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


Lots of people have discussed RICO as a basis for suing on a private right to damages resulting from all the fraudulent acts committed by the entire string of “securitization” participants. The focus of such a lawsuit should be, in my opinion, mail fraud and wire fraud, which is exactly what happened. If the loan, collection or foreclosure included fraudulent affidavits, or other forged or fabricated documents designed to deprive one or more persons of money or property or even valuable rights, then there is BOTH criminal and civil liability for MAIL FRAUD and WIRE FRAUD under RICO. Many states have similar statutes of their own with private right of action affirmed by the Supreme Court of that state, like North Carolina.

These treble damage rights exist and are far easier to prove than many lawyers would have you believe.

“while the RICO plaintiff may need to show “that someone relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations” in order to satisfy the causation element of a civil RICO claim, under appropriate facts “third-party reliance” can suffice for that purpose.  Bridge reconfirmed the need to show a proximate causal link between the alleged mail fraud and the plaintiff’s claimed injuries but rejected the suggestion that this requirement could only be met by showing that the plaintiff had relied on fraudulent misrepresentations in the underlying mailing.” — Robert A Schwinger — see Schwinger NYLJ RICO-WIRE FRAUD-MAILFRAUD DAMAGES TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS

EDITOR’S NOTE: This has always been a powerful remedy on which the government and some lawyers have relied to achieve justice by scam artists who think they are one step ahead of the law — like the pretender lenders. If you look at the delivery of documents and movement of money, you will see that the pretenders faked the identity of the lender, faked the terms of the loans, and then filed false documents for the purpose of stealing a home in a fake foreclosure.

In Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., the Supreme Court of the Untied States concluded, “a person can be injured ‘by reason of’ a pattern of mail fraud even if he has not relied on any misrepresentations.” It cited the allegations of Bridge as a “a case in point,” holding that under those alleged facts “respondents clearly were injured by petitioners’ scheme.”

It appears as though you can even claim bank fraud and then get your own damages, if you prove the damages, which should not be too difficult.

For example, the satisfaction of mortgage. In the case of securitized claims on mortgages in which the transfers never occurred, the title has been clouded and the original mortgage, if it ever actually was perfected. The loan was allegedly subject to a satisfaction of mortgage or reconveyance executed by (a) an unauthorized and disinterested party who received the payoff amount even though they had no claim to it and (b) based upon false representations, affidavits and claims as we discussed ad nauseum on the pages of this blog. By my count there were at least 60 million such transactions on refinancing of the property or re-sale.

Because the definitions are broad under these Federal Statutes, getting behind the corporate veils and levels of plausible denial is easier under these rights of action. And because the the accompanying risk of criminal prosecution, you might find more people stepping forward to protect themselves and “Spill the beans.” Perhaps a few private actions under RICO for WIRE FRAUD and MAIL FRAUD might prompt the Department of Justice to get off its backside and bring claims against the entire chain of securitization participants.

There are actually attorneys who specialize in this area of the law. Bringing them up to speed on the whole fact pattern here will give them a Greek diner’s menu of dozens of points in the mortgage origination process, the mortgage funding process, and the foreclosure process in which mail fraud and wire fraud were committed. There is also the possibility of gaining an injunction because the fraud is on-going.

Since most states have their own version of RICO, you have the possibility of keeping the action in state court or at your election going into Federal court. The actions can be brought in adversarial proceedings in bankruptcy, and potentially a counterclaim in unlawful detainer and eviction, depending upon state law.

Try it — you’ll like it.

Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63

Mail fraud is an offense under United States federal law, which includes any scheme that attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offense. Mail fraud is covered by Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63. As in the case of wire fraud, this statute is often used as a basis for a separate federal prosecution of what would otherwise have been only a violation of a state law. “Mail fraud” is a term of art referring to a specific statutory crime in the United States of America. In countries with nonfederal legal systems the concept of mail fraud is irrelevant: the activities are likely to be crimes there, but the fact that they are carried out by mail makes no difference as to which authority may prosecute or as to the penalties which may be imposed. In the 1960s and ’70s, inspectors under regional chief postal inspectors such as Martin McGee, known as “Mr. Mail Fraud,” exposed and prosecuted numerous swindles involving land sales, phony advertising practices, insurance ripoffs and fraudulent charitable organizations using mail fraud charges. — Wikipedia

18 U.S.C. 1341: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

§ 1342. Fictitious name or address

Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

§ 1344. Bank fraud

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Chapters 1-10

  • Chapter 1: General Provisions
This chapter consists of General Provisions. §1 is repealed. §2 defines principals. §3 defines and provides punishment for accessory after the fact, while §4 defines and provides punishment for misprision of felony. §5 defines “United States,” §6 defines “department” and “agency,” §7 defines “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” §8 defines “obligation or other security of the United States,” §9 defines “vessel of the United States,” §10 defines “interstate commerce” and “foreign commerce,” §11 defines foreign government, and §12 defines “United States Postal Service.” §13 deals with laws of states adopted for areas within federal jurisdiction. §14 is repealed. §15 defines “obligation or other security of foreign government” and §16 defines “Crime of violence.”
§17 deals with the insanity defense, defining it as “an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts,” that “mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense,” and that “the defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
§18 defines “organization,” §19 defines “petty offense,” §20 defines “financial institution,” §21 defines “stolen or counterfeit nature of property for certain crimes,” § 23.1 defines “court of the United States.” §24 provides “definitions relating to Federal health care offense.” §25 deals with the “use of minors in crimes of violence.”
The crime of wire fraud is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Wire fraud, in the United States Code, is any criminally fraudulent activity that has been determined to have involved electronic communications of any kind, at any phase of the event. The involvement of electronic communications adds to the severity of the penalty, so that it is greater than the penalty for fraud that is otherwise identical except for the non-involvement of electronic communications. As in the case of mail fraud, the federal statute is often used as a basis for a separate, federal prosecution of what would otherwise have been a violation only of a state law.

The crime of wire fraud is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and reads as follows:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

In the case of United States v. LaMacchia (1994; text of opinion), a student of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was charged with wire fraud when, because he had not profitted personally from online distribution of millions of dollars’ worth of illegally copied software, he could not be charged with criminal copyright infringement. The United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, dismissed the charges, noting they were an attempt to find a broad federal crime where the more narrowly defined one had not occurred. Congress then amended the copyright law to limit further use of this loophole.

According to Neder v. United States (527 U.S. 1, 23, decided in 1999), the alleged misrepresentation to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 must be a material misrepresentation; a misrepresentation is material if it is capable of influencing, or has a “natural tendency” of influencing.

To commit wire fraud, one must (1) devise, or intend to devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud another person on the basis of a material representation, and (2) do it with the intent to defraud, and (3) do it through the use of interstate wire facilities (i.e. telecommunications of any kind).

See 8th Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, 242 & 250.

If a fourth element—that the alleged victim is a financial institution—also is present, the penalty is enhanced as provided in the statute.

31 Responses

    2007 hmmm – Wells Fargo accused reported here on LL as reported in the bankingwhistleblower .

    Wells Fargo discrimination case Alaska Deaf – hard of hearing’…
    Wells Fargo illegal immigration ALIPAC…
    NAACP accuses banks of racism over home loans (settlement)
    Wells Fargo Gender discrimination

    Wells Fargo ‘whistleblowers’ gets more interesting

    “…subprime lending discrimination suit in California to be classified as a class action.

    According to Cappello, Wells Fargo introduced a program in 2002 called “Loan Economics,” which gave loan officers the authority to offer discounts to loan applicants. The savings on lower fees and interest rates could be significant, ranging from $500 to as much as $10,000 per loan. The suit claims that the Los Angeles area Wells Fargo manager refused to allow loan officers operating in certain minority neighborhoods to offer the program. Borrowers in predominantly white neighborhoods were given access to the software.

    Cappello said the suit stemmed from complaints by black and Hispanic loan officers for Wells Fargo, who said they asked to use the software in their branches but upper management refused.”

    “…More lawsuits are expected in the near future over the treatment of Hispanic borrowers in Arizona and Texas, who were offered high-cost loans they didn’t understand at misleadingly low teaser rates, then refinanced into even more expensive loans than their initial mortgages, Cappello said.

    Wells Fargo, the nation’s largest home lender, also has been a target of lawsuits elsewhere. Last month, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued the lender, alleging that blacks and Hispanics were sold high-cost subprime loans more frequently than white borrowers with similar incomes. The suit contended loan officers were offered incentives by the bank to steer borrowers into the more expensive loans, and that white borrowers generally received the lower-cost prime mortgages.

    Some borrowers thought they were getting prime loans from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, the suit also charged. But their loans actually came from Wells Fargo Financial, the bank’s subprime unit.”

    What’s the ‘status’ of the Class Action Law Suit where the employees in CA who are hispanic and black were denied selling ‘all’ consumers the loan discount program?

    Article in the Washington Independnet Nationsl New in Context
    Class Action Suit Accuses Wells Fargo of Discrimination by Neighborhood

  2. 45994599rh, BEWARE the mass joinder is problematic and not providing you what you expect! They are looking to take properties by ‘bank’ and secure a modification for you and limit sanctions to be imposed against the bank. I know of party who was lied to about what the mass joinder would and would not protect and ‘everything’ was included and the brief is lackluster. PLUS they won’t let you ‘see’ the brief until after 30 days pass when your credit card payment clears and you won’t be able to get a refund.



  4. Carie.

    from your link below:

    “”I would never want to go into a negotiation without solid evidence of actual misconduct to hold as leverage over my counterpart,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was crafted to bail out teetering banks. “It would also be very dangerous from a public policy perspective to waive all future claims as part of such a settlement if you do not have a good sense of the size, scope and severity of the underlying misconduct.”

    ——–underlying misconduct———-

    misconduct my ass

    You mean FRAUD – Mr. Neil M Barf – on-me – sky

    these Government people just won’t say the F word – fraud, fraud, fraud

  5. “It’s all about their budgets,” Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said last week about the state attorneys general and their settlement talks with the banks while rubbing his thumb against his fingers.”


  6. Let’s hope Schneiderman is a pit bull…

    “If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever,” Adam J. Levitin, a bankruptcy expert and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said at a House panel last November. Levitin said the problem could “cloud title to nearly every property in the United States” and could lead to trillions of dollars in losses…
    “While several investigations remain ongoing at the state and federal level, no agency has systematically examined loan-level documents to ensure the creation of mortgage securities complied with state laws or to examine the scope of sloppy paperwork in foreclosure proceedings, like the so-called “robo-signing” fiasco…

    “In essence, banks may be unable to prove that they own the mortgage loans they claim to own,” the panel said.

    “The review “calls into question the securitization of these loans,” Field wrote. She added that the findings also raise questions over the right of investors to foreclose on the borrowers who defaulted on their loans since the mortgage securities may be invalid.”

  7. “”Elizabeth “” you are correct, but that is in California Federal Bankruptcy court. This decision was the State Appellate Court! Foreclosures are under state court rule. Granted on a case by case basis Bankruptcy court can do anything they want. Crazy place California!

  8. So about two weeks after I filed the action, I get a letter from the bond insurer. I intend to mention to the judge that these people are indeed one of my “John Doe” defendants relating to the quiet title issue. However, they were also defrauded by the originator/depositor/sponsor/servicer Wells, and also stand to suffer a loss caused by the action of Wells. Wouldn’t this be a good reason to seek “re-alignment of parties”? Throw the defendants a little curve ball?


    and I now know they follow my blog comments. don’t care.

  9. The FTC, Federal Trade Commission routinely goes after business for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

    What the Banks were doing was both unfair and deceptive.

    The FTC has within its arsenal of enforcement actions in incredible array of nuclear options.

    One would be to force the banks to disgorge of 100% of their profits…Sometimes the FTC goes way futher and forces the disgorgement of 100% of GROSS revenues to be collected and paid in consumer redress.

    These actions are quite routinely taken by the FTC and they have a battalion of smart Attorneys.

    Why can’t a joint Private / Gov’t partnership be forged with great foreclosure defense Attorney’s and the FTC?

    There are many, many mechanisms that the FTC can use to bring sanity to a bunch of criminals.

  10. Indeed…and so we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…I hope.

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

  12. famous quote:

    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” –
    — Thomas Jefferson

    eternal – having infinite duration

    vigilance – the ability to maintain attention and alertness over prolonged periods of time

    The price of freedom is constant alertness.

    Read those words in all you read and look them up in a dictionary, please, as many words have double and opposite meaning as for sure in financial and legal words. Done on purpose to confuse. Don’t you think?

  13. MERS is not law in Calf. a bankruptcy court in California subsequently rejected Gomes entirely, holding that MERS transfers just do not work. In re Salazar (Bankr SD Cal, Apr. 12, 2011, No. 10–17456-MM13) 2011 Bankr Lexis 1187. (This decision appeared as we were finalizing this article, making it impossible for us to perfectly integrate all of its holdings and compelling this rather separate, serial treatment of it.)

    In re Salazar

  14. Isabel – Keep fighting the good fight! And keep us all posted on your progress!

  15. Looks like MERS foreclosures were legalized in California after the Appellate court decision. ie.

    In February, the Fourth District court of appeal handed down its decision in Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 CA4th 1149, 121 CR3d 819 (reported at 34 CEB RPLR 66 (Mar. 2011)echanism of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) transfers, thereby implicitly validating the secondary market process by which MERS operates in California and throughout the rest of the country.

  16. From everything I have read and heard, RICO lawsuits are difficult to prosecute and win. However, I have to agree that the pretender/lenders are a racketeer-influenced corrupt organization. However, in my humble opinion, we have a better chance with BofA going bankrupt than getting nailed for RICO as much as I would love to see it. The system is rigged, and there are few AG’s and lawyers willing to fight, because (unfortunately) they make more money defending the stinkin’ banks. The preceding statement does not mean that you should not fight, because one lawsuit at a time is going to win it.

  17. The bottom line is—everyone and their mother is getting “settlements” except the homeowners that “signed on the dotted line”…of fraudulent documents. Where is OUR settlement??? We don’t count, and “they” don’t friggin’ care.
    Give me a NEW contract that says: “We’re sorry we screwed you and America over—you keep your house free and clear—and don’t sue us for all the money we fraudulently and illegally billed you for…”

    And I’d have to think about it…

  18. BOMSHELL – Lender Processing Services’ DOCX Document Fabrication Price Sheet
    …. You wanted concrete proof of widespread lost mortgage documentation?

    Feast your eyes upon this.

    And apparently there is inflation within the foreclosure fabrication circles. Prices to replace missing documents keep going up…;-)…..

  19. Isabel, your site is one I will be spending some time on. I look forward to the day when lawsuits are available in printed form, for john doe to fill in the blanks, like divorces are done today. The majority of homeowners can’t afford attorneys and there must be a solution. I am sure someone out there can come up with a package of some sort to help these people represent themselves. Every lawsuit is unique and I understand that, but so is every divorce. There are so many avenues to fight these illegal f/cs and we need kits. When the courts get inundated with people fighting for their homes using the knowledge you have we will start to see this turn around. The lawyers that ‘get it’ are being ganged up on by the banks and their Bar but how can they stop millions of homeowners fighting pro se. I can envision an attorney in the background counseling if need be for a small fee.

  20. I wish I knew how to post the patent so you all can see it page for page I want the judge to tell me how this law firm who admitted that the documents don’t exist can thereinafter file an Intellectual patent that invents mortgage foreclose documents, one thing about the patent is that if you read all the arguments in complaints against law firms they are all the same just as in the patent I got to get this patent up sp you guys can see it I wish Neil had posted this information yesterday because I would have added to my lawsuit I am challenging the patent the law firm and that MERS is the RICO Enterprise they use to do their dirty work

  21. Actually Philip Kramer with the Mass Joinder lawsuits was referenced on this site by Neil Garfield on December 16th, 2010.

    Neil’s words were “EDITOR’S NOTE: I DON’T KNOW THIS GUY, but then again, there are a lot of lawyers who have entered this field that I don’t know. I like what I heard in the interview because THIS GUY understands that the real action is at the level of the investment banker and that the borrower’s right to claim damages is NOT limited to the now bankrupt loan originators. He’s not buying into the appearance of “bankruptcy-remote” entities and he’s saying that he is winning cases.”

    I trust Neil so I am getting this guy to help me. I have added two of my homes that the banks are trying to foreclose on to his lawsuits and as I can afford to add the rest I will.

  22. Document Conversion
    209. We rely on our proprietary case management software systems, “document conversion” and review systems, web sites and online networks, and a disruption, failure or security compromise of these systems may disrupt our business, damage our reputation and adversely affect our revenues and profitability.
    210. Our proprietary case management software systems are critical to our mortgage default processing service business because they enable us to efficiently and timely service a large number of foreclosure, bankruptcy, eviction and, to a lesser extent, litigation and other mortgage default related case files.
    211. Our litigation support services businesses rely upon our proprietary document conversion and review systems that facilitate our efficient processing of appellate briefs, records and appendices and document reviews. Similarly, we rely on our web sites and email notification systems to provide timely, relevant and dependable business information to our customers. Read more:

  23. And then on or about April 8, 2008, the Defendant law offices of Barrett, Burke, Wilson, Castle, Daffin, & Frappier LLP., with inventors William H. Compton and Charles R. Hang thru their Attorney’s Garder, Wynne, Sewell LLP applied to the United State Patent Office for a provisional patent application # 11/458,762.

    the patent is all about creating mortgage foreclosure documents so your saying your Honor they can foreclose based on someone idea? created from the invention of a patent for which they make billions.

    here is what dolan Company says:

  24. Your Honor can you please tell me how at the Texas Task Force Meeting on Judicial Foreclosure Rules on November 7, 2007 hearing Attorney Michael Barrett of law firm of Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel LLP testified as the validity of mortgage documents. On page 27, lines 6-22, of the deposition taken of Attorney Barrett he testified that;
    “There really isn’t such a document” during the discussion about verification of application documents. On page 27, Lines 10-20, Attorney Barrett continued to state; “because the servicer usually acquired their position in the file through the purchase of MSRs. There is an organized market in MSRs that really makes up maybe as much as 40 to 50 percent of any mortgage company’s assets, and they acquired this — their status of being a servicer through the purchase of an MSR most of the time, or they did it themselves, they created their own loan So finding a document that says, “I am the owner and holder, and I hereby grant to the servicer the right to for,eclose in my name” is an impossibility in 90 percent of the cases.”

  25. fROM:
    New Homeowner Scam: Mortgage Securitization Audits

    Con artists who prey on people who are already in financial hot water deserve their own circle of hell. The latest sighting comes via April Charney: “mortgage securitization audits” which charge thousands of dollars for dumping public information into binders. From Brian Canupp’s website:

    While millions of Americans are in the middle of the foreclosure storm a cottage industry of companies and individuals providing Mortgage Audits are now attempting to capitalize on the fear and desperation gripping many homeowners….

    In the last 6 weeks I have met with three families that had paid up to $2,100.00 for an audit. All three of these “audits” were three ring binders filled with documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission Home page and articles from the newspaper detailing successful mortgage defense decisions. These products are problematic for a number of reasons:

    The documents from the SEC are free and available to the public.
    The newspaper stories, while informative, cannot be used as precedent to a judge.
    The analysis does nothing to breakdown what has happened with your payments after they were received by the Mortgage Company.
    The “expert” who is rendering the opinion would never be accepted by a court to testify in an expert capacity.
    The analytical process supporting the audit conclusion is flawed and that leads to an impossible opinion.
    None of the analysis brought to me by clients have included a review of the money paid by the homeowner.

  26. Class Action lawsuits wont cut it. Dylan Ratigan wont cut it. Matt Weidner wont cut it. With all due respect and admiration.


  27. The lessons learned from the Casey Anthony Case and even OJ Simpson. We need to convince a large law firm to represent us.

    We need to go from Documentary status to celebrity status. ABC financed Casey Anthony.



  28. Mass Joinder Lawsuits and Other Foreclosure Rescue Scams Prey On Consumers, Why Won’t Anyone Protect Them?
    July 25th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    Florida’s Foreclosure Rescue Scam Prevention Act should protect the thousands of Floridians who get suckered into paying thousands of dollars with the promise that magic spells, potions and legal strategies can solve their foreclosure problems.

    The sales pitches are so compelling, but if you’re getting a pitch, you’re getting scammed. You can ignore the loan audits and the modification scams and steer clear of Mass Joinder and other class action promises….they are a dead end.

    The Florida Bar and Florida’s Attorney General could be doing something about all of this, but they choose not to….this is what is most disturbing. I gave up on reporting any of this stuff a long, long time ago. I dedicated untold hours of time over years and saw absolutely no return for my efforts to protect consumers. I set up the scammers. I got emails and phone numbers and crystal clear promises from the scamsters and delivered all this to those that should protect consumers but nothing happened.

    Please read the following story in the St. Petersburg Times:

    Ramba, 40, has joined forces with a California attorney and opened offices in Pinellas Park and Boca Raton where employees ask struggling homeowners to join an innovative legal action against their lenders.

    Prospective plaintiffs are told that nearly 6,000 people have joined the effort and six lawsuits have been filed so far.

    But there are several hitches.

    It costs $5,000 to join. Winning a quick settlement is a long shot. Efforts to solicit plaintiffs through cold calls, unapproved mail pieces and commissioned workers also may violate Florida Bar rules, according to experts in legal ethics.

    St. Petersburg Times

  29. Wisconsin has a similar statute, called WOCCA (Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act). Federal charges land you in Federal Court. this is where the banks like to dance rather than “dirt court”, your local courtroom.

  30. All I can say is: It’s about time!!! I had predicted months ago that these criminal bankters were going to be flooded with RICO lawsuits. There have only been a few so far which includes my lawsuit. I filed a RICO lawsuit against Bank of America in December 2010. My husband and I will have no problem proving our allegations in court.

    The unnecessary abuse that Bank of America has caused me and my family caused long-term damage. I might be impaired but I am still fighting back. Please read our press releases about our case here:

    Mark my words, Bank of America is a Racketeering Enterprise! Please read my article here:

    Bank of America must be held accountable under RICO for Racketeering. Please sign this petition:

    Do whatever you have to do to stop this Mafia from ruining your lives. Get an attorney, join a class-action or even sue them yourself (pro se). We need to stop this Monster called Bank of America before more lives are destroyed. Don’t let them STEAL your home, fight back. Bank of America wants you to give up and the statistics show that most of their victims do. Don’t be a Bank of America Victim any longer!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: