BOA DEATHWATCH: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN PLACE FOR TWO+ YEARS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Put BOA on the endangered species list. The regulators entered into secret “MOU” in May, 2009 where the Bank was put on notice that it was operating without sufficient capital and that its management was not meeting standards of the industry. With the upcoming slew of “defaults” and BOA’s balance sheet showing assets that are either non-existent or vastly overvalued, the time is nearing for government action. The minimum is a psinoff of Merrill Lynch, but the writing is on the wall and the Bank is headed for extinction because it cannot raise minimum capital requirements to offset the write down of the mortgages it is claiming or the buy-backs demanded by Fannie and Freddie.

The effect on the housing market and foreclosures in general is difficult to measure at this time. BOA is resisting compliance with the MOU and the OCC Consent decree, which are interrelated. If the mortgages they claim on their books don’t actually belong to BOA (which many don’t, in my opinion) then their capital will plummet and the only answer will be nationalization or resolution under the Dodd-Frank Act. Whatever hope they had to survive is being diminished by their arrogance.

It will be especially interesting to see what happens to Quality Loan Service which is controlled by BOA. QLS serves as the “Substitute trustee” in tens of thousands of foreclosures in non-judicial states. It is the equivalent of BOA declaring by fiat that it is the creditor when they never loaned any money nor did they buy the loans, and then naming itself as the “independent trustee” on the deed of trust. Plenty of problems with that scenario. Whoever takes over that function will have a Madoff-like mess on their hands potentially requiring reversal of tens of thousands of foreclosures.

WSJ: BofA warned by regulators

by CalculatedRisk on 11/22/2011 12:35:00 AM

From the WSJ: BofA Warned to Get Stronger

Bank of America Corp.’s board has been told that the company could face a public enforcement action if regulators aren’t satisfied with recent steps taken to strengthen the bank … The nation’s second-largest lender has been operating under a memorandum of understanding since May 2009 … In recent months, regulators met with Bank of America’s board and said they wanted to see more progress … Otherwise the informal order could turn into a formal and public action …

This would be a huge addition to the “Unofficial” problem bank list (We only include banks operating under a formal action on the list). A formal action would mean greater restrictions – and would bring more negative publicity to the bank.

Earlier:
Existing Home Sales in October: 4.97 million SAAR, 8.0 months of supply
Existing Home Sales: More on Inventory and NSA Sales Graph
Existing Home Sales graphsE

 

44 Responses

  1. Some originators in concert with their investment bankers never bothered to file the loan schedules with SEC. They did not bother to file the same schedules as required by SEC reps with the pertinant state UCC archives to perfect the liens on those notes. The trusts were entrusted with nothing–they were corpus-less trusts. Shams.

    This allowed lots of flexibility to the investment bankers. It makes it impossible from public records to determine what trusts included what loans. It was impossible for investors to perform due diligence. SEC was aware of this no later than Fall 2009. Many were aware at that point. This group of trusts is distinguishable on other counts now in servicing collection mode. The majority followed the filing reps –the manual filings were where the failures occurred and by Summer 2010 SEC had removed ALL the manual filings from Edgar–so that the absences were not so obvious.

    This is 1st and foremost an investor fraud–2nd a fraud on the borrowers who cannot verify who is the owner or servicer. Now this latter aspect is important because not all servicers have signed on OCC ——it should be interesting to see who claims ownership etc in OCC context.

  2. You all better get on your computers and print this paper:

    DECONSTRUCTING THE BLACK MAGIC OF SECURITIZED TRUSTS: HOW THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIZATION PROCESS IS HURTING THE BANKING INDUSTRY’S ABILITY TO FORECLOSE AND PROVING THE BEST OFFENSE FOR A FORECLOSURE

    Roy D. Oppenheim, Jacquelyn K. Trask, Oppenheim Law

  3. ANONYMOUS, I am Roger. Maher and I go back to August 08.
    The Republican “Guard” is standing firm on protecting the banks. Elijah Cummings, S. Carolina, and a few others are diligently trying to force the truth to the surface, but the powers that be continue to obfuscate and defeat the dissemination of the information by clogging the news cycle with nonsense. If the people knew 64 million mortgages were unenforceable, the banks would fail immediately. Oppenheim Law offered a nice paper that details the major flaw in the securitization: the Master Loan Schedule. If you can prove the loan appears somewhere other than in the stated Plaintiff trust, you should have them by the short hairs. Let’s see if the BK judge sees it that way as well.
    As for the empty suit that is O’Bama, his days in the White House are numbered if the American People can pick a conservative, law and order type to take the office. The “anybody but Romney” sentiment that has pushed other candidates to the top only to have them stumble is evidence that the voters want SUBSTANCE IN THEIR CANDIDATE. No more machine politicians, status quo guys who continue to pillage the system to add to their personal wealth. It is no longer being tolerated by the electorate. This is a good thing. The vacuum that exists can be filled. I like Marco Rubio, he brings much to the table as far as his vision and intellect. We will see what the future brings. Pawlenti has persevered to this point, as well as Bachmann. Those two alone are “clean” enough to get through to the top. Just a thought.

  4. Have only been able to piece together by going back. That is, back to prior to last refinance.

  5. foreclosureinfosearch

    Well I am not Roger. But, one missing piece to your presentation is that you start with the last refinance. That is an error. Need to go back.

    usedkarguy,
    Exactly. GOP major problem. And, then again, so is President Obama.

  6. Maher, best to you as always. Going other ways involved interviewing over 20 different attorneys (most of which are NOW in the f/c biz) and eventually getting tied up with someone who I can’t afford to pay in the first place. Not to mention the fact that when I start talking about “surrender of control”, no carry value, no claims filed, extinguishment, they can’t comprehend it. I can explain this to the BK trustee better than they can.
    I’m using the BK court to escape the dirt court judge. My “extrinsic evidence” is the loan appearing in the 1999 trust (instead of the 2005-2 plaintiff); cds in ML1and BLACK ROCK is foreclosing on me? SIGTARP yielded no answer. I’m fucked AFTER they take the house. Like you said, “The argument is for a release the lien by forfeiture and perhaps a stipulated right of claim for up to three years. The stipulation is for any and all parties of interest to bring a claim upon meeting the courts stringent criteria for demonstrating the rights held by the real holder in due course. But no worries here . . . .
    There is no alleged lender as alleged.” Extrinsic exhibit 2: LINES check from DEUTSCHE noting WELLS LOAN and NUMBER. LOans for lines, stock for loans, trust goes BUST (big early defaults), putback awaiting expiration of SOL on claims. Bond insurer notified of defaults and redemptions, but no claims filed. Credit default swaps evidence trigger event forcing recognition (derecognition/extinguishment) of the QSPE. Trailing assignments of mortgage AND THEN THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED (in blank) TO ENTER INTO THE Mot2LiftStay!

    Do I have it?

  7. “The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do to more for the betterment of life.”

    How’s that federal reserve system of banks working for you? How are those central banks working for you?
    Tanking your profits (interest) and lining their pockets as opposed to the Government taking the interest and building roads, bridges, flying to the moon, etc., having no taxes as it is taken care of by interest,,,,,,,,,,,,,and loans are the quantity of money regulated by the Government and regulated by the People who elect them there Representatives.

  8. Henry Ford was a great man———–

    http://en.proverbia.net/citasautor.asp?autor=12562

  9. worthwhile to watch this video———–

  10. Money Talks look at the stock

    http://quotes.wsj.com/BAC

    NEVER AGAIN

  11. Believe there is a slight error in this article. ReconTrust is a wholly owned subsidiary of BofA. QLS, another foreclosure trustee, is an independent company known for its robo-signing tendencies.

  12. DCB–that does need saying. And big ups to cubed2k–don’t deal with banks. Like MF Global, they’ll just take your money. Just tell you you can’t have it and that’s that. Just like they tell you they’re gonna take your house when they have no right to do so. Somebody posted here a few days ago about watching “Zeitgeist Addendum.” The first 20 minutes of that are so pertinent to this discussion, everyone who hasn’t seen it already should drop what they’re doing and go to YouTube and watch it right now. I had seen “Zeitgeist” before but didn’t know about the “Addendum” until I saw it mentioned here. It very concisely explains the elemental, bedrock fraud that is being perpetrated on us every single minute of every single day since the moment we were born.

  13. What I said then I’ll say again as nothing else is working. —-the answers rest where it always lay:

    ** ACCOUNTING FOR STANDARDS NO. 140, *** Contest the financial accounting standards board starting with the replacement of FASB statement no. 125 and statement of financial accounting standard no. 140, accounting for transfers and servicing of financial assets and extinguishments of liabilities–

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

    (This is not meant to solicit, but to assist those who are practitioners – those practicing law in areas not related to the subject matter that are important to understand as they exist before you ) . ** Not an attorney nor licensed to practice law.

  14. Roger

    You’re a client from way far back that is a person of class and integrity. When offered my approach to the situation you elected to look elsewhere. You know what I mean and thank youfor being the class person you are.

    My approach to discovery in these matters target specific causal attributes for demonstrating forfieture in a non judicial foreclosure.

    The arguments are still rejected by this site and unrelated help yourself DO-A -MOD shams.

    What are the necessary elements required for demonstrating merit in a foreclosure avoidance case? Its something far outside the judicious box of UCC gadgets and Ab Intio “latin” gimmicks.

    There is no straight forward remedy that exists. But no chance of prevailing if attorneys won’t listen to the argument that center on the evolution or degradation of the accounting rules into the current econoic oblivian. It started in 1996 and coumented through FASB

    Households (that’s what your called on the street ) must consider how to tackle this without a securities attorney familiar with specialty taxation experience. Its just not going to happen outside a BK adversery with competant counsel (meaning trained in GAAP tax matters) .

    To all the early maritime arguments – you maybe had a vision – I don’t share it but – maybe – just maybe you had a vision of what was to come.

    However, attorneys, please refrain from asking for more and more evidence when in fact you’re trying to grasp concepts you’re not trained in. In these difficult foreclosure defenses are the following :

    * The added advantage of “extrinsic evidence”.
    * All affirmative defenses
    * Right to circumvent the matter early under a rule 12(b) motion.

    In the affirmative defenses are claims of an unenforceable condition subsequent; whereby the right to a beneficial interest is precluded by investment election under IRS reporting code – precedence. NG and a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge can take credit for demonstrating the need to emphasize key condition precedence; whereby the foreclosure is a subsequent condition held as a nullity.

    My understanding here is no less straight on target. I was there, from the beginning. The evidence supports the facts in the matter.

    The argument is for a release the lien by forfeiture and perhaps a stipulated right of claim for up to three years. The stipulation is for any and all parties of interest to bring a claim upon meeting the courts stringent criteria for demonstrating the rights held by the real holder in due course. But no worries here . . . .

    There is no alleged lender as alleged.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  15. Finally. Court, particularly courts that handle small claims, are more flexible in their procedures than ones that handle criminal complaints. Civil courts are courts of law, not justice, and their charter is to resolve civil disputes. In resolving civil disputes, information regarding the dispute is weighed against procedural failings. Procedural failings that are not prejudicial are frequently allowed to be corrected.

    ———————–

    Civil courts are courts of law, not justice, and their charter is to resolve civil disputes.

    ———————————–

    jus·tice/ˈjəstis/
    Noun:
    Just behavior or treatment.
    The quality of being fair and reasonable.
    ————————————-

    You are not dealing with justice.

    Or in other words,,,,,,,,,,,,,,anything goes,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    and you my friend,,,,,,,,,,,,,need to think with your survival,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    I’m afraid Justice does not enter the picture……………

    Fair and reasonable?

  16. @usedkarguy——

    “To appreciate Garrett’s broad-based scheme, you need to understand what’s going on with the largest Wall Street banks right now. All of a sudden, their complicity in the systemic mortgage fraud that continues to cripple our economy is being exposed to the light of day. How many subprime loans were tainted by fraud? The answer, according to a multitude of sources, is: The majority of them. Back in 2007, Fitch’s survey of subprime loan files showed that virtually all of them were tainted by some type of fraud. One of the most prevalent forms of fraud was occupancy fraud, where a borrower falsely claims that the mortgaged property is his primary residence, instead of a property in a flipping scheme.”

    ———————————–

    That’s right, and back in 2007 when home prices were raising and their were bidding wars on home prices, jacking them up, and my home was at 700k, when I bought it for 350k in 2000, I asked myself where are all these buyers coming from?????/

    So if I sell my home at 700k, and make a profit from the 350k I bought at, why for me to move and buy a new home won’t make me any money as all homes were high in price, even dumps, even fixer uppers, so I won’t realize a profit at all.

    And now my home is worth 200k. So that means I’m underwater, and in my area you are underwater if you bought 20 years ago……………..

    Why? Easy credit from the banks…………..not easy credit from the homeowner.

    The mandate of the Federal Reserve is price stability. Look it up. Do you call that price stability? Do you call any market price stability these days. Dow up 300 one day, next day down 250, gold up 30, next day down 20, oil up one year 100%, two years later down 75%,,,,,,,,is that price stability? No way Jose. You can only make money on Wall St when prices swing, swing baby swing……….place your bets…………….

    The only difference it all is time, time periods, and I’m afraid the wall st controls the time, and the banks control the time, future payments, all time, as time marches on………….

    consider going all cash for payments, you thus do not give up your future income.

  17. Editors Note:

    Highlighted in black above.

    It’s all trying to survive by their own rules, but the bottom line is they have over leveraged themselves, or speculation, as is Wall St, all money created from leverage and keeping the books straight on make believe money, since it is leveraged, or the so called experts might state as Fractional reserve banking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    and it is all based on getting people to sign a IOU, a promise to pay, and the people stop making the IOU’s, why their leverage game of getting rich, stops,,,,,,,,,,,,and they loose, but they will do everything possible to make it more complicated hidden under more regulation and rules, and rules,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    stay away from the big banks,,,,,,,,,,,,thank you very much, but no thanks………..

  18. OFF TOPIC —BUT NEEDS SAYING;
    Two weeks has passed since Corzine sat at his computer witrh confederates and distributed clients monies to counterparties according to FT 11/22/11, Mf Global…appears to have acted desperately and dug into its customer funds in a bid to save the company….records were sloppy and incomplete…” Clearly there was intent to strip assets and execute fraudulent transfers of other peoples’ money. He stole by any words $1.2 billion with a B—in days or weeks–not Madoff’s decades. But Corzine is walking around—having Thanksgiving. Why should I retain money in the hands of brokers if they can do this and walk free?

  19. Vacating a Foreclosure Judgment for Lack of Notice
    Posted on November 21, 2011 by Mark Stopa
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/11/vacating-a-foreclosure-judgment-for-lack-of-notice/
    I had a case today where the fact-pattern may seem unique, but I suspect it’s not. My client hired an attorney to represent her in a foreclosure case. For whatever reason, the lawyer withdrew as counsel. Thereafter, the bank procured a Final Judgment of Foreclosure.

    Here was the problem. Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.505(f) sets forth the procedure that must be followed when an attorney withdraws. Essentially, the lawyer must file a motion to withdraw and certify service of a copy of the motion, as well as the Notice of Hearing on the motion, to his/her client. That way, the client knows the attorney is withdrawing as counsel and can make other arrangements to defend the case.

    In my case, my client resided in Great Britain, but the address her prior attorney provided upon his withdrawal was the address of the property – in St. Petersburg. Hence, my client did not have notice of her attorney’s withdrawal or the summary judgment hearing that ensued, as those papers were sent to an address where she did not live.

    Here’s the cool part. Established case law provides that since my client did not receive notice of the withdrawal of her counsel or the subsequent summary judgment hearing, the Final Judgment of Foreclosure must be vacated. See Coldiron v. Seminole County Sheriff’s Dept., 974 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing an order denying a 1.540 motion where appellant never received notice of the summary judgment hearing after her lawyer withdrew and the order permitting withdrawal did not contain appellant’s correct address); Saenz v. Pena, 754 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“because the motion to withdraw was filed without notice to Saenz, in violation of the mandatory notice requirements of rule 2.060(j), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration [now Rule 2.505], the motion to set aside judgment should have been granted.”); Polani v. Payne, 654 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (requiring final judgment be vacated where appellants lived in a foreign country and their prior attorney did not provide correct address upon his withdrawal).

    The logical argument in response to this is to assert the defendant failed to monitor the status of the case or waited too long to file the motion. However, the Polani court specifically rejected such arguments, finding the Final Judgment was void given the lack of notice.

    As such, I filed this Motion to Vacate Final Judgment. http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Motion-to-Vacate-FJ1.pdf Today, the Court granted that motion at an emergency hearing.

    What’s notable about this issue? For me, it’s another reminder that homeowners facing foreclosure are entitled to due process. If your prior lawyer withdrew, you didn’t receive notice, and you thereafter lost the case, you may be able to get the foreclosure judgment vacated.

    In fact, I’ll take it one step further. Because any Order entered without notice is “void,” per Polani, the homeowner would be entitled to ownership/possession of the home (and an Order vacating a Final Judgment of Foreclosure) even if the home had been sold to a third party purchaser. That would certainly be my argument, anyway.

    Mark Stopa Esq.

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  20. —GO TO THE PROMONTORY FINANCIAL WEBSITE http://www.promontory.com/OurPeople.aspx

    and look around at some of their staff…you will find one gentleman who worked for New Century Financial, one of the worse predatory, subprime lenders in the world—and New Century was a key player in the financial crisis and the loan originations for the MBS.

    so now this gentleman is going to do Foreclosure Reviews? how can he be objective and fair?

    this is in reference to an earlier post on the 3 big banks going with Promontory Financial for the Foreclosure Review ordered by the OCC.

    so be careful…..

  21. GOP Scheme For “Mortgage Finance Reform” Insulates Fraudsters From Accountability
    By David Fiderer/OpEd news

    Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey seeks to gut many of the investor protections of the Securities Act of 1933, at least as they apply to mortgage-backed securities. Wait, you didn’t notice that little detail last week, when he rolled out his Private Mortgage Market Investment Act for The Wall Street Journal , American Banker , Reuters , and CNBC ? Well, Garrett’s contempt for transparency shows up in his press release on “mortgage finance reform.” If you look at his actual proposal, you see a craven maneuver to remove transparency from the marketplace and to short-circuit the rule of law, so as to insulate Wall Street fraudsters from accountability.

    To appreciate Garrett’s broad-based scheme, you need to understand what’s going on with the largest Wall Street banks right now. All of a sudden, their complicity in the systemic mortgage fraud that continues to cripple our economy is being exposed to the light of day. How many subprime loans were tainted by fraud? The answer, according to a multitude of sources, is: The majority of them. Back in 2007, Fitch’s survey of subprime loan files showed that virtually all of them were tainted by some type of fraud. One of the most prevalent forms of fraud was occupancy fraud, where a borrower falsely claims that the mortgaged property is his primary residence, instead of a property in a flipping scheme. Nobody gets hurt until home prices stop rising, and then the flippers hand over the keys and walk away. A new survey by the New York Fed shows that about half of all subprime mortgages financing home purchases involved a buyer who didn’t reside at the property, meaning that a whole lot of occupancy fraud was going on. Which in no way diminishes the prevalence of appraisal fraud and documentation fraud, which were also found by Fitch.

    Check out the complaints alleging fraud in the sale of mortgage securities that were recently filed by Allstate , AIG , MBIA , MassMutual , TIAA-CREF, New York Life , by the FHFA ( here , here , here , and elsewhere, ) and by a multitude other investors . All of these suits set forth substantially identical fact patterns concerning fraud involved in the sale of the same types of mortgage-backed securities. It’s impossible to read those filings and not be struck by all the damning evidence of the banks’ complicity, as underwriters subprime and Alt-A mortgage securities, in promoting massive fraud throughout the loan distribution chain.

    All of these lawsuits involve false and misleading statements made in documents filed under the Securities Act of 1933. Everyone benefits from the Act’s filing requirements, which constitute a powerful enforcement mechanism for keeping people honest, and for promoting transparency. Even if you don’t invest in a particular securitization, your access to that publicly available information gives you a better sense of the goings on in the marketplace. These lawsuits echo the findings of massive fraud uncovered by the Attorney General of the State of New York , by the Justice Department and by intrepid reporters . But that’s not the half of it.

    You may have read stories concerning putback claims pertaining to breeches of the representations and warranties in contracts to sell pools of mortgages. Putbacks are generally synonymous with fraud, either fraud committed as part of the loan origination, or fraud committed by the seller of the pool, who misrepresented the attributes of the loans being sold. Almost every deal involving the sale of a mortgage pool includes a rep and warrant that the individual loans comply with all state and Federal laws. Check out the schedule of violations of reps and warrants disclosed by U.S. Bank National, as Trustee for investors in a single Countrywide mortgage bond deal, (Exhibit D). The vast majority of those breeches involved fraud at the origination, or false claims about the mortgages themselves. Among the individual loans it reviewed, U.S. Bank National found that the reps and warrants were violated 66% of the time. That’s pretty much in line with what others have found. A year ago, John Carney of CNBC reported on Citigroup’s findings with regards to loans it purchased from other originators, who were tasked with reviewing the underwriting and documentation; the defect rate ranged as high as 60 to 80%.

    The efficacy of these reps and warrants, and the legal obligation to assure that the information disseminated in documents filed under the 1933 Act is accurate and complete, is essential to any effective market for mortgage securitizations. No investor can perform the necessary due diligence to review every single loan file prior to the purchase of a mortgage security to assure the accuracy of the issuer’s claims.

    Why is all the evidence emerging now, five years after these bad loans were originated? Because of the obstacles faced by private investors who wanted to access the loan information. As Isaac Gradman explains in The Subprime Shakeout:

    “One reason [for the relatively small number of putback claims] may be the procedural hurdles that investors face when pursuing rep and warranty put-backs or repurchases. In general, they must have 25% of the voting rights for each deal on which they want to take action. If they don’t have those rights on their own, they must band together with other bondholders to reach critical mass. They must then petition the Trustee to take action. If the Trustee refuses to help, the investor may then present repurchase demands on individual loans to the originator or issuer, but must provide that party with sufficient time to cure the defect or repurchase each loan before taking action. Only if the investor overcomes these steps and the breaching party fails to cure or repurchase will the investor finally have standing to sue.”

    Garrett wants to prevent investors from ever banding together in the future. Under the guise of “protecting investor rights,” his proposed law expressly forbids the trustee to a mortgage securitization from disclosing the identities of investors to one another. He wants to add another layer of secrecy to the credit markets.

    Secrecy was the essential ingredient in the most toxic instruments of the mortgage bubble: CDOs and credit default swaps. Nobody, aside from a handful of Wall Street insiders, had a clue about the big picture: The nature of the risks, the cumulative size of the risks, or who was buying or selling the risks. These investment vehicles exploded on to the marketplace because these secretive instruments were sold to an army of suckers who were legally designated as “sophisticated investors.” An issuer of a privately placed transaction, which is not subject to the registration requirements of the 1933 Act, can go a long way toward misleading the buyer without facing any legal consequences, thanks in large part to a 20-year-old Supreme Court case, Gustafson v. Alloyd . (This is one of many cases that exemplify the Court’s philosophy of Defining Deviancy Down , when it comes to interpreting Federal securities laws.) The secrecy regarding credit default swaps is an enduring legacy of the Enron Loophole , which prohibited regulatory oversight of the vast majority of derivatives. Garrett wants to make sure that all sellers of mortgage securities attain the same insulation from liability as that afforded John Paulson or Magnetar.

    Arbitration adds another layer of secrecy to the credit markets and subverts the checks and balances of our legal system. Garrett wants to limit investors ‘ constitutional rights to legal redress in courts, where everything is out in the open. He wants to prohibit any rep and warrant claims from being adjudicated in the courts, even though, in a free market, sophisticated investors should be afforded the opportunity to decide on a forum for resolving disputes. All rep and warrant claims must be resolved through an arbitrator under garrett’s proposal. Almost everything about arbitration proceedings is kept secret. Frequently, arbitrators ignore the law, and even if they claim to be following the law when they ‘ re actually bending it, no one would know, because almost nothing about an arbitration proceeding happens out in the open. Arbitrator decisions cannot be appealed. And the financial industry has set up a framework to exempt arbitrators from ethical standards. If you ‘ re an arbitrator, you ‘ re put in the same position as a property appraiser or a ratings agency ; that is, you ‘ re concerned about displeasing the people who might keep you from getting hired again.

    And Garrett wants to emasculate the legal protections afforded by the 1933 Act. He proposes to exempt mortgage securities from the filing requirements of the 1933 Act, which means that an issuer no is longer obligated to certify as to the accuracy and completeness of his filings. An investor might try and bring a case for fraud, which is extremely hard to sustain, thanks to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which requires a plaintiff to come close to proving what the defendant knew, when he knew it, and that such knowledge caused a material fraud, in his initial complaint, before he has the opportunity to conduct any discovery. This legislation gave Wall Street bankers the enhanced comfort they needed to sell all those toxic securities without fear of getting caught.

    For over 20 years, David has been a banker covering the energy industry for several global banks in New York. Currently, he is working on several journalism projects dealing with corporate and political corruption that, so far, have escaped serious (more…)

  22. US BANK AND CITIBANK GO WITH PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPER FOR THE FORECLOSURE REVIEW ORDERED BY THE OCC. PWC IS THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/73519369/OCC-FORECLOSURE-REVIEW-2-BIG-BANKS-GO-WITH-PWC-US-BANK-CITIBANK

    Independent Foreclosure Review

    As part of those consent orders, federal regulators required servicers to engage independent firms to conduct a multi-faceted review of foreclosure actions in process in 2009 and 2010. Under the orders, independent consultants are charged with evaluating whether borrowers suffered financial injury through errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure practices and determining appropriate remediation for those customers. Where a borrower suffered financial injury as a result of such practices, the agencies’ orders require financial remediation to be provided.

    As part of that program, the 14 mortgage servicers covered by the enforcement actions will begin mailings November 1, 2011 that will continue through the end of the year. The mailings are intended to provide information to potentially eligible borrowers on how to request a review of their case if they believe they suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure proceedings related to their primary residence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The mailings will include a request for review form.

    Borrowers may also visit http://www.IndependentForeclosureReview.com for more information about the review and claim process. Assistance with the form and answers to questions about the process are available at 1-888-952-9105, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (ET) and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (ET).

    Requests for review must be received by April 30, 2012.

    The third-party consultant will assess whether any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies resulted in financial injury to borrowers. Where a borrower suffered financial injury as a result of such practices, the consent orders require remediation to be provided. During the review, customers may be contacted by mortgage servicers for additional information at the direction of the independent consultant.

  23. 3 BIG BANKS GO WITH A PROMONTORY FINANCIAL AS THE SUPPOSED THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO CONDUCT THE FORECLOSURE REVIEW ORDERED BY THE OCC–REMEMBER THOSE CONSENT ORDERS IN APRIL OF 2011

    THESE ARE THE ENGAGEMENT LETTERS FOR BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO AND PNC.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/73518954/OCC-FORECLOSURE-REVIEW-3-BANKS-GO-WITH-PROMONTORY-FINANCIAL-BANK-OF-AMERICA-WELLS-FARGO-PNC

  24. Reader – I have been reading his post on livinglies for months. M.Soliman is an interesting man. He speaks in High Finance. I sometimes look up a lot of words and try to follow his post, sometimes I can get an idea of the concepts he puts forward.

    For example:

    Release of collateral security – If the creditor returns to the lender collateral security PLEDGED for the debt, the security is discharged to the extent of the value of the collateral released as of that date.

    Reader – I have read post from lawyers that say he has been quite valuable.

    Example:

    In other words release of the collateral discharges the PRO TANTO , instead of entirely , as in the case of release of the whole debt . The reason being – a guarantors owns the right of subrogation . . .not the Bank or its regulatory authority. (FDIC OTS, FED)

    Conclusion –

    Correct , Here is why : The reason being the guarantors subrogation right extends to the collateral securit deposited for the banks indebtedness. If the collateral is released, to the extent that his right is affected, the trustor (homeowners) asset “called a household” pledged is discharged .

    (Thanks for the comments)

    expert.witness@live.com

  25. That 3-page memo targets specific states and OWS. It’s on letterhead from Clark, Lytle, Geduldig and Cranford, 1000 Pennsylvania Avenue. They “own” 16 congressmen.

    Actually, if you search that firm on internet, you can see that long memo and the specific states targetted.

    It’s going to turn very ugly.

  26. I have been sent a memo from the American Bankers Assoc. about their next moves. I tried to post it here but my post in under moderation: I expect it will be front page here tomorrow. If anyone wants it, let me know what your address e-mail is and I’ll forward it to you.

    They plan on targetting a certain number of states and to invest millions into the campaign. Enlightening!

  27. Did you see this? What happened to Schneiderman, Biden and the Nevada AG (Catheryn something)? Did they cave?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/states-california-mortgage-abuse-settlement_n_1108622.html?ref=business

  28. @E.Toile,

    We need to remind certain people who pays their wages…

  29. I spoke with my AG this morning concerning certain nasties being perped by a lender. Quite the conversation. Humorous and ludicrous at the same time.

    Me: I need to meet with you about a major fraud finding concerning a lender.

    AG: We get calls on this stuff all the time. We can’t act on your behalf.

    Me: Uh…I’m not asking you to represent me as an individual homeowner; I’m asking you to consider representing the citizens in a pretty cut and dried fraud case against a major lender.

    AG: Believe me, we’ve seen or heard it all before. We can’t represent you. We can’t act on your behalf.

    Me: (growing increasingly frustrated) How can you be sure that you have in fact seen or heard it all? I haven’t yet told you what the alleged fraud entails.

    AG: Because we get calls every single day about fraud by banks.

    Me: All I’m asking for is a face to face meeting, just hear me out, let me present the details. I promise not to take up too much of your time.

    AG: (cutting me off) And besides, because of the 50 state AG’s discussion with the banks and the fed, we’re no longer allowed to sue the banks. 

    We are so screwed. I came very close to suggesting secession as an alternative to servitude, but could tell his was a life lived like a snapping turtle, nipping at everything that came into his field of view. Overworked, or just over it? When there’s simply too much criminality, it would appear that crime does pay.

    I wonder what they’re serving at the soup line today. Gruel seekers can’t be choosers.

  30. Following is a memo I just received from a friend from Ohio, written by the American Bankers Assoc. about their strategy to stop OWS. I hope you can open it. It targets FL, PA, VA, WI, OH, NC, NA and NM.

    http://brown.3cdn.net/161818e784505272ab_eem6b9o7o.pdf

    If you can’t access it, you can find it at the website below.

    https://secure.sherrodbrown.com/page/contribute/e111121d

    Click on download and you will have the 4 pages of it, including letterhead from 1000 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    It’s going to get very nasty.

  31. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, BOA, borrower, capital requirements, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, memorandum of understanding, modification, OCC consent decree, Quality Loan Service, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  32. To answer your question, E. Tolle, I’m represesented by an attorney and he can “give as good as he gets” even when the big guys THINK they are going to shove him around. He’s got a few tricks up his sleeve that I really hope come to fruition. Can’t say much now.

    Zurennarh: Time is running out for them and Fannie too! Hahaha. Just hope we can hang on long enough to triumph over them.

    and lol, E. Tolle – my new creditor huh? You better incorporate yourself – remember there is one set of rules for individuals and quite another for corporations – even though SCOTUS has ruled “corporations are people too”.

    Nora: Good idea on Linda Green and the tooth fairy – seems to work for the banksters, why not us?

  33. Since I don’t and won’t subscribe to the WSJ, I couldn’t read the entirety of the linked article above. However, in searching the web about this “memorandum of understanding,” I found this nugget:

    “According to the Journal, which cited SNL Financial data, there are currently 1,042 bank and thrift institutions working under formal enforcement actions from regulators since 2007. Among those enforcement actions are cease-and-desist orders involving troubled operations, notices to correct operations, directives on capital and consent orders, among others.”

    Wow–that’s huge if you ask me! Over a thousand banks under enforcement actions since a whole YEAR before the bailout? And we’re supposed to believe that NO ONE saw the financial crisis coming? The dam holding back all the pertinent info is cracking and I think we’re about to find out who knew what and when they knew it! In other words, the pwers that be were well aware that our “financial system” was in huge trouble, tried to keep it secret, and then made us bail out the banks that they KNEW were insolvent and doing illegal things. This is an OUTRAGE-but par for the course…

  34. Had I known about this secret “memorandum of understanding” I would have asked for it in discovery. But alas, that’s the point–we’re not supposed to know anything. Everything’s a secret. Any links to this memorandum? Any further details on what the memorandum says?

  35. LEASES ‘OFF-BALANCE SHEET’ ‘ON-BALANCE SHEET’

  36. @ E.Tolle;

    Funny! Sadly true, what the banks will resort to. How about sending a notarized fake asignment to BOA showing yourself as the current creditor, and then notarizing a Satisfaction of Mortgage to leapfrog? It’ll be as legitimate as anything they fabricate–maybe more.

    Sign as Linda Green and notarize it on February 30th. Then do mine, because my county recorder is so old he farts dust, and he’ll record anything. It could be witnessed by the tooth fairy–he gets paid either way. Thanks, needed that snicker. Back to being angry, now.

  37. OK, my memory is failing me…BoA was always described as “largest bank by DEPOSITS,” not “assets” and apparently they lost that status last quarter according to the link below…

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016661871_apusdebitfeesaboutface.html

  38. Reading your comment again leapfrog…the banks are all about wasting everyone’s time. It’s all they have to go on. They know they won’t be prosecuted or sanctioned. Or that’s what they think. In my case, I’m going to work to make sure they won’t be able to easily make that assumption in the future.

  39. I meant “largest BANK by assets”…

  40. Since when did BoA become the SECOND largest lender? I thought they were first–a couple articles in the the last few days have made the distinction that BoA is now the 2nd largest bank by assets whereas up until then, BoA was always referred to as the “largest lender by assets.”

  41. The last grains may be moving thru the hourglass, but that’s not a death gurgle we’re hearing out of BAC. It’s their foreclosure department whirring at speeds never before seen. NOD’s up 96% in one month in CA? Every other lender has taken a back seat to BAC. Their attitude is….Consent and Cease and Desist Order? Damn the OCC! Damn Freddie Mac! Who do they think they are? Do they know who they’re dealing with here? We’re too big to fail!

    Is anyone even pretending to attempt to stop them or take them to task? BAC’s up 200% month over month on NODs in non-judicial states as of a couple of months ago. I can assure from what I’m seeing, it’s even higher now. This as they gear up to lay off 35K people, in order to continue financing their lucrative foreclosure industry.

    So we may be watching their much deserved demise, but what’s the use if they manage to steal all the houses on their way out?

  42. @leapfrog, are you represented or pro se? Either way, what’s the next step after this admission? Going to Disneyworld?

    Since I’ve seen first hand how easy this stuff is, I’m considering becoming your new creditor now that BAC has fessed up. Expect a new billing arrangement in the mail shortly. I might even modify your original agreement. What have I got to lose?

  43. Leapfrog, in my case, it’s the exact opposite. The fraudulent assignment was to BAC from MERS. As soon as we sued them, they changed their tune and said Fannie Mae actually was the noteholder. Now two years later, their attorney said in court that BoA holds the Note “at Fannie Mae’s request” and that Fannie Mae still “owns” the Note. They will say anything at any time for any reason, whether it’s true or not, as long as they think it advances their argument at a given moment. Time is running out for these crooks. The last grains in the hourglass are slipping into the bottom half…

  44. In my suit, B of A has FINALLY admitted they do not own our loan. In their original answer they lied to the court and said they owned the loan. When asked to provide proof, they stonewalled for almost a year and then finally admitted recently they do not own the loan. This is bankster arrogance at its worst. Why is there no punishment for lying to the court when you are a bankster? They wasted the court’s time and our time. Wonder how many more of these situations there are out there in the courts?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: