the pleasure of Corporate America.

    Don’t believe it? Still buy into the two party shit? Naivete! Consider this….it would be damned near globally impossible to find anyone more capable than Elizabeth Warren to head the agency she near single handedly developed, the CFPB. But what’s that you say? Obama has decided against this able bodied servant of the people to head this group who has vowed to protect us sheep from the abusive practices of the credit card and banking cartel?

    Instead, it’s rumored that the choice will be Raj Date, a former McKinsey staffer and banking industry executive (Capital One and Deutsche Bank) whose name was floated a month ago. This can’t be right, can it?

    This must be a typo, no? Could it be that Obama would even consider appointing a credit card company executive to rule over the agency designed to keep credit card companies in check?

    Obama….what’s in his wallet? Well, so far $46 million dollars in financial industry donations….it would appear that our next president has been chosen for us already. How convenient. Saves us the trouble of voting.

    Sleep peacefully folks. Just as Rip Van Winkle awoke to profound changes in his surroundings, so too will our collective absence of mind and lack of determination be to our detriment as well as our continued unraveling.

    Only through the realization that we’ve been had, that the very same entities that took over and own our governments also own the very same financial institutions that are acting with total disdain for the masses will we be able to understand that the austerity being shoveled out globally is nothing more than a servitude arraingement. Sign the dotted line and get back to work people. As the American Express slogan says, “Long live dreams.”

  40. Important Question: When did ‘CONGRESS’ issue new charter to OCC to incorporate adjudication of alleged unlawful business acts to Office of Comptroller of Currency?

    Same ‘Shit’ different day

  41. This is like asking the fox to guard the chicken house. The OCC is bought and paid for. The government was behind the entire scheme, and they only arrest the small people to take the occasional fall.
    This whole development in Valencia is contaminated with bad titles in a huge Straw Man scame and hidden deeds of trust that the Country has conspired to hide with the Developer, Hovnanian -I allege.
    $10.00 grant deeds. forged spousal releases.
    pervasive apparent fraud, but no ARRESTS!

    I have the complete Journal of Donna K. Escamillo which has over 25 names repeated in a massive “Straw man” Scam, I allege. Will they arrest her? No, because on her “notary Bond” it’s stamped FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY. The only one stamped like this (across the entire front out) of at least 100 I have seen. We are dammed. Hope you are enjoy Communism folks!

  42. This is what they are doing. They have bought the notes in the open market for pennies on the dollar and are going after the debt even if the homeowner has been foreclosed on.

    They reveal the name of the Trust to each customer AND EACH CUSTOMER HAS 30 DAYS TO DISPUTE THIS DEBT.

    I know so many people that have received this type of letter from BAC who transferred the debt to BOA. They did not even read that you have to dispute in 30 days or you have validated this debt.

    These maga Banks can even go after a judgement or garnish wages if you do not dispute this debt.

    They can do this even after someone took your home in foreclosure.

    I think this is the mega banks new stratagy and it not pretty.

    I have seen so many of these letters. They came out from Bank of America on July 4, 2011 Please read it and dispute it.

    I wish Neil would post a copy of these letters and go over what is happening and what we can do. I think this could be worse than anything we have experienced so far.

  43. totally agreed Tony.

    How come no body asks where money comes from? They keep saying the gov’t credit card is at it’s limit? How come nobody in the media asks any of these questions.

    One listens to the spin of both parties and one goes into a spin. It’s all BS.

    If the debt limit is raised year after year, or every several years, whatever – how come the middle class is nowhere? Where is the so called money? Who has it?

    they say the financial crisis of 2008, well – that’s all they say. they never say how it really came about.

    I don’t know, if you are driving a car and all of the sudden you get a flat tire, why you fix it. You don’t change the oil, or add windshield washer fluid. But that is what the gov’t, both parties do. They don’t fix anything. I wonder why?

  44. Truthfully this article means nothing, must be slow news. The real news should be talking about is why the banks and everyone else are crying about raising the debt ceiling. The true reason behind this is that when more and more people defeat the banks the so called debt can not be used. Thus it was like the so called promissory note was never monetized. Hence the reason the bank make these deals off balance sheets deals.

    Meaning that there is hyper-inflation, that prices for products goes up, and the dollar or FRN is worth less. Now bankers are trying to get our congress to pay all this so called debts. The american public need to tell there congressmen to not raise the debt ceiling. Let the USA do a so called default. If anyone wants to get deeper into this we can.

  45. This is not just a bank problem it is an attorney and court problem. Any bank or competent attorney knows full well the documentation required to foreclose on any given piece of property. They themselves are skirting the law and are complicit in this situation and should be sanctioned too. Also, the judicial officials are far too favorable to the banks and are not well informed about procedure and legality concerning these issues and homeowners are being systematically robbed of their rights, under the law. Then try to find an attorney to help. That is expensive and most of the time useless, as you spend thousands you do not have and the result is the same. The entire set-up needs to be evaluated and the offenders need to be punished, whomever they may be.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: