Florida’s Former Economic Crimes Division Director, Mary Leontakianakos, Takes Job at Foreclosure Mill Marshall Watson

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Bondi Bombshell | Where is the OUTRAGE! Florida’s Former Economic Crimes Division Director, Mary Leontakianakos, Takes Job at Foreclosure Mill Marshall Watson

Posted by 4closureFraud on August 9, 2011 · 12 Comments

ENOUGH!

This needs to stop and it needs to stop RIGHT NOW!

~

Florida’s former economic crimes division director takes job at foreclosure firm office was investigating

The former Economic Crimes Division director for the Florida Attorney General’s office was hired this summer by a Fort Lauderdale law firm previously under investigation by the office for its foreclosure practices.

Mary Leontakianakos left the attorney general’s office in January, joining the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in June.

Marshall C. Watson was one of the original firms to be investigated in an inquiry started in August by former attorney general Bill McCollum. The firm, admitting no wrongdoing, settled with the state in March for $2 million.

The move by Leontakianakos was pointed out in a 16-page memo written by Andrew Bennett Spark, an assistant attorney general in the Tampa office of economic crimes.

Spark’s memo, which he emailed to several media outlets today, lists several concerns he has with the attorney general’s office. He said he was motivated to write the memo by the publicity surrounding the forced resignations of former state foreclosure investigators Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson. He also mentions the June hiring of former deputy attorney general Joe Jacquot by Lender Processing Services, which is also under state investigation.

Be sure to check out the rest here…

And get involved in the comments at the Palm Beach Post to make your voice heard…

9 Responses

  1. Has there been any followup as to why Marshall Watson is still in business d/b/a Choice Legal Group? I thought Marshall Watson’s Conditional Guilty Plea, combined with the firms’ Assurance of Voluntary Compliance required a winding up of the firms’ business and it being disbanded.

    Why is Marshall Watson a k a, Choice Legal Group, still in business?

  2. Marshall C. Watson forclosed on my home. We requested a deed in lieu from Well Fargo because my husband was going through a liver transplant operation and could not work. We provided all the info required by Wells Fargo and vacated the home. Watson forclosed on it (re-keyed the doors!) 4 months later – issued us court docs at the home we were renting – we assumed that the Bank had repossed the house and forclosed. That was in October 2010. My husband since then received a Liver – lived almost a year, He passed Dec. 2011.
    Now Well Fargo sends me letters saying “did you know you may be able to apply for a deed in lieu?”….How insulting and cold!

  3. FCC & FTC in all consumer publications including HUD representations and warranties ‘Consumers’ are safe.

    Hiding the ‘truth’ which harmed the economy requires more lies to hide the truth.

    Virtually one originator controls taking property into ‘private’ nationwide pipeline in which third parties take possession of property in larcenous manner (with intent) (with intent) (with intent).

    Deceptive advertising ‘blessed’ by FTC & FCC who received complaints, assess sanctions, and same old keeping on.

    Who said its safe to get a ‘mortgage’ ?

    Virtual world (Finance Universe) convert properties into Cash Deposits and have already placed into Treasury of Fiduciary as pass through agency deposits under Bank Secrecy Act only percentage of Escrow goes towards ‘ABS’.

    Microsofts’ Steve Ballmer & FREDDIE MAC, and its partner Chase, and GMAC-Residential Funding Co and Wells Fargo Bank NA as Trustee of over 25,837 SEC Transactions c/o Lehman, Bear Stearns, Structured Asset Securities Corp, Deutsche Bank Trust Co doing business as Bankers Trust of California, National Association…

    1/21/05 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [ with Wells Fargo & Co/MN ]
    2/20/02 Wells Fargo Bank Indiana/N/A [ with Wells Fargo & Co/MN ]
    3/6/08 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association [ with Thirty-Eight Hundred Investments LTD ]

  4. carrie,

    Loan Modifications I’ve seen are awful and not in best interest of borrower again.

    Loan Modifications on a default – Servicer in control (total control) of the default amendment in which the ‘advances’ made to ‘Purchaser’ of Servicing Rights keep being paid for the remaining life of the loan, lets say 24 years left, and they append 10 years to the back all of the ‘monies advanced’ interest’ and become senior lien holder in that all principal reductions applied to ‘appendage first’ and the 24 years left, at the end, the balance of hte mortgage still around same place 24 years later with a forced REFINANCE in which the borrower must come up with 1) 20% down (todays standard for conforming mortgage) and cash to payoff 10 year appendage, and good credit rating to secure a refinance or they foreclose anyway.

    Explain to me Lucy why one would want to sign on the dotted line the Amendment to the existing Mortgage which also gives Servicer now right to file Assignment and perfect title?

  5. NO LOAN MODIFICATIONS ON UNSECURED DEBT. FRAUDLENTLY REPRESENTED AS “MORTGAGES.

    STOP PERPETUATING THE COVER-UP

    “There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/­­alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compli­­ant and non-perfor­­ming manufactur­­ed defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferre­­d any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor­­” would provide to their correspond­­ent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance originatio­­n was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspond­­ent (originato­­r). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited­­” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-lin­­e transactio­­n. : “Mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.
    …nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category.
    Subprime/a­­lt-a/jumb­o — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights.
    The “investors­­” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period.
    CDOs? Nothing more than derivative­­s from the false assets that the false securitiza­­tions were based upon to begin with!”

  6. Question for the legal minds, have you considered ‘loan modifications’ amendments adding beneficiary in succession as jr lienholder. Are Lis Pendens added to Deed of Title for extending life of loan, carrying default, and appending the ‘advances’ of the servicer to be paid off in order for consumer ot refiance at end of life of original loan? leaving the 10year lien alike a secondary loan the ‘investor’ can refuse to refinance if everything aligned for a conventional mortgage, the 10 year appendage will allow the beneficiary to secure advances under servicing agreement now an amendment of the existing mortgage promissry note.

    As related to reading this case regarding current defendant in IL facing forced motion to dismiss by Plaintiff claiming they have no more evidence and did not satisfy courts request. According to this case:

    The ‘loan modification’ is an amendment incorporating additional beneficiaries who must be approved by the beneficiary, whose approved Plains Capital as a ‘debt collector’ to continue collecting from you deposits which are collateral of TRUSTEE of Issuing Entity and will continue advancing monies to TRUSTEE c/o Depositor for the remaining life of the loan, forcing a refinance of the 1st loan agreements, and appending the deferred payment of the advances until the expiration of the existing liens making the amendment the beneficiary.

    Loan modifications puts aside a party other than the beneficiary, adding new debtor to existing property in default as asset the owner of the debt may record assignment as what? Lis Pendesn?

    . I believe this ‘loan modification’ is setting aside the property

    A judicial foreclosure sale to a party other than the beneficiary is ‘absolute’ subject only to the debtor’s right of redemption, and the sale ‘may not be set aside for any reason.* with debtor’s right of redemption.

    When a defendant moves for summary judgment, the defendant ‘bears’ the burden of persuasion and there is no triable issue of material fact and that (the party) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.*
    (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Aguilar). A defendant satisfies this burden by showing one of more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action (ibid.) (2001) 25 Cal 4th 826, 850

    If the moving party fails to present sufficient, admissible evidence to meet its initial burden, the court must deny the summary judgment motion.

    This rule applies even if the opposing party does not object to the moving party’s evidence, presents defective declarations or fails to present a sufficient counter showing.
    (Rincon v Burbank Unified School Dist. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 949, 954-956)

    However, once a party meets its initial summary judgment burden, “’the burden shifts to the [opposing party] … to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.’* (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p.849.). The opposing party may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleading to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact (Ibid.; see Chaknova v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 962, 974-975)

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/08/12/mers-v-jacoby-ca-4dca-div-1-affirms-jgmt-quiet-title-foreclosure-sale-companion-case-nacif-v-white-sorenson/

  7. so what? another public official grabs the proverbial brass ring in the private sector…

  8. Undercover?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: