CAL. AG DROPS OUT OF TALKS WITH BANKS: AMNESTY OFF THE TABLE

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: California has approximately a 1/3 share of all foreclosures. So Harris’ decision to drop out of the talks is a huge blow to the mega banks who were banking (pardon the pun) on using it to get immunity from prosecution. The answer is no, you will be held accountable for what you did, just like anyone else. As I have stated before when the other AG’s dropped out of the talks (Arizona, Nevada et al), this growing trend is getting real traction as those in politics have discovered an important nuance in the minds of voters: they may have differing opinions on what should be done about foreclosures but they all hate these monolithic banks who are siphoning off the lifeblood of our society. And there is nothing like hate to drive voting.

This is a process, not an event. We are at the end of the 4th inning in a 9-inning game that may go into overtime. The effects of the mortgage mess created by the banks are being felt at the dinner table of just about every citizen in the country. The politics here is creating a huge paradox and irony — the largest source of campaign donations has turned into a pariah with whom association will be as deadly at the polls as organized crime.

The fact that so many attorneys general of so many states are putting distance between themselves and the banks means a lot. It means that the banks are in serious danger of indictment and conviction on criminal charges for fraud, forgery, perjury and potentially many other crimes.

IDENTITY THEFT: One crime that is being investigated, which I have long felt was a major element of the securitization scam for the “securitization that never happened” is the theft of identities. By signing onto what appeared to be mortgage documents, borrowers were in fact becoming issuers or pawns in the issuance of fraudulent securities to investors. Those with high credit scores were especially valued for the “cover” they provided in the upper tranches of the CDO’s that were “sold” to investors. An 800 credit score could be used to get a AAA  rating from the rating agencies who were themselves paid off to provide additional cover.

But it all comes down to the use of people’s identities as “borrowers” when in fact there was no “Lending” going on. What was going on was “pretend lending” that had all the outward manifestations of a loan but none of the substance. Yes money exchanged hands, but the real parties never met and never signed papers with each other. In my opinion, the proof of identity theft will put the borrowers in a superior position to that of the investors in suits against the investment bankers.

NO UNDERWRITING=NO LOAN: There was no underwriting committee, there was no underwriting, there was no review of the appraisal, there was no confirmation of the borrower’s income and there was no decision about the risk and viability of the so-called loan, because it wasn’t about that. The risk was already eliminated when they sold the bogus mortgage bonds to investors and thus saddled pension funds with the entire risk of loss on empty “mortgage backed pools.” So if the loan wasn’t paid, the players at ground level had no risk. Their only incentive was to get the signature of the borrower. That is what they were paid for — not to produce quality loans, but to produce signatures.

Little did we know, the more loans that defaulted, the more money the banks made — but they were able to mask the gains with apparent losses as an excuse to extract emergency money from the US Treasury using taxpayer dollars without accounting for the “loss” or what they did with the money. Meanwhile the gains were safely parked off shore in “off-balance sheet” transaction accounts.

The question that has not yet been asked, but will be asked as prosecutors and civil litigators drill down into these deals is who controls that off-shore money? My math is telling me that some $2.6 trillion was siphoned off (second level — hidden — yield spread premium) the investors money before the balance was used to fund “loans.”

When all is said and done, those loans will be seen for what they really were — part of the issuance of unregistered fraudulent securities. And you’ll see that the investors didn’t get any more paperwork than the borrowers did as to what was really going on. The banks want us to focus on the the paperwork when in fact it is the actual transactions involving money that we should be following. The paperwork is a ruse. It is faked.

NOTE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT: FOLLOW THE MONEY. IT WILL LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH AND THE PERPETRATORS. YOUR EFFORTS WILL BE REWARDED.

California AG Harris Exits Multistate Talks
in News > Mortgage Servicing
by MortgageOrb.com on Monday 03 October 2011
email the content item print the content item
comments: 0
The multistate attorneys general group working toward a foreclosure settlement with the nation’s biggest banks suffered a blow Friday, when California’s Kamala Harris announced her departure from negotiations.

Harris notified Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and U.S. Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli of her decision in a letter that was obtained and published by the New York Times Friday. According to the letter, Harris is exiting the talks because she opposes the broad scope of the settlement terms under discussion.

“Last week, I went to Washington, D.C., in hopes of moving our discussions forward,” Harris wrote. “But it became clear to me that California was being asked for a broader release of claims than we can accept and to excuse conduct that has not been adequately investigated.”

“[T]his not the deal California homeowners have been waiting for,” Harris adds one line later.

Harris, who earlier this year launched a mortgage fraud task force, says she will continue investigating mortgage practices – including banks’ bubble-era securitization activities – independent of the multistate group.

“I am committed to doing as thorough an investigation as is needed – and to taking the time that is necessary – to set the stage for achieving appropriate accountability for misconduct,” she wrote.

Harris also told Miller and Perrelli that she intends to advocate for legislation and regulations that increase transparency in the mortgage markets and “eliminate incentives to disregard borrowers’ rights in foreclosure.”

Harris’ departure is considered significant given the high number of distressed loans in California. In August, approximately one in every 226 housing units in the state had a foreclosure filing of some kind, according to RealtyTrac data.

52 Responses

  1. The banks should not get any slack. We are fighting the banks on a daily basis. We represent clients in Salt Lake City Utah with foreclosure defense.
    http://www.arnoldwadsworth.com

  2. I think I’ve found a soul-mate. Here are two excerpts from Marie
    McDonnell’s amicus brief in a case in MA:

    “The results of my investigation were shocking and
    revealed widespread, systemic, patterns of practice of
    fraud and abuse by the mortgage banking and servicing
    industries; and especially by their controversial
    private utility, Mortgage Electronic Registration
    Systems, Inc. which has eviscerated transparency from
    the time-honored public recording system……..

    Henrietta Eaton’s situation is a case in point of what
    typically happens when Fannie Mae, its Servicer, and
    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. conspire
    to suppress the identity of the true owner and holder of
    a borrower’s note and mortgage so that they can illegally
    foreclose upon the collateral property without raising
    suspicion. ”

    The very informative amicus may be read here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67708663/MERS-THE-UGLY-UGLY-TRUTH-of-the-SUPREME-ENABLER

    This woman likes MERS about like I do and has taken the time to share
    her expert opinion on the “Sham and Scam” (hey, now there’s an appropriate nickname for them) which is MERS, how it’s done, and how this involves all of us. Thanks for writing the brief, Ms McDonnell. She is a forenisc auditor and wrote the brief for free. I imagine this was quite a commitment, so please take the time to read it. You won’t be sorry. Adam Levitin wrote one, too, but I haven’t tracked it down yet.

  3. That was one of the items NG suggested we do when the time came. I have not been served yet for foreclosure waiting on sevicer to file Its coming soon. I have been trying to put a plan together for the fight, I have just prepared a FDCPA and FCRA suit for federal court.. Would really appreciate any info to help in this battle. Have you handled any of your fight or did you only use attorneys?.Anyone Please contact if interested in sharing any info. loeblas@yahoo.com

  4. dont edit me—–please tell me who you are and what was edited by whom?
    dcbreidenbach@aol.com

  5. Nora C,
    That was one of best “in a nutshell” eplantion I’ve heard in while. So it’s now going viral.

  6. The banks endorsed and deposited the Note the borrower signed, creating an asset and the corresponding liability on the bank’s balance sheets, resulting in a “zero balance” transaction. This is how the banks expand the money supply

    Actually the temporary booked assets— the predatory loan product–was used as collateral for issue of lender mortgage backed securities.
    The face of the securities exceeded the face of the mortgages by 15% and up–iv seen one big bank mark-up by 75%.

    The collateral assets and excessive securities values move off bbalance sheet in a securitization [suppoposedly] and the net cash goes to the bank group and then used to oil the machinery up and down by distributions of fees and bonuses. It would appear that investor fund managers in many cases were also greased –the losers are the pensioners—the insurers’ –again annuitants, life policies endangered——–there were twists on the trusts that caused the value of those already overpriced securities to fall because the trusts were rigged to shift payout of cash flows from one group to another in a baitn switch manner. Its pretty obvious–I just do not know why they are allowed to get away with it??

  7. “Yes money exchanged hands, but the real parties never met and never signed papers with each other”

    This is patently untrue of the bank’s end of the transaction. The banks CREATED the money they supposedly “LOANED” out of thin air and keystrokes. The “borrowers” made payments in legal tender in exchange for bank “credit’ because credit functions as money in the Federal Reserve system. Banks cannot legally lend their assets, the money deposited by customers, or their credit.
    The banks endorsed and deposited the Note the borrower signed, creating an asset and the corresponding liability on the bank’s balance sheets, resulting in a “zero balance” transaction. This is how the banks expand the money supply. In fractional reserve banking they use 10% reserves to generate more and more loans, that in turn generate more, ad infinitum. The bank LENT NO MONEY of it’s own, they used the borrower’s Note and credit ap to create funding.
    They did not suffer a loss, the lien was imperfected due to fraud, and they can’t claim your house because they didn’t perfect the security interest. End of story. Securitization didn’t happen, it was just a way to get real money from another source, and obscure the true facts of the whole Ponzi scheme.
    What the banks got for essentially lending you your own money was a security interest in your house “for free” because they didn’t lend you any real money. When you let them foreclose without challenging the proceeding, you are giving away what has already been paid for many times over. In addition to the payments of interest and principle you paid in, the down payment and closing costs, they also got 130% of the “debt” immediately when they sold your loan to another bank for a profit. When they fraudulently placed your “loan” in default to clean up with default servicing fees, collect on Pool Insurance, your Private Mortgage Insurance, FDIC insurance, TARP funds, etc., they may have made as much as $3,000,000 off your loan that you were never made aware of.
    Henry Ford said this: “It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for it they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tommorrow morning.”

    It’s time to spread the word, and start that revolution!

  8. So what is her primary goal here, making homeowners wrongfully fooreclosed on whole, or recovering the STATE’s losses on worthless MBS?

    Judging by political history the latter seems mor likely.

  9. CONNECTICUT

  10. Darel,

    What state are you in?

  11. Leapfrog,
    That was one of the items NG suggested we do when the time came. I have not been served yet for foreclosure waiting on sevicer to file Its coming soon. I have been trying to put a plan together for the fight, I have just prepared a FDCPA and FCRA suit for federal court.. Would really appreciate any info to help in this battle. Have you handled any of your fight or did you only use attorneys?. Please contact if interested in sharing any info. loeblas@yahoo.com

  12. Darel: No joinder. I’m in an adversary proceeding in BK court.

  13. Today,
    the top 400 U.S. families own more than the the bottom 50% of Americans.

  14. Comptroller of the Currency
    Administrator of National Banks
    1301 McKinney Street,
    Suite 3450.
    Houston, Texas
    77010-9050
    Fax: 713-336-4301

    October 3, 2011

    Re: Case No. 01615287 and 01406372
    WELLS FARGO BANK, NA

    BARRY S FAGAN- Complainant/Plaintiff
    Los Angeles Superior Court Case SC112044

    SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE OF BANK AND APPRAISAL FRAUD

    A.VIOLATIONS OF THE OCC CONSENT ORDER DATED APRIL 2011

    B. VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVES $85,000,000 CONSENT DECREE AGAINST WELLS FARGO FOR BANK EMPLOYEES FALSIFYING BORROWERS LOAN APPLICATION INCOME AND INFORMATION.

    Dear Mr. Chandler:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated September 6, 2011 and wish to further supplement my file with additional evidence of bank and appraisal fraud.

    Attached hereto and made a part hereof are Exhibits A through H, all of which have been filed with the Superior Court of Los Angeles CASE NUMBER SC112044, and have now become a public record.

    Contained within those exhibits, is evidence of a fraudulent loan application, appraisal fraud and a Declaration of Default (Section 2923.5 violation), perjury and continued violations of your own OCC regulatory rules, regulations and Consent Orders.

    Kindly review these exhibits to see that Wells Fargo Bank continues to Verify under penalty that which can be easily proven as untrue.

    The evidence to prove that my loan application was indeed falsified is compelling as:
    I have already verified under penalty of perjury in my July 15, 2011 First Amended Complaint, that I did not fill out any of the information in my loan application, nor see the loan application that was submitted to the underwriters by Wells Fargo private banker Dalia Warren. I verify that no income information was given to Wells Fargo Bank by me and that the alleged 2007 loan was a Stated Income Loan that did not require any income to be verified. I verify that I have never met Dalia Warren, a private banker at Wells Fargo Bank. I verify that Dalia Warren stated a false income on my loan application, a false marital status on my loan application, a false purchase date and purchase price on my loan application and a false statement concerning that my home was not held in trust at the time of the 2007 loan.
    I verify that I signed an IRS form which gave Wells Fargo Bank permission to pull my income tax returns but that Wells Fargo Bank Never in fact did so. I verify that on July 20, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank was fined $85,000,000 by the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve for having their employees prepare loan applications on behalf of their clients with false and inflated incomes. Even the application itself states that the borrower (me) was given no access to it, nor was I privy to any amendments made to it. The Loan Application itself states that $775,000 was applied for and yet Wells Fargo approved $1,000,000 without any regard to proper underwriting standards or guidelines. See Exhibits C & D.

    Moreover, Wells Fargo Bank’s May 11, 2011 Response to the OCC’s own inquiries concerning this subject loan contain false and inconsistent statements concerning income, debt to service ratios, loan to value, and CLTV.
    See Exhibit B.

    Exhibit A is perhaps the most egregious as that document was used to set in motion this entire illegal non-judicial foreclosure. The Notice of Default Declaration was UNSIGNED by anyone known and in fact was signed by WELLS FARGO BANK. See Exhibit A.

    This is an absolute legal impossibility, as an individual is required to sign on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank and this blatant California Civil Code Section 2923.5 violation should have been enough for the alleged Substituted Trustee TD SERVICE COMPANY to conduct further Due Diligence before illegally recording a Notice of Default on my primary residence. Section 2924 cannot possible provide TD Service Company with privilege when they failed to act with impartiality and minimal levels of due diligence. See Exhibit A and also:
    1. Kerivan v Title Insurance Insurance and Trust Company (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d. 225, 229:
    2. Bank of Seoul and Trust Company v Marcioni (1988)198 Cal. App 3d 113, 119;
    3. Hatch v Collins (1990) 225 Cal. App. d 1104,1113;
    4. Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Savings and Loan Association (1971) 22 Cal. App. 3d 347, 366;

    THIS IS A CRISIS! In California between 9,000 and 18,000 Foreclosed homes are confiscated EACH MONTH by the banking industry (Information available at http://www.foreclosureradar.com/california- foreclosures). The broadcast news media, newspaper and numerous periodicals have raised public awareness that over ninety-nine percent of these confiscated homes have been and will continue to be acquired by fraudulent means. The small percentage of homeowners who rely upon the California trial courts for protection under express laws are in most cases met with abuse of discretion. This crisis of massive California homeowner exile has been by the hand of the trial courts who are presumed to be under oath to stand as guardians of law, equity and substantial justice to prevent the very travesty of justice they continue to support. The Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts drew the line to insure the rights of those who stood on there right to equal protection under the laws would have issues of title, fraud and due process heard by an impartial judiciary. Presently, in any proceeding dealing with foreclosure issues, the trial court merely presides over a bank tribunal. In constructing the non-judicial foreclosure statute(s) Cal. Civil Code 2924, was the intention of the California Legislature to abrogate provisional access to power of sale by private agreement, which abrogation is prohibited under Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, in favor of statutory access to power of sale to empower statutory non-judicial foreclosure whereby is created a statutory waiver of due process prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Exhibits E, F and G all show just how James Ebert of EBERT APPRAISAL SERVICE INC. falsely and fraudulently inflated the value of my residence in 2007 to $2,100,000, when Wells Fargo’s second and third appraisals for my residence reflected $1,150,000 in December 2009 and $1,185,000 in January 2011. These two appraisals estimated the value of Plaintiff’s home to be $1,150,000 and $1,185,000 which was nearly $1,000,000 less than the Defendant Ebert Appraisal Service Inc.’s May 16, 2007 appraised value of $2,100,000. Such a decline in value was not based on market conditions alone but is further compelling evidence of the fraudulent appraisal performed by Ebert Appraisal Service Inc., and knowingly used by Wells Fargo Bank as a means to get me to increase my debt load on the property without having the true market value reflected from which to base my decision upon. But for this fraud and inducement defendant Wells Fargo Bank and Ebert Appraisal Service Inc., I would never have exposed my “Property” to such risk.

    Exhibit H is a Court Order dated September 9, 2011 against Wells Fargo Bank for Discovery Abuse with Sanctions which is further evidence that Wells Fargo Bank is continuing to Violate the OCC’s April 2011 Consent Order.

    So I continue to write to the regulatory authority that supposedly enforces and promulgates rules for National Banks to follow, and submit both evidence and allegations of fraud.

    I believe if my case is reviewed at the highest levels, the OCC can indeed do something to prevent fraud rather than in my opinion harbor it.

    Kindly forward this evidence to California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office so that they too can review these exhibits for possible State prosecution of these fraudulent and criminal acts.

    Sincerely,

    Barry S. Fagan Esq.
    Malibu, CA 90265

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67182879/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-Evidence-of-Bank-and-Appraisal-Fraud-to-OCC-Complaint-Numbers-01615287-and-01406372

  15. The President has spoken:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-usa-fed-bernanke-idUSTRE79337C20111004?feedType=RSS&feedName=PersonalFinance&rpc=43&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

    —————————————

    And many of his spokesperson’s have said:

    “However, many economists have doubts about its effectiveness, arguing that the key underlying problem is a lack of demand rather than lack of credit.”

    ————————————-

    I THINK THE KEY UNDERLAYING PROBLEM, DEPENDS ON WHOSE POINT OF VIEW (the lender or the borrower). IS THAT PEOPLE ARE

    TIRED OF BEING TOOK.

    THEY ARE SAYING THEMSELVES “NEVER AGAIN” AS THE A-MAN SAYS. To DEBT.

    PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF BEING IN DEBT AND YOUR ZERO INTEREST RATE POLICY IS KILLING SAVERS YOU DAMN LIARS CALLED ECONOMISTS AND BERNACKI…………………

    Thus we have Occupy Wall Street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. sorry—she’s a Rep., not a senator…

  17. ANOTHER SENATOR JOINS THE FIGHT:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#44762509

  18. Senator Bernie Sanders:

    “Wall Street spent BILLIONS of dollars fighting to deregulate their industry, which led us to the illegal behavior which caused the recession…Wall Street and other large companies are spending HUGE amounts of money influencing politics in America, and the legislative agenda—and of COURSE we’ve got to get that money out of politics…”

    “Bailouts. War. Unemployment. Our government is bought, and we’re angry…”

    HAS EVERYONE SIGNED THE AMENDMENT PETITION—AND TOLD A FRIEND???

    http://www.getmoneyout.com/

    If we get money OUT of politics—this massive global financial debacle cannot happen again—please help! We have to reach 100,000 signatures by the end of this week—thank you , thank you!!

    AMENDMENT:

    “No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”

    To double your impact, send GETMONEYOUT.com to one other person…

  19. Comptroller of the Currency
    Administrator of National Banks
    1301 McKinney Street,
    Suite 3450.
    Houston, Texas
    77010-9050
    Fax: 713-336-4301

    October 3, 2011

    Re: Case No. 01615287 and 01406372
    WELLS FARGO BANK, NA

    BARRY S FAGAN- Complainant/Plaintiff
    Los Angeles Superior Court Case SC112044

    SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE OF BANK AND APPRAISAL FRAUD

    A.VIOLATIONS OF THE OCC CONSENT ORDER DATED APRIL 2011

    B. VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVES $85,000,000 CONSENT DECREE AGAINST WELLS FARGO FOR BANK EMPLOYEES FALSIFYING BORROWERS LOAN APPLICATION INCOME AND INFORMATION.

    Dear Mr. Chandler:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated September 6, 2011 and wish to further supplement my file with additional evidence of bank and appraisal fraud.

    Attached hereto and made a part hereof are Exhibits A through H, all of which have been filed with the Superior Court of Los Angeles CASE NUMBER SC112044, and have now become a public record.

    Contained within those exhibits, is evidence of a fraudulent loan application, appraisal fraud and a Declaration of Default (Section 2923.5 violation), perjury and continued violations of your own OCC regulatory rules, regulations and Consent Orders.

    Kindly review these exhibits to see that Wells Fargo Bank continues to Verify under penalty that which can be easily proven as untrue.

    The evidence to prove that my loan application was indeed falsified is compelling as:
    I have already verified under penalty of perjury in my July 15, 2011 First Amended Complaint, that I did not fill out any of the information in my loan application, nor see the loan application that was submitted to the underwriters by Wells Fargo private banker Dalia Warren. I verify that no income information was given to Wells Fargo Bank by me and that the alleged 2007 loan was a Stated Income Loan that did not require any income to be verified. I verify that I have never met Dalia Warren, a private banker at Wells Fargo Bank. I verify that Dalia Warren stated a false income on my loan application, a false marital status on my loan application, a false purchase date and purchase price on my loan application and a false statement concerning that my home was not held in trust at the time of the 2007 loan.
    I verify that I signed an IRS form which gave Wells Fargo Bank permission to pull my income tax returns but that Wells Fargo Bank Never in fact did so. I verify that on July 20, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank was fined $85,000,000 by the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve for having their employees prepare loan applications on behalf of their clients with false and inflated incomes. Even the application itself states that the borrower (me) was given no access to it, nor was I privy to any amendments made to it. The Loan Application itself states that $775,000 was applied for and yet Wells Fargo approved $1,000,000 without any regard to proper underwriting standards or guidelines. See Exhibits C & D.

    Moreover, Wells Fargo Bank’s May 11, 2011 Response to the OCC’s own inquiries concerning this subject loan contain false and inconsistent statements concerning income, debt to service ratios, loan to value, and CLTV.
    See Exhibit B.

    Exhibit A is perhaps the most egregious as that document was used to set in motion this entire illegal non-judicial foreclosure. The Notice of Default Declaration was UNSIGNED by anyone known and in fact was signed by WELLS FARGO BANK. See Exhibit A.

    This is an absolute legal impossibility, as an individual is required to sign on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank and this blatant California Civil Code Section 2923.5 violation should have been enough for the alleged Substituted Trustee TD SERVICE COMPANY to conduct further Due Diligence before illegally recording a Notice of Default on my primary residence. Section 2924 cannot possible provide TD Service Company with privilege when they failed to act with impartiality and minimal levels of due diligence. See Exhibit A and also:
    1. Kerivan v Title Insurance Insurance and Trust Company (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d. 225, 229:
    2. Bank of Seoul and Trust Company v Marcioni (1988)198 Cal. App 3d 113, 119;
    3. Hatch v Collins (1990) 225 Cal. App. d 1104,1113;
    4. Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Savings and Loan Association (1971) 22 Cal. App. 3d 347, 366;

    THIS IS A CRISIS! In California between 9,000 and 18,000 Foreclosed homes are confiscated EACH MONTH by the banking industry (Information available at http://www.foreclosureradar.com/california- foreclosures). The broadcast news media, newspaper and numerous periodicals have raised public awareness that over ninety-nine percent of these confiscated homes have been and will continue to be acquired by fraudulent means. The small percentage of homeowners who rely upon the California trial courts for protection under express laws are in most cases met with abuse of discretion. This crisis of massive California homeowner exile has been by the hand of the trial courts who are presumed to be under oath to stand as guardians of law, equity and substantial justice to prevent the very travesty of justice they continue to support. The Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts drew the line to insure the rights of those who stood on there right to equal protection under the laws would have issues of title, fraud and due process heard by an impartial judiciary. Presently, in any proceeding dealing with foreclosure issues, the trial court merely presides over a bank tribunal. In constructing the non-judicial foreclosure statute(s) Cal. Civil Code 2924, was the intention of the California Legislature to abrogate provisional access to power of sale by private agreement, which abrogation is prohibited under Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, in favor of statutory access to power of sale to empower statutory non-judicial foreclosure whereby is created a statutory waiver of due process prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Exhibits E, F and G all show just how James Ebert of EBERT APPRAISAL Service INC. falsely and fraudulently inflated the value of my residence in 2007 to $2,100,000, when Wells Fargo’s second and third appraisals for my residence reflected $1,150,000 in December 2009 and $1,185,000 in January 2011. These two appraisals estimated the value of Plaintiff’s home to be $1,150,000 and $1,185,000 which was nearly $1,000,000 less than the Defendant Ebert Appraisal Service Inc.’s May 16, 2007 appraised value of $2,100,000. Such a decline in value was not based on market conditions alone but is further compelling evidence of the fraudulent appraisal performed by Ebert Appraisal Service Inc., and knowingly used by Wells Fargo Bank as a means to get me to increase my debt load on the property without having the true market value reflected from which to base my decision upon. But for this fraud and inducement defendant Wells Fargo Bank and Ebert Appraisal Service Inc., I would never have exposed my “Property” to such risk.

    Exhibit H is a Court Order dated September 9, 2011 against Wells Fargo Bank for Discovery Abuse with Sanctions which is further evidence that Wells Fargo Bank is continuing to Violate the OCC’s April 2011 Consent Order.

    So I continue to write to the regulatory authority that supposedly enforces and promulgates rules for National Banks to follow, and submit both evidence and allegations of fraud.

    I believe if my case is reviewed at the highest levels, the OCC can indeed do something to prevent fraud rather than in my opinion harbor it.

    Kindly forward this evidence to California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office so that they too can review these exhibits for possible State prosecution of these fraudulent and criminal acts.

    Sincerely,

    Barry S. Fagan Esq.
    20475 Roca Chica Dr.
    Malibu, CA 90265
    310.717.1790

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67182879/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-Evidence-of-Bank-and-Appraisal-Fraud-to-OCC-Complaint-Numbers-01615287-and-01406372

  20. Well, with everything that has transpired in the last 4 years and everything that was uncovered, if heads don’t start falling soon, i don’t know what it will take… So far, banks should be shut down and their CEOs jailed. Attys should be disbarred “en-masse”. Judges should be retired. Congress should be replaced. Jeez, when that starts happening, our heads will spin!!!

  21. Thank you BSE for the explanation. So the cancer has spread throughout the whole system.

  22. AThe A Man

    Phil Graham, Senator from Texas lobbied Congress to block legislation against derivatives. Further he lobbied to remove Glass Steagal. Bill Clinton signed the legislation in the year 1999 that allowed that banks to organize the ponzi scheme. Rubin ( Billy’s Secretary treasurer) goes to work for Citi Bank. He knew how to take advantage as he had upper hand knowledge. Make NO mistake congress helped organize the pnzi scheme. There has been no apologies to the citizens across the world, the tax payers and home owners. These A$$ holes have done little to resolve the mess. The wrecking crew needs and their associates need to be removed from Congress.

  23. BSE what do you mean by the Bill Clinton wrecking machine?

    thank you

  24. Real People, Real Issues, Real Reasons to Protest.

    WAKE UP OBAMA… NEXT OCCUPY DC.
    Your job is in jeopardy

    Edn the cover up ! Game Over ! Remove the Bill Clinton wrecking machine .

  25. OCCUPY WALLSTREET !

  26. WASHINGTON (AP) — Mortgage giant Fannie Mae knew about allegations of improper foreclosure practices by law firms in 2003 but did not act to stop them, a government watchdog says.

    Similar allegations are the subject of a probe by state attorneys general into how lenders and law firms ignored proper procedures to handle a crush of foreclosure paperwork.

    An unnamed shareholder warned Fannie Mae of alleged foreclosure abuses in 2003, the inspector general for the agency that regulates Fannie says in a report being released Tuesday.

    Fannie Mae responded by hiring a law firm to investigate the claims in 2005. The law firm reported in 2006 that it had found foreclosure attorneys in Florida “routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits.”

    Fannie officials said they told a government official about the law firm’s findings in 2006. That unnamed official, who now works for Fannie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said he couldn’t recall the conversation, the report says.

    Fannie began using a network of attorneys in 1997 to help handle foreclosures, evictions and bankruptcies. In 2008, the network grew to 140 law firms. And the number of foreclosures in Fannie’s portfolio reached historic highs. Foreclosures more than doubled from 2007 to 2008. They grew 50 percent in 2009.

    In June 2010, FHFA officials went to Florida to study the foreclosure crisis. They found that the mortgage industry was overwhelmed by foreclosures; that the average foreclosure processing time had grown from 150 days to more than 400 days; that lenders were beset by flawed documentation; and that law firms weren’t devoting enough time to cases.

    The worst practices, known collectively as “robo-signing,” led some lenders to suspend foreclosures last fall. And it led to an ongoing investigation by all 50 state attorneys general.

    Several states, including California, Delaware and New York, oppose a proposed settlement with the lenders. They complain that the lenders would receive unfair immunity from civil litigation under the deal.

    Fannie and its sister company, Freddie Mac, own or guarantee about half of U.S. mortgages. That equals nearly 31 million loans worth more than $5 trillion. And they account for nearly all new mortgages.

    The Bush administration seized control of the mortgage giants in September 2008, hoping to stabilize the housing industry.

    The inspector general’s report says FHFA plans to change its oversight policies by the end of 2012. The report is among several government inquiries into the aftermath of the housing crisis.

    A broader report into missteps by Fannie and Freddie is expected this fall.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-report-Fannie-knew-of-apf-903176030.html?x=0

  27. It is getting to close to two events to be politically “safe” to open the jail doors wide 1st—elections only a year away. 2nd Its REALLY likely that these poor banks will need another huge bailout just in time to get the bonus checks out the door–like last time. AGs dont want both in rear-view mirror on election day. it will be a miracle if geithner doesnt put the brakes on em–hold bank funds or something. Its nice to be President–run around the world tellining other countries how to deceive their peoples. To ECB “dont lend the defaulting countries money directly–instead guarantee much larger loans–whats the diference? Nobody in the US knows the difference–why think germans would figure out they are on the hook for way more than they thought” to congress—-“what do we need to do to fool all the people all the time?”

  28. leapfrog
    have you been named in a joinder yet against the bank. fighting servicer ?????

  29. Darel: The information that Kamala Harris is receiving bribe money (oop, I mean campaign money) is certainly disappointing. This is very firm that is representing the banksters I am fighting. How lovely to know that a public servant (Harris) whose salary I help pay with my taxers is working against me.

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

  31. This is for all the Californians looking for a good attorney. I don’t know them personally but between Mandelman and their interview, I find that convincing enough to send them a note.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/10/two-top-tier-lawyers-ready-to-sue-servicers-for-defrauding-homeowners/

  32. Darrel Thank you for the info

  33. Money Talks look at what happened to BAC stock

    http://quotes.wsj.com/BAC

    Ms. Harris has a Federal Lawsuit by Homeowners

    http://whereisthenote.org/hundreds-of-homeowners-sue-attorney-general-kamala-harris-in-federal-courts/

    NEVER AGAIN

  34. FHA MAY DENY BANKS INSURANCE CLAIMS, COSTING THEM BILLIONS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67346233/FHA-MAY-DENY-INSURANCE-CLAIMS-BY-BANKS-COSTING-THEM-BILLIONS

  35. And meanwhile, BofA keeps accumulating stupid move after stupid move. A suicidal bank… How interesting!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/bank-of-america-fee_n_992623.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl4%7Csec3_lnk3%7C101055

    Let’s put it out of its (and especally our) misery. Let’s do what Miller and Durbin advise, shall we? Pull the plug and… walk away.

  36. Virginia homeowner defeats OneWest’s motion to intervene into a quiet title action:
    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/virginia-homeowner-defeats-onewests.html

  37. There was a post here recently about a RICO case filed by attorney
    Jeff Barnes. I came across some good, easy to follow info describing
    RICO. I posted it here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67339009/Primer-on-RICO-including-Definitions

    It’s worth a read. It’s my opinion everything going on which involves MERS, particularly the latest self-assignments of dots by members,
    falls into one or more definitions of RICO and every homeowner whose home has been taken or is threatened will spot them imo. MERS, the master-mind enabler, HAS GOT TO GO. I weren’t indisposed, I’d be in NY raising that banner.

    .

  38. ALL ,

    Speaking of state AG’s what can we do to push Pam Bondi out of office here in Florida? With Rick Scotts reputation I would think he would be quick to jettison her so (their) scandals doesn’t stick to him.

  39. In Riverside and the Inland Empire, large numbers of foreclosures have left neighborhoods empty and rundown; recent reports said a vacant Glendale home was even colonized by coyotes. This in turn brings down the values of the properties in the area that have not been foreclosed, because their neighborhood is perceived as less desirable. That was the theory of liability in the proposed class action lawsuit Maya et al. v. Centex Corp., in which homeowners sued eight large homebuilders for allegedly marketing and selling loans to high-risk borrowers, and making false representations. The district court dismissed the case, but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resurrected it, finding the decreased value of the homes was enough to give them standing to sue.
    The plaintiffs put 20 percent or more down on new homes between 2004 and 2006. In their lawsuits, they claim the builders falsely represented that the neighborhoods would be stable and owner-occupied, implicitly guaranteeing that they would sell the homes to people who could afford them. Instead, they claimed, the defendants marketed homes to unqualified buyers and investors, and financed many of the purchases in order to make more money. The plaintiffs claim all of this was material information that was not disclosed, and thus they were defrauded. When their neighborhoods began seeing property values slide as a result of the “inevitable” flood of foreclosures, they said, they lost money and desirability. Their lawsuit alleges violations of California’s Business and Professional Code, plus fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, successfully arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the injuries they claimed were theoretical until their homes are sold, and not necessarily traceable to the plaintiffs’ actions. The district court denied plaintiffs leave to introduce more testimony and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
    But on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs did indeed have standing. It said the district court incorrectly applied narrow rules because it erroneously used the rules for lack of statutory standing to a motion based on lack of Article III standing. When the Ninth considered whether the plaintiffs did have Article III standing, it concluded that they did. It was not disputed that a favorable court decision would redress their injuries, the court said. Furthermore, it found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated injury in fact and causation with respect to two of their claims: that they overpaid for the homes and that they would not have paid as much if they had known the truth (rescission claim). These are actual injuries stemming from the alleged deception of the defendants at the time of sale, the Ninth said; thus, any future improvement in home prices does not redress their injuries. Furthermore, it said the district court was wrong to hold them to a proximate cause standard; they need only plead a plausible chain of causation. Under the same analysis, the plaintiffs’ claims for decreased value and desirability did not establish a strong enough causal connection — but the Ninth ruled the plaintiffs should be allowed to add expert testimony to establish it. Thus, it reversed and remanded the case.
    This is a victory for homeowners who believe they were defrauded by homebuilders looking to make a quick dollar during the housing bubble. And as Tustin foreclosure defense attorneys, we’ve seen plenty of evidence that this is possible. For example, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the homebuilders sought to inflate demand and prices by acting as the lenders for the homes they also built, which takes away the lender’s incentive to determine whether the home price is fair. We’ve also read much about the lowering of lending standards during the housing bubble, which was made possible by increased securitization of home loans. Rather than worry about the risk of lending to someone without the means to pay the loan, the lenders were able to lend to nearly anyone and pass the risk on to investors. Both foreclosed borrowers and those who avoided foreclosure have been left in bad positions by these excesses. As Downey foreclosure defense lawyers, we look forward to hearing more about these lawsuits.
    Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Finds Homeowners Have Standing to Sue Lenders for Bringing Down Property Values – Maya et al. v. Centex Corp.” »
    Permalink | Email This Post

  40. It’s pretty clear to me . Thank Mitchell Stein if he didnt go after her the way he did she would still be guarding the bank doors. I assume she will just make a state level deal giving immunity to the banks. Just look at some of her donors Brian Cave Law firm who represents Bank of America in a joinder case, Bank of America managers. She shouldnt accept any money from the banks shes investigating . If enough of us speak up we can stop this coverup

  41. oops—I meant HMan

  42. A Man:

    ANONYMOUS, on August 4, 2011 at 6:45 am said:
    seniorauthor
    I am referring to subprime refinances — that were presented to borrowers as a
    new “mortgage” — with all the fees, frills, and costs – and with guaranteed
    mortgage title. We all know about “table funding” — that is the real party
    funding is not at the “table.” But, these “mortgages” were not funded at all —
    never mind not by any “lender” not at the table. All that was funded was any
    cash-out. So, what we do have??? We have a “loan” that is not a mortgage because
    the prior “mortgage” was not paid off. We have a “modification” of the prior
    mortgage — but without disclosure — and in violation of the law. We have an
    unsecured loan to someone — who will likely never divulge the fraud to the
    borrower. We have a servicer who claims collection rights to a fabricated false
    mortgage. And, we have a “loan” that can be discharged in BK.
    “If the proceeds at “mortgage” refinance were to be traced for prior loan payoff,
    we will find no payoff. But, this is beyond the ability of borrowers to prove in
    court. Even if granted discovery, there will be no cooperation.
    It is up to the US government to intervene, to investigate, and to prosecute
    where necessary. This is a big reason as to why I am concerned about the 50
    state AG settlement.
    “Wired funds” — NO. Wired what looked like funds — but were just an extension of
    credit to the correspondent “originator” — no actual cash proceeds are
    deposited.

    ANONYMOUS, on September 19, 2011 at 6:20 am said:
    zurenarrh
    You are correct -with any debt collection — if the creditor is not identified (original to current) — you do not owe the debt to anyone. . Cannot pay anyone you do not owe. Cannot not emphasize enough — if wrong party is identified– you are never credited for paying — money just goes into a “Rabbit Hole.” And, with subprime refinance — these were just mods of already classified (default) debt — thus, not Notes at — unsecured. In fact, with any charge-off — unsecured debt.
    Reading testimony from former default service processor in NJ — in Re Mortgage Foreclosures (March testimony) — as soon as “loan” goes into default — the servicer outsources to a default servicer. Thus, no servicer can even testify to information — hearsay — and, default servicer testimony is also hearsay — because where did they get info from? Do you really think default servicer advanced any payments?? NO.
    The most you get from any debt collection is who THEY think is the original creditor — (not necessarily the original creditor – as you state) — but, you will get no where near as to identify of the current creditor. Fannie does not operate as a trustee — Fannie may have been an “investor” — but questionable — as to current creditor. Although Fannie/Freddie may currently be having trouble disposing of charge-off collection rights — due to volume and market crisis — F/F easily did so in past.

  43. This link has a much better story:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/california-attorney-general-breaks-from-50-state-mortgage-settlement.html

    “Note it is important to keep pressure on Harris. Even though her repudiation of the Federal/state mortgage coverup effort is progress, she is the only AG not to align herself with the Schneiderman/Biden effort. Given her past stance (of going after mortgage abuses in a way that would generate headlines but not ruffle the banks), the odds remain high that she will try to craft a deal that is bank friendly but with better optics than the Federal/state effort.”

    As Yves says, Harris is the sort who blows with the wind rather than take a tough stance…so KEEP THE PRESSURE ON HER.

  44. Occupy Arizona !

    Call Arizona AG – Tom Horne! We are not going to take any more of this $hit !

  45. Great point, A Man!

  46. “Definition of securitization of receivables:

    The securitization of receivables consists in the sale of a pool of receivables to a dedicated vehicle that finances this purchase by issuing securities on the market. Repayment of principal and payment of interest due under these securities are made with the cash flow generated by the assigned receivables.

    The assets of the dedicated vehicle consist exclusively in the pool of receivables purchased under the securitization transaction (and the cash flow generated by the assigned receivables) and the liabilities, in the securities issued on the market.
    The word “securitization” is used to describe this transformation of receivables into securities, the securities issued by the dedicated vehicle representing the assigned receivables.”

    Neil: Please stop calling them “loans”. Only receivables were securitized in subprime. No funding needed. Foreclosures on unsecured false default debt.

  47. Hello,

    I hope more AG’s have the courage to stand against the banks.

    Anyway, I’ve seen the quote before follow the money. Does anyone know how to do this? I refinanced in 2006. I took out money about $100,000 to buy 2 other properties.

    I got out my old bank records. The “cash” from the equity I took was deposited into my checking account via wire payment from a chase account. Does anybody know where to go from here?

    Also, here’s what is says as orignator but I I’m not sure how to research this? Also, it looks like the title company advanced me the money?

    Ý502¨ Originator: D000634912356 (No CHIPS lookup)

    TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE CO

    ESCROW FUNDS ACCOUNT

  48. I wish my posts were not edited. Harris is an opportunist who previously was helpful to banksters

  49. Along with leaving the 50 state group, Harris should now impose a ban on all foreclosures in CA. Stop them dead in their tracks and begin a SERIOUS investigation into the fraud. She should open a portal where the foreclosed and about to be can “help” point the AG’s office in the right direction. I personally have much to share 🙂

  50. Yeah Kamala! Fight for the homeowners of California, we need all the help we can get!

  51. So why is Recontrustco allowed to foreclose in the mean time. She is buying political points while allowing the Banksters to continue.

    Can somebody correct me if I am wrong?

    This is sort of like allowing the pitcher to continue cheating (with illegal baseball) or the batter to have an illegal bat and allowing the game to continue.

    NEVER AGAIN.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: