ANTITRUST INVESTIGATING BID-RIGGING AT SO-CALLED AUCTIONS — 7 plead guilty

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Investigations are one thing, charges and convictions are quite another. It is my opinion that the so-called auctions, at least in the non-judicial states are rigged, unlawful and possibly criminal.  The person who shows up is some agent or employee of the substitute trustee who shouldn’t be in the picture anyway because they ARE in substance the pretender who makes claims to being a creditor. This person conducts an auction-like event that is not really an auction because there are no actual bids. Then the person acting for the “substitute trustee” issues a wild deed without consideration received from anyone. At that point the homeowner becomes a tenant in their own home because state law is neither followed nor enforced. If state law were enforced, there would be no substitute trustee, there would be no auction and there would be no sale nor issuance of a deed.

The person conducting the so-called auction comes there armed with instructions from undisclosed persons within the organization who hired him to go there. He is not a trustee and he is not acting in accordance with statute which requires that the trustee exercise the utmost due diligence to make up for the fact there is no judicial review in non-judicial sales under the power of sale in the deed of trust. The instructions are for this person, of dubious authority to do anything for anyone, to pretend that there is a bid from a party he/she identifies a as creditor.

But the person posing as the auctioneer has no idea where the bid came from and whether it is valid. It could only be valid if it were tendered as the debt owed to the bidder. But the bidder can’t say that because the debt is not owed to the so-called bidder. So the bidder doesn’t show up and protects itself with plausible deniability as to what happened at the auction. They will probably say that they might have been negligent in their procedures but the the sales were right and correct. Those sales are neither right, correct, legal or proper. They are not ethical either because the money the borrower owes, if any, has yet to be decided by the evidence.

SUBMITTED BY USED CAR GUY:

I guess you can tell I’m on a mission today….
I called the gal at the Wisconsin AG’s office because her e-mail quit working. Talked to her assistant and came to find out she went to work for the DOJ in Washington D.C. I think that is good news. The longer these banks go without being able to force a grant of blanket amnesty, the better. And now, for a little vindication of what we all know is going on after the homes are stolen…….

Friday August 12, 2011 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A real estate investor pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Sacramento to conspiring to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County, Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and Benjamin B. Wagner, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, announced.

Walter Daniel Olmstead, 39, of Tracy, pleaded guilty to conspiring with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. According to court documents, the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and to obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at noncompetitive prices.

According to the court documents, after the conspirators’ designated winning bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second, private auction, at which each participating conspirator would bid the amount above the public auction price he or she was willing to pay. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the price at the public auction and that at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. According to his plea agreement, Olmstead participated in the scheme beginning in or about November 2008 until in or about July 2009.

To date, seven individuals, including Olmstead, have pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in connection with this investigation the others being Anthony B. Ghio, John R. Vanzetti, Theodore B. Hutz, Richard W. Northcutt, Yama Marifat and Gregory L. Jackson.

“The Antitrust Division continues to vigorously pursue bid rigging conspiracies at real estate foreclosure auctions that eliminate competition in the marketplace and harm consumers,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The division will work with its law enforcement partners to ensure that the real estate foreclosure auction process is fair and open so that consumers will benefit from competition.”

U.S. Attorney Wagner said: “By rigging public auctions of foreclosed properties, the defendants who have pleaded guilty as a result of this investigation illegally manipulated the market for residential real estate. The Department of Justice is committed to improving the transparency and integrity of that market, and we will continue to investigate and prosecute those who would seek to undermine the market through such illegal activities.”

Olmstead pleaded guilty to bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Olmstead also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.

These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bid rigging in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the FBI’s Sacramento Division and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. Trial attorneys Anna Pletcher, Richard Cohen and Tai Milder from the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell L. Carlberg are prosecuting the case.

Today’s charges are part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. One component of the task force is the national Mortgage Fraud Working Group, co-chaired by U.S. Attorney Wagner. For more information on the task force, visit http://www.StopFraud.gov.

Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California at 916-554-2700, or the FBI’s Sacramento Division at 916-481-9110.

18 Responses

  1. Thank you for some other informative blog. Where else could I am getting that type of info written in such an ideal means? I have a undertaking that I’m simply now working on, and I have been on the look out for such information.

  2. Here’s areally long article, from MONTREAL, as in CANADA, of all places. Compliments of Reuters

    U.S. banks haven’t turned away from robo-signing shortcuts

    BY SCOT J. PALTROW, REUTERS AUGUST 20, 2011

    NEW YORK – America’s leading mortgage lenders vowed in March to end the dubious foreclosure practices that caused a bruising scandal last year.

    But a Reuters investigation finds that many are still taking the same shortcuts they promised to shun, from sketchy paperwork to the use of “robo-signers.”

    In its effort to seize the two-bedroom ranch house of 87-year-old Margery Gunter in this down-on-its-luck Florida town, OneWest Bank recently filed a court document that appears riddled with discrepancies. Mrs. Gunter, who has lived in the house for 40 years and gets around with the aid of a walker, stopped paying her loan back in 2009, her lawyer concedes. To foreclose, the bank submitted to the Collier County clerk’s office on March 3 a “mortgage assignment,” a document essential to proving who owns a mortgage once the original lender sells it off.

    But OneWest’s paperwork is problematic. Among the snags: State law permits lenders to file to foreclose only if they already legally own a mortgage. Yet the key document establishing ownership wasn’t signed and officially recorded until months after OneWest filed to foreclose on Mrs. Gunter. OneWest declined to comment on the case.

    Reuters has found that some of the biggest U.S. banks and other “loan servicers” continue to file questionable foreclosure documents with courts and county clerks. They are using tactics that late last year triggered an outcry, multiple investigations and temporary moratoriums on foreclosures.

    In recent months, servicers have filed thousands of documents that appear to have been fabricated or improperly altered, or have sworn to false facts.

    Reuters also identified at least six “robo-signers,” individuals who in recent months have each signed thousands of mortgage assignments – legal documents that pinpoint ownership of a property. These same individuals have been identified – in depositions, court testimony or court rulings – as previously having signed vast numbers of foreclosure documents that they never read or checked.

    Among them: Christina Carter, an employee of Ocwen Loan Servicing of West Palm Beach, Fla., a “sub-servicer” which handles routine mortgage tasks for banks. Her signature – just two “C”s – has appeared on thousands of mortgage assignments and other documents this year.

    In a case involving a foreclosure by HSBC Bank USA, a New York State Court judge this month called Carter a “known robo-signer” and said he’d found multiple variations of her two-letter signature on documents, raising questions about whether others were using her name. That and other red flags prompted the judge to take the extraordinary step of threatening to sanction HSBC’s chief executive officer.

    In a phone interview, Carter acknowledged signing large numbers of mortgage assignments this year, but said they all were legally done. To her knowledge, she added, no one else used her name.

    ‘CUTTING CORNERS’

    One of the industry’s top representatives says it is possible that the federal settlements haven’t put a stop to questionable practices. “My judgment is that robo-signing had essentially gone away,” said David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association. “It doesn’t mean that there aren’t other ways to continue to cut corners, or mistakes occurring with select servicers.”

    Nearly all borrowers facing foreclosure are delinquent, Stevens added, but “the real question is whether the servicer complied with all legal requirements.” The loss of a home is “the most critical time in a family’s life,” and if foreclosure paperwork is faulty, homeowners should contest it. “Families should be using every opportunity they can to protect their rights.”

    Federal bank regulators signed settlements in March with 14 loan servicers – banks and other companies that perform tasks for mortgage investors like collecting payments from homeowners and, when necessary, filing to foreclose. The 14 firms promised further internal investigations, remediation for some who were harmed and a halt to the filing of false documents. All such behaviour had stopped by the end of 2010, they said.

    Of these companies, Reuters has found at least five that in recent months have filed foreclosure documents of questionable validity: OneWest, Bank of America, HSBC Bank USA, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage.

    So have half a dozen large servicers that weren’t party to the agreements, including Ocwen Financial Corp and units of Crédit Suisse Group AG.

    Spokesmen for the banks and servicers named in this article said that they halted any wrongdoing after disclosures last autumn of robo-signing led them to revise their practices, and they denied filing false documents since then.

    In general, they said their foreclosure cases were legitimate, but for a small number of exceptions, and that criticism by defence lawyers and judges of some types of documentation is based on misinterpretation of the law.

    The persistence of the paperwork mess poses a dilemma for American policy-makers and society at large.

    The vast majority of homeowners in foreclosure are in fact delinquent on their mortgage payments. Many bankers and judges view the issue as a technicality. Regardless of legal niceties, they say, people should pay up or lose the collateral on the loans – their houses and condos.

    Increasingly, though, courts are holding that the trusts suing to foreclose don’t actually own the mortgages. Judges have ruled that foreclosing based on flawed or missing evidence violates long-standing laws meant to protect all Americans’ property rights.

    In a landmark decision in January, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned a foreclosure because of a lack of proper documentation.

    “The holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order,” wrote Justice Robert Cordry in a concurring opinion. “Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the (homeowners), that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it.”

    A THOUSAND QUESTIONS

    Reuters reviewed records of individual county clerk offices in five states – Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and North and South Carolina – with searchable online databases. Reuters also examined hundreds of documents from court case files, some obtained online and others provided by attorneys.

    The searches found more than 1,000 mortgage assignments that for multiple reasons appear questionable: promissory notes missing required endorsements or bearing faulty ones; and “complaints” (the legal documents that launch foreclosure suits) that appear to contain multiple incorrect facts.

    These are practices that the 14 banks and other loan servicers said had occurred only on a small scale and were halted more than six months ago.

    The settlements included the four largest banks in the United States – Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. The other parties were lending units of Ally Financial Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc., MetLife Inc., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., SunTrust Banks Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Aurora Bank, EverBank, OneWest Bank and Sovereign Bank.

    The pacts were struck with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the main regulator of national banks, as well as with the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

    Some state and federal officials have called the settlements weak. Authorities are still working out financial penalties to be imposed on the 14 firms. The banks didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing, and many of the practices banned were previously illegal anyway, such as filing false affidavits and making false notarizations. And regulators left it to the banks to oversee their own internal investigations.

    The OCC confirmed it has received complaints that questionable practices continue. But spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the settlements “are intended to address many of the root causes of improper foreclosure actions,” thus preventing future harm.

    WAVE OF FORECLOSURES

    The collapse of the housing boom in late 2006 led to a wave of foreclosures. Federal Reserve data show that 4.5 per cent of U.S. mortgages are in foreclosure. In 2010, 2.5 million foreclosures were initiated, with a similar number expected this year.

    In the housing boom, lenders created millions of new mortgages, packaged them into pools, and securitized them rapidly for sale to investors in so-called mortgage-securities trusts.

    The agreements setting up the trusts, called “pooling and servicing agreements,” require that key documents, properly executed and endorsed, be turned over immediately for each mortgage when a trust is established. The two most important ones are a promissory note and mortgage assignment.

    A mortgage really has two parts. One is the actual mortgage (in some states called a “deed of trust”). Its purpose is to pledge the home as collateral for the loan. To transfer ownership of this collateral pledge, the seller must issue a document called a mortgage assignment. The other is the promissory note, which is the loan agreement itself. The homeowner signs it, promising to pay principal and interest.

    The Reuters examination turned up thousands of instances –more than 2,000 in Florida alone – involving recently filed mortgage assignments that ostensibly transferred mortgages to these trusts years after they were formed.

    The problem, according to Georgetown University law professor Adam Levitin, an expert on securitization: About 80 per cent of all trust agreements provide that New York State law applies, and under New York law, any mortgage assignments made later than specified in the agreements would be void.

    Reuters has also uncovered problems with the other key document used in foreclosure cases, the promissory note.

    To foreclose, a trust, bank or mortgage finance giant such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac must possess the original “blue ink” signed promissory note. The crucial parts of the note are at the bottom – the endorsements, somewhat like those on the back of a cheque. The agreements establishing trusts require a proper chain of endorsements showing legal transfers of a note from the original lender, through any intermediary owners, and finally to the trust itself.

    Attorneys defending homeowners contend that improper endorsements are rife. Reuters obtained from public court records and defence attorneys more than 100 examples of notes that for various reasons appear to be improper.

    MYSTERY OF MARY ARTHUR

    One example: The attempt by Crédit Suisse unit DLJ Mortgage Capital to foreclose on Mary Arthur of Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. Mrs. Arthur, 63 and legally blind, works part time as an assistant in a doctor’s office. Originally from Trinidad, Mrs. Arthur became delinquent on her $427,500 loan after her parents and sister died and she ran up debts travelling home for the funerals, according to her attorney, Linda Tirelli.

    The loan servicers, Select Portfolio Servicing of Salt Lake City, threatened to foreclose on DLJ’s behalf. Mrs. Arthur arranged with Select Portfolio a trial mortgage modification to see if she could keep up with the reduced payments. She made the payments but, Tirelli said, Select Portfolio filed to foreclose.

    DLJ filed in two separate court cases what it said were authentic copies of Mrs. Arthur’s promissory note. Because they were supposed to be copies of the same document, the endorsements filed with both courts should be identical.

    But a look at the documents shows that the version filed in state court and the one filed in bankruptcy court had completely different endorsements on them – naming different owner banks and signed by different people. Tirelli said she has brought this to the attention of the bankruptcy judge and is awaiting a ruling.

    Crédit Suisse, which owns DLJ Mortgage Capital and Select Portfolio Servicing, declined to comment, as did Casey Howard, the lawyer representing DLJ in the bankruptcy case.

    Bank of America, meanwhile, is coming under fire from a New York federal bankruptcy judge.

    Last Tuesday, Judge Robert Drain ordered an investigation involving a foreclosure case brought by the bank. Two earlier copies of a promissory note filed in court had lacked any endorsement, but then one appeared on the note when bank lawyers produced the original.

    The judge said the sudden appearance of an endorsement, and his own close look at it, raised questions about whether it had been added illegally to make the note look legitimate.

    It “raises a sufficiently serious issue as to when and more importantly by whom this note was endorsed,” the judge said.

    A Bank of America spokesman said the bank will produce evidence that “will demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that the endorsement is proper.”

    MISSING SIGNATURES

    These banks aren’t alone in filing doubtful documents. Reuters found cases in which Wells Fargo didn’t obtain mortgage assignments – and hence the right to foreclose – until well after it had filed foreclosure cases.

    Wells Fargo, as a trustee, has moved to foreclose on homeowners who have mortgages from now-defunct Option One Mortgage Corp. In June, a bankruptcy appellate panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision to allow Wells Fargo to foreclose on an Option One mortgage. It said that there was no evidence that the note and mortgage had ever been turned over to Wells Fargo as trustee.

    In court files of Florida foreclosure cases by Wells Fargo on Option One mortgages, none of the promissory notes filed as exhibits in 10 cases found by Reuters had any endorsements on them.

    A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said it is possible that proper endorsements exist but were omitted from the copies of the promissory notes filed in court.

    In other cases reviewed by Reuters, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage, a unit of Ally Financial, this year assigned mortgages from defunct lender New Century Mortgage Corp., which went under in 2007. Securitization lawyers say it is technically impossible for a defunct company to directly assign a mortgage over to another owner.

    Ally Financial spokesman James Olecki said GMAC obtained authorization to assign mortgages that New Century had failed to transfer while it was still in existence. “GMAC Mortgage obtained a power of attorney for loans serviced from the New Century Mortgage Litigating Trust, the successor-in-interest to New Century Mortgage Corp.,” he said.

    Documents and statements made to courts that are found to be false can amount to crimes under state and federal laws. Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor, said such acts can be perjury, and preparing fraudulent documents can be prosecuted under federal mail and wire fraud statutes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in jail to file false documents in a bankruptcy case, including foreclosures.

    ROBO-SIGNERS RETURN

    Reuters also found that loan servicers are still using the corner-cutting tactic that most captured the public imagination last year: robo-signing.

    The investigation identified six known robo-signers who have continued to churn out large numbers of mortgage assignments since the beginning of 2011 – months after the industry vowed to stop the practice.

    Among them is Bryan Bly, an employee of Nationwide Title Clearing of Palm Harbor, Fla.

    Bly testified in a July 2010 foreclosure case in Florida that he signed up to 5,000 mortgage assignments per day at the loan-servicing company. Although he is an employee of Nationwide, he signed the documents as a “vice-president” of Option One Mortgage, Deutsche Bank, Citibank and other institutions.

    In his deposition, Bly said Nationwide multiplied his output by electronically stamping his signature on additional mortgage assignments that Bly said he never saw. He testified, too, that all the documents then were falsely notarized. Nationwide’s notaries were given stacks of the already-signed documents, he said, and attested falsely that Bly had signed the legal papers in front of them. Bly said he didn’t verify the information in the papers he signed, and that he didn’t understand key words and expressions in them.

    Despite these disclosures, a Reuters search of county clerk records in Florida, New York and Massachusetts shows that Bly continued to sign thousands of mortgage assignments this year.

    A Nationwide spokeswoman said there is nothing illegal about signing large numbers of mortgage assignments. After Reuters inquired about Bly, however, she later said that because of recent questions raised about him by Nationwide customers, Bly has been moved to a job at the firm that doesn’t involve signing documents.

    R. Christopher Rodems, a lawyer for Bly, said there is nothing improper about signing large numbers of mortgage assignments. Rodems said Bly had received death threats after a videotaped deposition Bly gave in November 2010 was posted briefly on YouTube, in which he testified about signing huge numbers of mortgage assignments.

    A LAWYER’S NAME

    Robo-signing isn’t limited to low-level employees at loan servicers.

    Lawrence Buckley is a lawyer who manages the Dallas, Tex., law firm Brice, Vander Linden and Wernick. In March, he testified that he had allowed his electronic signature to be affixed to sworn court documents that he had never seen. The documents, known as “proofs of claim,” included one filed with the federal bankruptcy court in New York. It sought permission for Deutsche Bank to seize the Bronx house of 59-year-old Virginia Obasi.

    Buckley said he had never seen the document, and that another lawyer at his firm had filed it using Buckley’s electronic signature. The signature appears on the document as “/s/ Lawrence J. Buckley.”

    Buckley said that other lawyers at his firm were permitted to use his signature to file documents electronically with bankruptcy courts. He testified that it was standard practice at the firm not to review any of the original documents the claim was supposed to be based on, such as the original promissory note and mortgage.

    Luke Madole, a lawyer for Buckley, said he saw nothing wrong with Buckley letting lawyers he directly managed use his electronic signature. Later, in an emailed statement, Madole added that what occurred “is nothing like ‘robo-signing’ ” and to use “that loaded term would be unfair in the extreme.”

    A JUDGE INVESTIGATES

    Robo-signer Christina Carter resurfaced in a ruling this month, when Arthur Schack, a New York State Court judge in Brooklyn, threw out an attempt by HSBC to foreclose on a Brooklyn house.

    Schack said he had instructed HSBC’s chief lawyer in the case, Frank Cassara, to confirm key facts directly with HSBC officials. The judge said Cassara subsequently “affirmed ‘under the penalties of perjury’ ” that he had done so. But the judge said it turned out that Cassara had never checked with anyone at HSBC, and that the employees Cassara had said he spoke with at HSBC actually worked for a loan servicer.

    The judge also said signatures on documents in the case were filed by known robo-signers, three of whom he identified by name, including Carter of Ocwen Loan Servicing. He personally had examined multiple examples of their signatures, the judge said, and found wide variations, raising the possibility that other people had been signing their names.

    Judge Schack then took an unusual step: He formally threatened HSBC’s CEO, Irene Dorner, as well as lawyers for the firm, with sanctions for relying on known robo-signers, filing false documents and making false representations to the court. The possible sanctions could range from an oral reprimand to financial and other penalties.

    “If HSBC has a duty to make money for its stockholders,” Schack wrote, “why is it purchasing non-performing loans, and wasting the court’s time with defective paperwork and the use of robo-signers?”

    HSBC spokesman Neil Brazil said that the servicer, Ocwen, was responsible for what occurred in the case, and that HSBC had had no role in it.

    Paul Koches, Ocwen’s general counsel, said in an email: “To our knowledge, there was nothing submitted by our legal counsel to the court that was in any way misleading as to who is the owner of this mortgage and note, nor was there any conduct of any kind that would justify sanctions.”

    Carter says she did nothing improper, and left Ocwen voluntarily in May for another job.

    DOWN IN FLORIDA

    The bank now trying to foreclose on Marjorie Gunter has produced a troubled paper trail. OneWest submitted a document signed this February to prove that the original lender for her mortgage, a company called MortgageIT, had signed over ownership to OneWest. But MortgageIT, owned by Deutsche Bank, wasn’t in business in February. It had ceased operations three years earlier, in 2008.

    A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to comment.

    Even if the February document were authentic, it wasn’t recorded until nearly 10 months after OneWest had launched its foreclosure action, which began in May 2010. Real estate law throughout the United States requires that before moving to foreclose, a trust or bank must already own the mortgage and related promissory note. Otherwise, courts have ruled, a forecloser has no right to seize a house.

    OneWest also filed two separate copies of what it said was the 87-year-old homeowner’s original promissory note. The first had an endorsement only from MortgageIT to now-defunct IndyMac Bank. Weeks later, OneWest filed a second copy of the note, with the addition of a “blank” endorsement – an endorsement by IndyMac, but with the name of the payee left empty. OneWest has filed no evidence in the case that the note was subsequently transferred to Fannie Mae.

    OneWest declined to explain the multiple apparent discrepancies in the Gunter foreclosure documents. A spokesman said in an email: “OneWest is dedicated to ensuring that it meets the needs of its customers, acts in accordance with applicable laws, and complies with its contractual mortgage servicing duties to the highest standards.”

    A Fannie Mae spokeswoman said Fannie does own the Gunter note, but declined to explain how the mortgage finance giant obtained it, “due to it being in active litigation.”

    The judge in the Gunter case hasn’t ruled yet on OneWest’s documents.

    Mrs. Gunter lives in Immokalee, a scrubby town 55 kilometres inland from Fort Myers on Florida’s Gulf coast. About 40 per cent of the townspeople live below the poverty line, census data show. She shares her home with her three dogs; her one surviving son lives in a nursing home.

    In an interview at her house, on a dusty road off the main highway, Mrs. Gunter said she doesn’t understand why the bank is foreclosing.

    OneWest says that Mrs. Gunter is delinquent by more than $160,000. Her lawyer, Joseph Klein of the Legal Aid Service of Collier County, argues there are extenuating circumstances.

    Copies of her mortgage application forms show that in December 2006, an agent for Deutsche Bank’s MortgageIT unit signed up Mrs. Gunter for a $149,900 mortgage. The forms, listing her income, show that the agent knew that the monthly payments – $1,151, including insurance – were more than her monthly income of $800 from Social Security plus about $200 in food stamps.

    In an affidavit filed in court, Mrs. Gunter said she had asked the salesman for a “reverse mortgage,” which allows senior citizens to remain in their homes without making mortgage payments, with the value of the house going to the bank when they die. But the documents the salesman gave her to sign were for an ordinary 30-year mortgage.

    Losing her place would be a devastating blow, Mrs. Gunter said. “If they take the house,” she said, “they’ll take me, too.”

    © Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

  3. Actually all of us should be tried for fraud. Because we all signed on our mortgages, which allowed the banksters to steal from the investors.

    PUT US ALL IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS, OBAMA AND HOLDER.

    NEVER AGAIN

  4. THIS BUD’S FOR YOU, MARTHA AND BSE AND ALL YOU GUYS (NEIL INCLUDED, OF COURSE!) THAT STATED THE APPRAISAL FRAUD STARTED WITH THE BUILDERS (PULTE, CENTEX, NAME ONE, NAME ‘EM ALL) TALK ABOUT VINDICATION!

    Metroplex homebuilder pleads guilty in widespread mortgage fraud scheme
    By U.S. Department of Justice
    Aug 20, 2011

    PLANO, Texas – A Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex homebuilder pleaded guilty to a mortgage fraud scheme in the Eastern District of Texas, announced U.S. Attorney John M. Bales today.

    Robert Bruce Keaffaber, 51, of Granbury, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud on Aug. 17, 2011, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush.

    According to information presented in court, Keaffaber was the owner of Sycamore Custom Homes, a homebuilding business. As part of the mortgage fraud scheme, he and others caused mortgage loan documents to overstate the amount of the actual purchase price and the amount of loan funds that buyers needed to pay Keaffaber to purchase certain properties. When the mortgage loans were funded, Keaffaber would then use the excess loan funds generated by the sale as kickbacks to pay others involved in the conspiracy.

    Keaffaber faces up to five years in federal prison and restitution to the victims in the amount of $203,657.75. A sentencing date has not been set.

    Prior to today’s guilty plea, ten other individuals have pleaded guilty for their role in this mortgage fraud scheme and are currently awaiting sentencing. Davon Willis, who oversaw a mortgage broker business that processed loan applications involved in the mortgage fraud, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on July 18, 2011. Two recruiters of homebuyers, Julila Nicole Allen, 38, of Grand Heights, Texas, and Kimoni Jackson, 34, of Desoto, Texas have already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on Jan. 7, 2011 and July 25, 2011 respectively. Another homebuilder, Yunus Mandli, 63, of Rockwall, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud on June 21, 2011. A mortgage broker, Quincy Dynell Harrington, 41, of Corinth, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on Feb. 28, 2011. One loan processor, Natasha Manley, 39 of Sherman Oaks, California, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on Dec. 1, 2010. One home seller, Keith Ezell, 46, of Cedar Hill, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on June 29, 2011. Additionally, three homebuyers pleaded guilty for their roles in the mortgage fraud scheme: Sharetha Jackson, 41, of Desoto, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on June 21, 2011; Willis Raymond McMurran, 37, of Middleton, Delaware, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering on June 2, 2011; and Edward Rogers, 41, of Midlothian, Texas pleaded guilty to making a false statement to a federal agent on Dec. 9, 2010.

    Other individuals charged in separate indictments related to this mortgage fraud conspiracy and who are awaiting trial are:

    Rodney Lavann Giles, Sr., 44, of Dallas, an alleged recruiter of homebuyers, was indicted for conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank fraud on April 14, 2011.

    Renetta Yvonne Jones, 40, of Plano, Texas, a loan officer, was indicted for conspiracy to commit money laundering on April 14, 2011.

    M.D. Habibur Rahman, 52, of Garland, Texas, a homebuyer, was indicted for conspiracy to commit money laundering on July 13, 2011.

    Larry Reisman, 49, of Dallas, a homebuilder, was indicted for conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank fraud on June 6, 2011.

    Jon Ruliffson, 31, of Plano, Texas, an alleged recruiter of homebuyers, was indicted for conspiracy to commit bank fraud on June 6, 2011.

    A grand jury indictment is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

    President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

    This case is being investigated by HUD, Office of the Inspector General, IRS Criminal Investigation, FBI, U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Postal Inspection Service and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andy Williams and Christopher A. Eason.

    Comment: unfortunately, this doesn’t do anything for the rest of humanity. They throw a couple “little fish” in the can, claim victory, and, well, you know the rest. Just look at the Wells Fargo settlement.

  5. Okay, this is weird—Merrill Lynch seeking foreclosure on Burt Reynolds???
    Merrill Lynch??? Boy if his “mortgage” isn’t part of this whole fraud I would be shocked…too bad he doesn’t know the truth…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/burt-reynolds-facing-foreclosure_n_930443.html

  6. All of the emotional, psychological, and physical harm that this MASSIVE fraud has caused to so many people is a human rights as well as a civil rights issue…who will pay and when???

  7. Douglas, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and in this case there is no theory involved. They caught them. The problem is that the crime (conspiracy) is happening EVERYWHERE and NOBODY IS MAKING NOISE SO NO ONE IS LISTENING! A theory is when the DOJ starts talking about the LIBOR panel banks conspiring to raise the rates to force the ARMS into default and set the dominos tumbling. Problem is they are 3 years behind the curve on figuring it out. (I mentioned that here somewhere, didn’t I?) Theory is a dead civil court judge in the park possibly coming to the realization that he’s thrown a couple thousand families out of their homes because of the pressure to maintain the “status quo”. Or maybe the investigations are touching nerves inside the system. (Very hesitant to bet on that one; everybody in law enforcement is acting like Laurel and Hardy. And no offense to Laurel and Hardy should be taken). Theory is that the government, the media, and the balance of the ruling class remains complicit in obfuscating the truth through distraction and making sure “nobody talks about those 64 million mortgages that are unsecured”. As for me, I want to know what the note in the judge’s pocket said. There were, oh, two news stories in the newspaper and an obituary. You should read them. He sounds like a nice guy (rather, was a nice guy). The headline that struck me was “Judge Found Dead Of Apparent Suicide”. The operative word being “apparent”. I know a lot of stories about “apparent suicides” that turned out to be ” apparent homicides” after evidence surfaces. What is not apparent, however, is why? Just a thought there guys, not to worry. They can’t kill all of us.

    I’m gonna find your e-mail, Douglas, and send you some attachments.
    And Marie, it can happen anywhere. My FRIEND Louise knows what she’s talking about. (I’ve seen her work).
    Yo! Nancy! thanks for listening.

    And thanks for the nod, Neil.

  8. This bid rigging is definately happening. My son and I went to an auction to watch and see what we could learn. It was several guys coming out of a trustee building waving their little bid paddles around saying Joe you can have this one, Dave you can have this one, Bud you take this one. You could absolutely tell it was a set up and the houses were being stolen by pretend bidders. I wanted so bad to ask to look at the money trail and how much they paid. i was sure it was zero dollars. This bids are kept high above any means of an average person to try to even save their home or bid on the house if they wanted. I was so sure this was happening before we went to check it out. It was so obvious we were correct in our thinking. The crooks have set up every move every stepping stone of the way to steal steal and steal. I have mad this statement to my reports sent to the FBI, OCC and FDIC the attorney generals office and more. I am so glad to see investigations on this..

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

  10. Bid rigging is a high profile activity in the State of Arizona. It is a fact and not speculation. The AG needs to get busy out here. It has been nearly 3 years while family after family are being kicked to the curb and displaced so those bastards can collect unjust enrichment…”Just ask me how many investors came to my front door the day before or the day of the Trustee Sale”. They always parked out of my line of sight so I could not see the tag number on their vehicles and they would not present a business card with a name and address.

    Wake up Arizona!

  11. Louise , UsedCarGuy , ALL ,

    I can give you HARD evidence , a complaint, a second witness , clerks documents and an audio recording of an auction involving blatant bid rigging WITH THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN ATTENDANCE AND WITNESSING THE ILLEGALITY , unfortunately the audio is of a hearing on the complaint not the auction itself although the illegal acts were discussed and verified in the hearing room .. I was the complaintant as I was harmed by the rigging.. This was on a large scale and involved a $11M haircut of the bid on a $93M property where the “bank” didn’t have “credit bid” authority as it was a substitute plaintiff that bought into the restructuring ,, not a party that had a loss.

    If someone wants to run with it .. it is fairly fresh ,, November 2010 .. from Orlando Florida .. Oh and the judge that rubber stamped the fraud ?? THE HEAD JUDGE OF THE BUSINESS DIVISION/COMPLEX .

    If you’ll shake the tree good and hard you can e:mail me at brian_tracy AT cfl.rr.com and I’ll send you a packet ..

  12. Hollywood would be hard pressed to make a movie out of this. I have never been a witness to fraud on such a massive scale. What we are seeing is a complete breakdown of society on every level. This is how it ends, pride always goes before the fall. We are no longer a faux proud nation but rather a nation scorned, a despicable nation existing in darkness. We are witnessing the final death throes of a nation conceived on greed and ending with greed of unimaginable depth.

  13. Louise

    Unfortunately the bid rigging isn’t done in the courtroom

  14. Low hanging fruit

  15. Washington Attorney General Office of Consumer Affairs should be notiifed about ebidding and rigging of sales in the 16 states documented by Aztec Foreclosure Corp.

    And all of the ‘other’ robo-mills, like David Stern, who publically disclosed Wells Fargo his biggest client. Wonder why David did not sue Wells Fargo Bank NA but sued Freddie Mac and Aurora Loaon Services for not paying their bill for handling all of the case files. Did Wells Fargo Bank NA pay and remove the case files? And if they removed the case files from one mosquito, who was the next robo-firm?

  16. Rigging has been going on in South Carolina equity courts for some time and has even had the master-in-equity (judge) state that he was not going to stand for it in his courtroom.

  17. Thank you usedcarguy.

  18. Although I applaud any law enforcement agency to prosecute crime, I wonder when we will wake up and Hang the whales….. Neil says all the time. low hanging fruit is an easy target but our country needs to wake up and smell the fraud in all agency’s and CEO’s offices.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: