MASS SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES: YOU CAN’T SELL WHAT YOU DON’T OWN — MISSING HOMEOWNER WINS CASE WITHOUT KNOWING IT

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE IS NOT THE FOUNDATION FOR TITLE

PROSPECTS FOR TITLE PROBLEMS ACROSS THE NATION ARE MUSHROOMING

EDITOR’S NOTE: Likening the claims of the bank and the person who received a “quitclaim” deed to a Brooklyn Bridge transaction, the Court simply stated the most basic law: you can’t sell what you don’t own. But the reasoning of this Supreme Court decision, citing cases from long ago that are as valid to day as when they first decided, also goes directly to the issue of whether title can be challenged in an eviction arising from a foreclosure case.

The rule that a tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord in an eviction case makes sense — if it is a landlord tenant case. But foreclosure cases are not landlord tenant cases. The fallacy of applying the rule to foreclosure cases is obvious and just as simple as the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision itself.

In a landlord-tenant case the allegation is that the defendant is a tenant under a lease and that they didn’t pay their rent under the lease terms. To allow title challenges that frankly are not really relevant would be to clog the courts with unnecessary litigation and stretch out the time a tenant  could stay without paying rent. Thus the rule that says you can’t raise defects in title in an eviction action between landlord and tenant. The allegation is made that by the Landlord that he is the Landlord, that the defendant is a tenant and that there is a lease, with the payment due of $x dollars per month  or per week and that the tenant did not pay — which has caused the landlord damage and therefore they need the possession of the property back so they can receive rent again to pay the mortgage, maintenance etc.

Foreclosure cases are much different. Here the allegation is that the Plaintiff is the owner, not a landlord as in the landlord-tenant case. Further, the allegation is that the occupant was the owner and isn’t anymore. The allegation MUST be that the change occurred as a result of a foreclosure that was duly prosecuted and in which there was a proper sale in which the Plaintiff obtained title and in which the rights to ownership and thus possession by the homeowner were foreclosed.

In civil procedure EVERYWHERE what is alleged is presumed to be true only in a motion to dismiss. If the allegations are denied, then there must be evidence from the plaintiff proving their allegations. In this case in Massachusetts as is the case in thousands of other instances, the evidence clearly shows that US bank was not the mortgagee when it initiated foreclosure.

Therefore US BANK could not foreclose. But it did anyway. And because they received a deed, they say that is enough. But a homeowner need only deny the allegations of the foreclosure and the sale and force the Plaintiff to prove it obtained real title in proper form and substance. Here is where US Bank fails and therefore the case was dismissed (in this case not an eviction, but a suit to quiet title against a homeowner who cannot be found).

If the allegation supporting the eviction action is faulty and cannot be proven, then the occupant wins. Those are the rules. If you make an allegation you must prove it with real evidence — not with presumptions that would allow people to sell the Brooklyn Bridge 100 times and make claims of presumption of title.

SEE 10.18.2011 Mass Sup Ct Bevi;aqua

Nemo Dat Trumps Bona Fide Purchaser

posted by Adam Levitin

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just handed down a second
major mortgage foreclosure ruling, Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez.  The case
was an Ibanez follow-up dealing with the rights of a purchaser at an
invalid foreclosure sale. I thought this was a no brainer case and
said so in an amicus brief co-authored with some of the Credit Slips
crew. As the trial court noted, the foreclosure sale purchaser has to
lose otherwise I could actually sell you the Brooklyn Bridge or some
other property I don’t own.

What was cool about this case from an academic perspective was that it
pitted two heavyweight, Latin-inscribed principles of commercial law
against each other:  the nemo dat quod non habet principle (you can’t
give what you don’t have) and the bona fide purchaser principle (one
who takes in good faith for value and without notice of defect will
get legal protection against claims). While these are both venerable
principles of commercial law, there should have been no question that
nemo dat prevails. It is arguably the foundational principle of
commercial law:  the most one party can transfer to another are the
rights it has.
We have one critical carve-out to that principle, the
holder-in-due-course doctrine, but the holder-in-due-course is much
like the bona fide purchaser:  it only applies if you take in good
faith and without notice of defect. And if you’re buying at a
non-judicial foreclosure sale, you’ve got notice of possible defect
(and one might argue about good faith). It’s a little like the problem
of finding a bargain when shopping–if it’s too good of a deal, it
could be a fraudulent transfer.

And so the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held.  If the
foreclosure was done improperly, the foreclosing party didn’t have
title to the property and thus couldn’t transfer title to the
purchaser. The court didn’t dismiss the suit with prejudice, so Mr.
Bevilacqua could get the property–if the foreclosure is done right in
the first place, but that means starting over again.

A lot of people think that the ruling in Bevilacqua will kill the REO
market. I doubt it. It might make it a bit harder to get title
insurance, but the title insurers have to keep issuing titles because
they need the cash flow. If there’s a widespread problem, they’re
already insolvent, so why not keep on doing business? There’s no tort
of deepening insolvency (at least in Delaware).

As with Ibanez, the Supreme Judicial Court merely upheld very sensible
principles that shouldn’t be controversial:  you need to be the
mortgagee to foreclose and you can’t sell what you can’t deliver.
What’s kind of astounding is that the banks have had the chutzpah to
challenge these basic principles of commercial law, as if centuries of
commercial law jurisprudence should suddenly bend to their
convenience. This is the same sort of arrogance that engendered the
creation of MERS and the Article 9 mortgage transfer process.

There’s a third case awaiting decision from the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court, Eaton v. Fannie Mae, which deals with the question of
whether a “naked mortgagee”–a mortgagee that isn’t the
noteholder–can foreclose. I filed an amicus arguing no way no how,
but we’ll see how the court rules.

42 Responses

  1. If Foreclosed/Homeowner signs a Quit Claim Deed to the New Buyer to clear title and the Lender/Foreclosing Party Liar doesn’t own anything, here are some further questions:
    1. WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE TRANSFER TAX (Excise tax in Wa State) or whatever the particular state calls the tax?
    2. Why does the Foreclosed/Homeowner get a 1099 from Lender/Foreclsing Party Liar after their illegal foreclosure?
    3. And why does the Lender/Foreclosing Party Liar make their illegal foreclosure look like the Foreclosed/Homeowner “sold” the property to the Lender/Foreclosing Party Liar?
    4. Why are the state revenue departments allowing the Lender/Foreclosing Parties to get away with NOT paying transfer tax, when obviously the Lender/
    Foreclosing Parties are not holding an actual foreclosure sale?

  2. @ John McCormickand John Galt

    I once mentioned there was no statute of limitations for fraud against the court but couldn’t find the citation -here it is

    In civil law countries, almost all lawsuits must be started within a legally determined period. If they are presented after that time, an institution called prescription applies, which prevents them from filing the case.

    Italian case is quite peculiar in this regard since lawsuits and trials must be ended, rather than started, within such a time limit. This makes effectively possible to avoid a guilty sentence by delaying the trial enough for the time limit to expire.

    For criminal cases, this means that the public prosecutor must prosecute within some time limit. The time limit varies from country to country, and increases with seriousness of the alleged crime (for example, in most jurisdictions, there is no statute of limitations for murder). When a time limit is suspended, it does not run (akin to hitting “Stop” on a stopwatch). Common triggers include the defendant being on the run. When a time limit is interrupted, it is restarted (like hitting “Reset” on a stopwatch). This may be triggered by a new crime committed.

    If a criminal is on the run, he can be convicted in absence, in order to prevent prescription, or the time limit does not elapse during that time.

    The prescription must not be confused with the need to prosecute within “a reasonable delay”, an obligation imposed by the European Court of Human Rights. Whether the delay is reasonable or not, will depend on the complexity of the trial and the attitude of the suspect.

    [edit] Exclusions[edit] Fraud upon the courtIn the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

    Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors, Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.

    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication”. Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23

    In Bullock v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted

  3. Marsha—from what I have gathered all REMICS are empty, but they won’t tell you this. You must DEMAND accounting of all your payments (with a ledger and balance sheet), going to an actual “mortgage loan”…not some made up “debt” from some debt collector…which is undoubtedly who you have been paying…

  4. thank you all and yes i agree we have gained much knowledge over this year. i have one question, can anyone tell me the best way to track my loan through it’s remic number? i have a 2006 world savings that is now wachovia/wells banks. please correct me on this, i had heard that secularization was used on my loan w/ world savings. i have tried to locate this remic # but it is not in the world savings registry. i was told to look in wachovia’s registry, surprise, surprise, guess what? from 2006 to 2010 all info. on remic #’s are missing. i need to keep diggin’, but if anyone has any info. this, please let me know. i will keep you informed as i gather more on this. Marsha

  5. I just think all the Courts will have to go with the Nemo Dat Rule
    as a prerequisite for selling
    or the Donald will have to explain to the Courts why we will all sell Trumps condos to make up for our loses.

  6. With Massachusetts ruling on the Nemo Dat rule
    that you cannot give that which you do not own

    my what proceedure will other State Courts,like NY,Florida ,
    California, Nevada and the rest give back possession of property where the Banks sold property that they didn’t own?

  7. mind boggling and sickening.

  8. @ Carie

    I just looked at that proposed bill by Charles Schumer of NY and Mike Lee of Utah they are turncoats to this country and trying to destroy our property rights.

    Proposed Bill Would Offer Visas to Foreign Homebuyers in U.S.

  9. @enraged

    Like you are enraged I was outraged, when this foreclosure fraud dropped out of the sky on me.

    Then I had great faith in our Court system and Banking system.
    It started out with me thinking that it was going to be a simply proceedure showing that a bank hid four of my mortgage payments and
    then said I didn’t send them.

    My was a National Bank (Fidelity NY FSB) not a State Bank so I found my way to the Office of Thrift Supervision of the Treasury Dept.

    On a very windy day I went to see one Raymond Coons -compliance
    manager of the NY/NJ OTS. He went into Astoria Federal S & L successor in Interest to Fidelity NY FSB with federal examiners and saw my 4 checks came in and disappeared and saw nothing wrong with that. I then I was really outraged and have not stopped.

    This started a long time ago for me and hardly anyone knew about the fraud going on at the banks. I was talking. to my self at that point.

    I was coming back from the Court one day and sat next to a big woman and I guess I was talking to myself when I heard say under her breath ‘Chitter Chatter thats all these people do”
    Thats why these sites are so good all our chitter chatter helps each other.

  10. @Cheryl

    I went back to the NY State Dept of Banking to see the Supt’s name and it has since changed but his mane was Richard Neiman
    April 2, 2003

    Diana L. Taylor
    June 10, 2003

    Richard H. Neiman March 5, 2007
    Regina Stone * May 9, 2011
    Benjamin M. Lawsky *
    June 23, 2011

  11. @Cheryl

    I dont know the answer to your inquiry.

    Every Jurisdiction seems to have their own Title Rules.

    I too went to the Dept of Insurance complaining in particular about Fidelity National Title when I discovered that by their actions they were perpertrating title fraud rather than preventing title fraud.

    I didn’t get any help but I knew I was right when I kept searching info about title insurance I came across the NY State Banking website and the bank supt I think his name was Neiman in a speech about Title Insurance was complaining about Title Fraud.

  12. Marilyn Lane –

    What do people buy title insurance for? It pays if you have unmarketable title and other reasons. Title searches are supposed to be done to the present like you stated but my title co. never did any searches. I turned them in to Dept. of Insurance and the state investigated and fined them for 10 violations including no date down search or title search. Former owner has a lien against house. I had another title search done through this website and they found no loan that exists in my name or address. Lawyer says I cannot sue them but I paid title insurance for myself and supposed lender. I do not hear of anyone addressing this issue.

  13. @enraged

    15 years ago I filed bankruptcy, I didn’t know shit about anything that is going on now. I told the lawyer that did the BK for me, one day I will pay them back,,,,,,,credit cards…………she said “WHY, I wouldn’t” I was sitting in some moral obligation to pay back ones debt. Now I truely understand why she said that. It’s all bullshit. One has a moral obligation to pay back a friend who lends his real money. But banks and CC co’s ——it’s all make believe………..thank you very much you snakes…………

    I have said before on this site many moons ago…………education used to be about how to survive by fighting animals and the elements. Nowadays, to survive you need to fight man and his so called Justice Systems, the IRS, the Government, UCC rules, Codes , the Federal Reserve, Banks, Contracts, and so on. Pure debt slavery is the goal…………no doubt about it…………and it is simple to understand because we have a———–

    we have a debt based monetary system…………..that is the basic one needs to understand………..the 1% receive the debt payments, they do not pay on the debt payments…………….they receive it and can buy anything since they also create it…………..while also imposing taxes via Governments (this is Global) to create it, and impose taxes on the citizen’s.

    I will say it again…………stay away from the banks………………..disconnect somehow, somewhy, and never go back……….they are sharks in the waters and they only want your money or hard work…………..

  14. I do not know what to think anymore. My promissory note states Creditor is America’s Wholesale Lender, Service of Loan was once Countrywide Mortgage and is now Bank of America. I would like to make a comment that Bank of America when responding to questions about your loan will not put a signature on anything but they are glad to tell you they don’t have to provide the promissory note you owe the debt pay it. I have two different letters from Bank of America dated August 11, 2011 which states that Bank of America whose address is
    225 W. Hillcrest Dr., Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 owns the land and Bank of America services the loan. Today I receive letters in the mail dated October 14, 2011 which states Please note all other requests are declined (this is where I asked for a blue ink copy of the promissory note), as they seek documentation that goes beyond that which is available through a Qualified Written Request made under 12 U.S.C. 2605(B). The owner of this loan is Bank of New York whose address is 101 Barclay Street, 4W, New York, NY 10286. bank of America services the loan on behalf of the owner. I know nothing of these banks nor does anything filed with the court or the land and county tax office show any of these assignments to the deed of trust on my home. The deed of Trust states Grantor is myself and Grantees are America’s Wholesale Lender; CTC Mortgage, and MERS. This is a clouded deed of trust if I ever heard of such a thing and further more Bank of America has not a clue as to who owns this loan. They don’t even know what the right hand or left hand is doing and they don’t sign documents to keep from having to be involved in the saga and lies of Bank of America.

    I want the blue ink original promissory note with the assignments to the deed of trust proving that what they are saying is true. I think I need to sue for quiet title on my home.

  15. @Marilyn,

    I didn’t mean to imply that no one had fought or was fighting but the truth is that the great najority of people simply fold as soon as the prospect of a fight arises. Call it apathy, ignorance, intimidation (I see people in court all the time and I know that the majority of them are intimidated for want of understanding the system. What on earth are we teaching our children if we don’t teach them how to navigate it? Most don’t understand the difference between civil and criminal, the role of the players in a court of law and the most basic notions of our the system functions. And incidentally, those are the same people who have no clue about their body and hand it over to MDs at the first sniffles…)

    Statistics reflect that, still today and and despite everything that was uncovered in the past year, the great majority of people still allow banks to foreclose on them. Granted, defense attorneys are still few and far between and they are expensive. However, a lot has been written about foreclosures and internet is full of good info on how not to simply cave in. It is a sad commentary about our education system.

    That being said, i congratulate you on holding for so long: I may have given up after a few years, had I been in your position.

  16. @Carie,

    Those two unconscious and dangerous clowns have absolutely no idea what they’re asking for: the blessings of Congress to legally initiate a bloddy revolution in this country. So far, protests have remained (fairly) civil and calm. If anyone comes here from abroad to BUY American’s foreclosed homes, those foreigners will be killed in no time. Common sense conclusion.

    I am increasingly wondering if that’s not really the intent behind every decision currently taken at the legislative and executive levels: create a world war and resolve at once a few daunting problems not one government is capable of tacking and/or resolving:

    1) Overpopulation
    2) Economy
    3) Environment
    4) Energy

    I don’t suscribe to theories of Illuminati, World Order and the likes but one has to wonder how anyone can even reasonably come up with such crappy ideas. Those two ought to be voted out immediately or at the first opportunity.

  17. …meanwhile homelessness grows…where, oh where is justice?

  18. Well, isn’t this special—let’s get foreigners to buy up all the illegally foreclosed on properties and make it THEIR problem to deal with when the whole truth is exposed…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/visa-house-real-estate_n_1021582.html

    Bill Seeks To Entice Foreigners To Buy U.S. Homes With Visa Offer

    The government may turn to foreigners to shore up the weak housing
    market.

    “A bill co-authored by Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) aims to use the appeal of U.S. residence visas to entice foreigners to buy American homes, according to The Wall Street Journal. If passed, the bill would offer a U.S. residence visa to any foreigner who makes a cash investment of at least $500,000 in U.S. residential real estate…

    …At the same time, the number of foreclosure notices has grown, and one major U.S. bank has given up on finding buyers for all of its foreclosed homes. Bank of America recently decided to give up 100 of its Cleveland-area homes to be bulldozed; the bank has similar plans in Detroit and Chicago, according to Bloomberg News.”

  19. The live court hearing deciding the MASS case above:
    http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2011/SJC_10880.html

  20. Ha ha…and my “legal career” started when my servicer refused a loan mod—and I started “digging” on the internet—first thing I googled: IndyMac Fraud—thank God for the internet—the criminals WILL go down…eventually!!!!!!

  21. Right on, Marilyn—I’m a painter, too!

  22. @tnharry

    My legal career started with my fraudulent foreclosures.

    Up until then I was an artist and painted great little people with messages- one of which said “I’d be more tactful , if I were wrong”

    And that works for me.

  23. @tnharry

    I also agree with you that you get more bees with honey than with vinegar but there are situations that doesn’t work.

    If a Judge doesn’t rule following the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution , those judgments are not legal. And if I try to hide her fraud I become part of it and that is not what I am going to do.

    Don’t count me out in spite of telling it like it is.

  24. @carie

    Winston Churchill said Never Never Never Never Give up.

    He was talking to all of us.

    The Banks and The Title Companies have so much money and so many attorneys that it is almost impossile to afford the fight for anyone except if you go Pro Se.

    That is what they counted on. That you can’t afford the fight.

    thanks Carie

  25. California AG Subpoenas Bank Of America On Troubled Securities: Report

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/california-ag-subpoenas-bank-of-america_n_1021859.html

    The California state attorney general’s office subpoenaed Bank of America Corp this week regarding the sale and marketing of troubled mortgage-backed securities to investors in the state, the Los Angeles Times reported.

    The state is trying to determine whether the bank and Countrywide Financial had sold the securities to investors under false pretenses, the paper reported, citing a person familiar with the matter.

    Bank of America bought Countrywide in 2008, leaving it with billions in losses from soured loans and lawsuits.

    The subpoenas come as state attorneys general and federal officials are negotiating a broad mortgage settlement with Bank of America and other major lenders. California reportedly walked away from those talks two weeks ago, although it’s possible the state could still sign onto an agreement.

    Bank of America did not immediately return a call seeking comment from Reuters.

    (Reporting by Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, North Carolina, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

  26. i don’t agree that publicly stating judges have taken bribes while you have cases pending is the best plan, but i do agree that, based on the limited facts and dates you have shared, the decree of sale sounds like it may be void

  27. @tnharry

    That you agree with me is a shock to my system.

    Thanks.

  28. @marilyn – my comment was actually agreeing with you, not arguing with you……

  29. Nemo dat

    The bank admitted they never owned my two properties.

    And as Massachusetts ruled the law is you can’t sell something you don’t own.

    Lets see if New York agrees with Nemo dat or are the Title companies who knowing insured fraudulent foreclosures going to pay off all the Judges as they did Judge Schlesinger.

  30. Hang in there, Marilyn—thanks for being such a steadfast soldier…

  31. @tnharry

    Where a Title company undertakes to conduct a search of title, the company has a duty to disclose to the purchaser. The purchaser has the right to both search and disclosure.

    In NY and California and some other states title searcher must search to the present date under the name of each person who ever owned the property.

    In my particular case there were five Lis Pendens, the Court dockets shows the case was under Federal Jurisdiction when the state Court signed the void ab initio foreclosure judgments and the title companies and buyers all knew they were buying forged deeds, the only thing they didn’t count on was me showing up again

    tnharry- reread the ruling of the US Supreme Case of Elliot v. Piersol

  32. @marilyn – that’s amazing that you’re still in litigation 14 years later. but it sounds so clear based on the timing of the removal/remand and the sale decree

  33. @tnharry

    I still have an active case

  34. A minor quibble with the editor’s comments, but clarification is needed…”In civil procedure EVERYWHERE what is alleged is presumed to be true only in a motion to dismiss. If the allegations are denied, then there must be evidence from the plaintiff proving their allegations.”….that’s more than a slight distortion. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court takes all allegations contained in a complaint as true. Denials in the answer are irrelevant and they do not shift the burden back to the plaintiff to prove their allegations. In fact, no proof is reviewed in a true motion to dismiss. Review of proof, documents, or affidavits converts the matter into a summary judgment motion. All that means that your complaint, if everything is accepted as true, must state a claim upon which relief may be granted. If it does, then you will survive a motion to dismiss. If it does not, you lose WITH prejudice. The motion to dismiss will always state why you fail to state a claim, citing case law in support. Generally, the first response to a motion to dismiss is an amended complaint which seeks to address the deficiencies pointed out in the motion to dismiss.

  35. Posted on October 19th, 2011 in News

    GAO Finds Serious Conflicts at the Fed: Jamie Dimon was on the board of the NY Fed while his bank received loans from the Fed Reserve

    Excerpt via Senator Sanders-

    The report by the non-partisan research arm of Congress did not name but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest, including:

    Stephen Friedman In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, chairman of the New York Fed, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed’s rules prohibited. He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public. After Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed, according to the GAO.
    Jeffrey Immelt The Federal Reserve Bank of New York consulted with General Electric on the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program while Immelt, GE’s CEO, served as a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    Jamie Dimon The CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed’s emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns.At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.

  36. THIS IS THE REASON IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO GET JUSTICE:

    Conflicts Of Interest Abound At The Federal Reserve, Report Finds

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/federal-reserve-banks-links-finance-industry-conflict-interest_n_1019703.html

    When the Federal Reserve was handing out emergency loans during the financial crisis, some of the money didn’t have to travel very far.

    More than a dozen members of the regional Federal Reserve boards have had ties to banks or companies that received emergency funds during the crisis, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

    The report highlights a close relationship between the Fed’s regional banks and many of the institutions they were lending to, adding credence to concerns that the financial sector enjoyed a largely consequence-free rescue in the wake of the crisis, thanks to its connections with the federal government.

    Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a HuffPost blogger, said that the report’s findings reflected “an institutionalized conflict of interest” within the Federal Reserve.

    “We don’t let Comcast appoint people to the FCC. We don’t let Pfizer appoint people to the Food and Drug Administration,” Baker told HuffPost. The degree to which bankers can assume regulatory responsibility for their own industry, he said, is “without precedent.”

    All in all, the watchdog agency found 18 current or former Federal Reserve board members who had ties to institutions that benefited from the Fed’s emergency lending, including directors and executives from General Electric, JPMorgan Chase and Lehman Brothers.

    In one instance, the CEO of General Electric — unnamed in the GAO report, but identified as Jeffrey Immelt by the office of Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) — served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that the Fed authorized an emergency loan of $16 billion to GE.

    In another case, the Fed agreed in 2008 to bring Goldman Sachs under its supervisory authority, thereby making it easier for Goldman to get billions in Federal Reserve loans. At the time, Stephen Friedman — then the chairman of the New York Fed — sat on Goldman’s board of directors and owned stock in the company.

    Friedman received a waiver that allowed him to remain at the New York Fed, but the waiver was never made public, and Friedman continued to buy Goldman stock — unbeknown to his colleagues at the Fed, according to the report — until his resignation from the Fed several months later.

    Senator Sanders, who authored an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that led to the GAO report being issued, said in a statement that the Federal Reserve is “riddled with conflicts of interest.”

    Wednesday’s findings are only the latest indication that the Fed’s relationship with the financial sector during the banking crisis was much closer than the public realized at the time. Earlier this year, it was confirmed for the first time that the Fed lent a total of $1.2 trillion to more than 300 financial institutions between 2007 and 2010 in private loans separate from the bailout funds issued by the Treasury as part of TARP…

  37. @marilyn – do you still have active cases from foreclosure that took place 14 years ago?

    the title insurors are no more the bad guys than the utility providers who turned on utilities for the foreclosure/reo purchasers or the contractors who made repairs for the new buyers. i know you’ve had bad experiences in the past, but they aren’t the bad actors most of the time.

    and no, i don’t work for a title insurance carrier…

  38. @enraged

    I have been fighting since 1994 against two fraudulent foreclosures when Fidelity NY FSB hid four of my mortgage payments., in order to fake a default, accelerate, foreclose , the purpose being to demand lawful money for the credit issued by the bank.

    In 1997 when I was ousted by a void ab initio judgment( signed in NYSC when the case was under Federal Jurisdiction under Federal question) It was a time no one including all the Regulators paid any attention to Bank Fraud.

    In 2008 pursuant to the US Supreme Court Case Elliot v. Piersol which states:
    Under Federal Law which is applicable to all States, the US Supreme Court stated that if a Court is “without Authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought , even prior to reversal in opposition to them …
    I sought two orders to show cause in NYSC to vacate the void a initio judgments for lack of State Court jurisdiction.

    Astoria Federal S & L’s new attorney
    ( now successor in Interest to Fidelity NY FSB )
    stated in NYSC it’s Indemnify Indemnify Indemnify – we are stepping aside and the title companies are stepping in.

    In steps Fidelity National Title and Coronet Title who did not want to indemnify the forged deeds they knowing insured but wanted to be intervenors and be heard and what they told Judge Schlesinger is that Time makes Forged Deeds good, besides they have Equity and the only equity they were talking of was money under the table for Judge Schlesinger and she ruled against the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v Piersol.

    A case like B evilacqua gives one hope that the chief judges in all the states are going to go after the Judges like Judge Schlesinger to make them follow the Law and our US Constitution.

  39. When are the corrupt Title companies like Fidelity National Title Coronet Title and Old Republic Title going to be closed down for knowingly insuring Fraudulent Foreclosures and then fighting against the true homeowner?

  40. Neidermayer, that has been my position since the beginning: if people had fought earlier, right off the bat, when the foreclosures started, all the issues would already have brought to light and we would be working our way out of the hole. The thing is: oughta, coulda, shoulda won’t fix it. So, no need to cry over boiled milk; what’s done (or not done) is done.

    Thank God those issues are being addressed regardless. True: many, many people lost their home. But we all need to keep in mind that, up until a few months ago (and I’m not sure it has really changed that much) fewer than 5% of the homeowners in difficulty were fighting the banks.

    What we now need to look at is the implications for all foreclosures nationwide. Ditto with Ohio’s lawsuit against MERS. Let’s look at everything uncovered in the past year and how much progress has been made: simply put, government has absolutely no excuse today for doing nothing.

  41. I am beginning to think that the Judiciary in the State of Mass is smarter than those in other States. viz. ….. you pick the State of your choice.!!

  42. I think the most important Latin inscribed principle… is “You Cannot Win if You Do Not Play” … this nonsense would have ended 4 years ago if people faced the banksters in larger numbers. This will likely take a full year or more to percolate through the other states.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: