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

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: As expected the foreclosure “reviews” are being done using outside “consultants” who have a lot to lose if the foreclosures, the mortgages, and the mortgage bonds were bogus.  Accounting firms certified the financial statements of dozens of banks holding these securities after an “audit.”

But I still suggest that the demand be made upon good information about your title and securitization as far as you can go, and demanding to know who were the people involved that participated in the review, their methods and whether they had anything to do with the Bank in prior dealings. These reviews could give rise to a growing number of administrative hearings that could bypass a number of tactics that the Banks are successful at using in Court. Get Help.

submitted by Abby

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.

E

 

34 Responses

  1. ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION & RECOGNITION AGREEMENTS.

    ASSIGNEE: BANC OF AMERICA

    ASSIGNOR: Wells Fargo Bank -transfers Mortage Loans to Assignee and Wells Fargo Bank shall recognize the Assignee as the owner of the Mortgage Loans

    WELLS FARGO BANK hereby agress that in connection with each Mortgage Loan of which the related Mortgage has been recorded in name of MERS or its designee, it shall take all actions as are necessary to cause the ‘Assignee’ (MERS ID #1001065 GRANTEE) FHML contractural arrangement – FREDDIE Mac dba Fannie Mae c/o Qualified Intermediaries – Fideltiy Nationa, Chicago Title, TICor, Commonwealth, LandAmerica, Lawyers Title Corp, etc. As trustee pursuant to Pooling Agreement to be shown as owner of such Mortgage Loan on the records of MERS for purpose of the system of recording transfers of beneficial ownerwhip of mortgages maintained by MERS.

    WELLS FARGO BANK represents and warrants to each of the other parties that the representations and warranties of Wells Fargo Bank Servicing Agreement are ture and correct, that Wells Fargo Bank has serviced Mortgage Loans in accordance with terms of Servicign AGrement, Wells Fargo Bank has taken no action nor omitted any required action the omission of which would have the effect of imparing any mortgage insurance or guarantee on the Mortgage Loans.

    IASB ACCELERATED TIMETABLE FOR JOINT PROJECT WITH FASB ‘BLUE SKY THINKING’ POSSIBLE FUTURE APPROACH TO DERECOGNITION.
    COUNTRIES TRANSITION TO ‘IFRS’ STANDARDS
    IAS 39 MOST CHALLANGING STANDARDS. TO STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE DERECOGNITION.

    DERECOGNITION REQUIREMENTS OF FINANCIAL ASSETS.
    DERECOGNITION OF LIABILITIES
    DERECOGNIATION NON-FINANCIAL ITEMS (PROEPRTY & INVENTORIES).

    EXAMPLE: ‘RECEIVE CASH IN SETTLEMENT OF A RECEIVABLE, NO LONGER ANY RIGHTS TO RECEIVE CASH FROM THE ASSET, AND THE RECEIVABLE IS DERECOGNISED.

    Companies have now
    experienced three full
    years of applying
    IAS 39, ‘Financial
    instruments:
    Recognition and
    measurement’. During
    this time the standard
    has gone through a
    period of bedding
    down, and in the
    process we have
    worked with companies
    to develop solutions to many issues. This is
    particularly so in the area of derecognition of
    financial assets. This is one of the most difficult
    aspects of IAS 39, itself one of the most challenging
    standards in IFRS.
    The derecognition requirements for financial assets
    have come under heightened scrutiny as a result of
    the current credit crisis, which has highlighted the
    complexity of applying IAS 39 to structures designed
    to achieve derecognition. It has also caused some to
    question whether the current requirements result in
    accounting that faithfully represents certain
    structures. The IASB has recognised these concerns
    and has accelerated the timetable for its joint project
    with the FASB to do some ‘blue sky thinking’ about a
    possible future approach to derecognition.
    Nevertheless, it seems that the present model is
    likely to continue to apply for some time.
    Although the markets for sales of financial assets
    have slowed considerably, transactions are still
    occurring. As more countries transition to IFRS,
    many different structures are being analysed to
    determine the implications of the current
    requirements on their accounting.
    This publication helps explain the current
    requirements. Section 1 outlines the IAS 39
    requirements for the derecognition of financial
    assets. Section 2 provides answers to some of the
    questions we are asked most often by companies
    applying these requirements in practice. Section 3
    provides detailed illustrations of how to apply the
    IAS 39 requirements to some common structures –
    both ‘traditional’ structures and some of the more
    innovative structures that have emerged.
    The transactions and solutions set out in this
    publication are not exhaustive. They do not illustrate
    all of the possible scenarios involving derecognition;
    nor do they answer all of the questions that arise in
    practice. But the pages that follow will answer many
    of your questions and illustrate how to apply the
    derecognition requirements to some of the
    transactions that are available.
    Pauline Wallace
    Financial Instruments Leader
    Global Accounting Consulting Services
    PricewaterhouseCooperspricewaterhouse coopers –
    financial instruments leader

  2. Corporate Name: CitiBank, N.A. as Trustee, a Division of CitiBank, N.A.
    Address: 1000 Technology Drive MS 321
    City,State,Zip: OFallon, MO 63368-2240
    Toll Free Number:
    Direct Number: (636) 240-7446
    Fax Number: (636) 240-0184
    Primary Contact: Jennifer Cupo
    Website: http://www.citigroup.com
    Member Org ID: 1004210
    Lines Of Business: Servicer, Subservicer, Investor, Document Custodian, Trustee
    eRegistry Participant: Yes
    eDelivery Participant: Yes

    eDelivery + eMortgage Paperless Closings pass Assignments (Assumptions of lons) to trustee as nominee

  3. OCC will look at the ‘process’ of ‘foreclosure’ where ‘US Bank NA’ foreclosing as Planitiff for Loan Trust and Freddie Mac in contractural agreements with the Real Estate Lawyers /Brokers who process the REO Purchase Agreements. Will OCC look at the ‘Real Estate Lawyers’ the special ones who are in agreement and acts as ‘debt collector’ of current default debt, closing settlement agent of the REO Assumption of Loan and will hold in trust all insurance proceed options during life of foreclosure. What exactly will the OCC see? Nothing

    US Bank NA has no skin in the game and used as vehicle for ‘defaults’ of other non-affiliates like Wells Fargo’s Freddie Mac Assumption of Loans.

    For example:
    US Bank NA Trustee hands are clean passed no document files.
    The aggregators – MERS Database – Aggregator
    No access to file is point of party selected to go before court.

  4. US BANK NA ‘TRUSTEE’ C/O ‘REMIC’
    DURING ‘DEFAULT’ IS THE SUBSTITUTE LENDER

    WHY DOES US BANK NA ‘SASCO 2006-WF3’
    SUBMIT ‘WFHM INSTITUTIONAL’ AN INVOICE
    FOR LOSS MITIGATION?

    LENDERS POLICY ON LOAN ASSUMED ‘OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 9/7/2006’

    HOW COME ‘DEFAULT’ BILL FOR 670-PROPERTY REPORT
    $125 DOLLARS SUBMITTED TO ‘LOSS MITIGATION/ C/O
    WFHM INSTITUTIONAL INVOICE SUBMITTED BY:

    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE

    THEY ARE IN A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WITH ‘RELS’ DBA ATI TITLE THE NATIONWIDE NETWORK OF REO AGENTS, BROKERS, DEALERS, DISTRIBUTORS INCLUDES LAWYERS TITLE SERVICES (ATTORNEY/BROKER)

    WOULD THIS BE ‘INSURANCE FRAUD’ ? TO SUBMIT PLAINTIFF COSTS TO DEFENDANT WFHM?

  5. I feel these “reviews” are only trying to gather your information to create a file as there is none in most cases. Sort of the same way the pretend modifications did, be wear and hire a Private investigator to do your own report.

  6. Dodododo,

    With all the information out in the open, most people realize that there are problems with the titles of foreclosed homes. Think about this: why would anyone buy a foreclosed home? Because it is a “great deal”. Most of them are way below today’s market value (even though way above tomorrow’s market value but that’s another story). When you buy a foreclosed home, you know it is a “bank sale”. Same thing for any kind of repo, be it a car, electronic equipment or anything else.

    I happen to think that if you do purchase a “bank foreclosure” nowadays, you know or should know what has transpired. It is still up to the buyer to beware. So, the new owners may, in the end, get screwed like Bevilacqua in MA but that case has been talked about enough for potential buyers to do a little research. And if they do get screwed, they too will have to go after the bank, as the MA judge advised Bevilacqua (is that his name? You know whom I am refering to).

  7. Let’s say for some reason these review places agree that there was fraud of some kind along the way. Does anyone know how they would determine and damages due the illegally foreclosed homeowner? Also what would effect would that have on the new homeowner because there would be an admission by the banks that something was wrong with the foreclosure. The way I see it, if the house was foreclosed on with fraud, then that foreclosure is illegal. So then the new homeowner bought an illegally foreclosed home with a clouded title and everything that goes with it. Even though they got a loan and are making payments, that house is not theirs because the house is stolen goods. So how is the bank going to fix the problem with the people living in these homes they think are theirs?

    I just got my review letter today to my surprise. I do not trust this whole process. Could it be that when you fill out the form they are on some type of fishing stunt to find out what we have on them? This whole thing does not feel right.

  8. Maxim of Law:
    Cujus per errorem dati repetitio est, ejus consult dati donatio est.

    Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, state, jure divino, in jure proprio

  9. Opinion.
    @nlight..think about it…the financial crash happened sometime in 2008, it took a while from that point to initiate the first foreclosure, but by that time they’d been proven to not have a right to foreclose…maybe something behind the scenes where in the securitization they realized they bifurcated the note and the deed and the only way to ‘attempt’ to get them together is to dissolve the agreement and create a new one.

    First foreclosures probably happened after the new year, or got initiated in the new year.

    My servicer walked away in 2008. I wouldn’t pay the new guy without an assignment (Statute of Frauds thing…some transactions have to be in writing — otherwise it’s a gift.)
    They have a Maxim of Law that says if you pay someone that you know you don’t owe, then you can’t claim an injury for paying them.

    I knew the only way they could get the money is through extortion. They can’t threaten to take someone’s property if the debt is not secured…that’s a violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

    So the all around picture is that Jan 2009 someone was in foreclosure or being offered a contract to modify the mortgage. The last one in line is the first in time for getting paid back so they needed that modification to establish the Statute of Frauds to show there is a real estate transaction between the two of you.

    It’s all deceptive practices, and the game is getting tight.
    You’d best make sure you don’t get caught agreeing to something and then getting mad when you got, got.

    All of them are in the same, clan. None of them are friends of ours. The only reason I can see there is a remedy available is because there are still some homeowners who have been wronged and who still haven’t been settled with through a trick mod, or a trick bankruptcy agreement, or a trick court settlement where you agree to pay rent, keep the house, but keep quiet on the deal, or any other trick agreement.

    They ‘have to review all foreclosures done 2009 and 2010’.
    They created the ‘request a review’ process, but they ‘have’ to have all reviewed by the independent company…period.

    I know there are people who just don’t listen and don’t get it, and that’s okay. I get it. I read the Cease and Desist. I know they have to. They are giving those that ‘request a review’ a time limit to do it. That’s outside of what they ‘have to do’.

    I don’t have to do anything. They have to do a review of the foreclosure done on my home in 2009 2010. I don’t have to request a darn thing. I don’t have to contract with them or act like we have a ‘meeting of the minds’ on anything.

    I’ve been robbed….robbed, I tell you.

    I have an unalienable right to not communicate with anyone that has robbed me of my Right to Personal Protection (from hired hand sheriffs who made me leave my home), and Right to Property (where I have an unalienable right to peaceful enjoyment of said property). Someone benefited from the theft and they owe me the income they made through the unlawful use of my property.

    This ain’t Extreme Home Makeover…at least after they leave they get another house on the same space, fully furnished…but they entered a contract to have to leave and they are only gone for two weeks.

    The irony.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, state, jure divino, in jure proprio

  10. Lies is all they tell, I hate to say this but it’s not hard for a bank or a debt collector, financial institution, etc. to find anyone they are looking for. Just by looking up the SS# they can locate anyone, if she works or uses a credit card, etc. she’l be found. If they go after her for any outstanding debt they may sue her or garnish her wages, and again it depends on what the state rules are. I think the OCC knows who to send the letters to, anyone they feel were wrongly foreclosed on and I think most if not all of them may have been in wrongful foreclosures.

    I think and that’s my opinion that it’s in the best interest of the banks and the OCC to review those cases and settle with the former homeowners, otherwise, they’ll have to deal with many more lawsuits. They may just be covering their ASSETS so to speak, does not mean they’ll settle with everyone, but those who get the letters and respond may get something back and that relieves the banks from further liabilities. Some people may not want to deal with it at all and ignore it, only those who request a review may get something.

    The question is, why only the foreclosures from 2009, and 2010? The banks are still using fraudulent documentations to foreclose on homeowners, except now they may not be naming MERS as the foreclosing entity, they substitute someone else like US Bank, it’s the same fraud to me. Sooner or later the truth comes out, the only difference is the banks know that not everyone will stand up and fight for their homes. Unless the homeowners fight the fight of their lives to stop those thieves, they will keep pushing and pushing because they have the ok from our lovely government!

    The people we should be hating the most are those who are paid by us to protect us and they sit back and watch us suffer in this way. If Freddie and Fannie are government subsidized and they are not innocent parties to all of this, then go figure! We truly live in a messed up world, the next person who tells me that we live in a free country I will feed him/her to my dog, LOL, no really.

  11. The State of Washington passed a Fair Forecloser Act. Notice it saya a fair forelclose!!(we will pat you on the back and the banks will help you by getting you to admit a debt you do not owe, as a matter of law” and we wont guarantee you get help, first you have to admit you owe the dept (HeHe hah!) then we will fairly look at your mortgage then foreclose on you) if you do not qualify to the banks standards) . The whole thing is a set up to get the homeowner to admit the debt. The banksters should be in jail not deciding if we qualify to their standards. I am afraid this will be the same. You can not trust the OCC. However just the same I would go through the paperwork like I did with the state until they ask you to sigh on the dotted line that you owe the debt, only sign you are in dispute of this alleged debt. Once I did that I was told the program did not have money for litigation, only to for fair foreclosure, facilitating the mediation between me and the debt collector, to negotiate a fair negotiation. The paper work said no guarantees of help, but you have to admit the debt (now). I told the facilitator, the government had billions to help the banks, but no money to litigate for the homeowners, just enough money to help the banks get us to sign to admit a debt we dont owe, and then require us to work with our perpetrators? She told me she did not see it that way. I told her well I sure do! And that was the last of that. I asked her to foreward a letter to me explaining why she could not help me, but it was a pretty vage generalized letter protecting their liablilty, when it came. Fill out the papers but watch your back and get help if you can.

  12. Stealing from a thief is taking back what’s yours.
    I’m staying in my house until they physically carry me out. I’m not repaying one debt any longer.

    Nowadays, my money will serve to fix my health in anticipation of the hard times to come.

  13. @Dying Truth, they will not see you as ‘People’.
    They have a general rule of doing business to see you as a person.

    Opinion (protected form of speech, not legal advice, I don’t know legal things)

    How can you make them see you as a people? Well put it on the document when you sing it.

    Dying Truth —(presumed to be a person)
    Dying Truth, People –(Cannot make presumption, status is indicated)

    We have to be the solution to our problems.

    Clerk of the Court could never just sign as ‘Clerk name’
    They have to sign as
    ‘Clerk Name’, Clerk of the Court.

    They always indicate status.
    If One has a status and one does not…who s superior? Who is presumed to be superior?

    If i see two signatures and one says.
    This name, Dr and another says
    This name

    I’m going to assume the one with the Dr. has a superior status than the one without, even if the second name is a Ph.D but chose not to indicate it on their signature.

    Hierarchy – is a part of the contract status.

    If People are superior to person, and People don’t indicate their status, that the corporation which is a person will appear to be the superior one in the contract.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, state, jure divino, in jure proprio

  14. @Enraged
    Everything they’ve ‘given’ us has been a gift horse.
    A trojan horse that seemed to be a truce but put us in a position where our choices made us worse off than before.

    HAMP, Modifications, how many lessons must we learn before we truly see what’s going on? Bankruptcy…there are people who can’t tie their problems before bankruptcy with their problems after bankruptcy.

    Whoever knowlingly, willingly, and intentionally
    (and those are key words for determining the intent behind the agreement), enters into a contract without protecting their rights, cannot expect the one they’ve contracted with to protect them for them.

    Opinion, not legal advice because I don’t know legal things.
    If I entered a contract with any of you, and you don’t protect your rights, am I my brother’s keeper(?) Well maybe I am..but do you really think a banking institution or any of the financial arms of it care about you or the money they can make from your ignorance.

    When you do business with them, do it as if you have put your arm out to keep them at a distance.

    The legal term is ‘at arm’s length’.

    I can’t find an example of All Rights Reserved, but I see it so much at the bottom of most advertisements and pubs that I take it for granted it’s going to be there.

    We need to pay attention to how business does business.

    Why? Because we are doing business with business.

    Remember the phrase, ‘it’s not personal, it’s just business’?
    There’s something to it.

    And I think it’s okay to not trust someone who has stolen from you.

    I was listening to an Angela Stark audio at a talkshoe website, and it was not legal advice, but talking about acknowledging the deed to get the home again. The host mentioned going to the county and finding filings against her home. I wasn’t surprised to find out about the Grantor Deed and Warranty Deed. I kind of remember two deeds, one from the land owner to the builder describing the property and one from the mortgage company to me or something like that.

    But she said there was a filing stating her home was Abandoned.

    That shocked me to high heaven.

    Who would and how could they file an Abandoned Property filing? I don’t know her history, like if she still lives there or anything.

    But I know when they steal our homes they send a 1099-A form to us. Most of us don’t read anything in the IRS to find out what it is, we just go to TurboTax (registered tradmark of Intuit) and we do our taxes if it asks if we had the form mailed to us.

    That A on that form stands for Abandoned.

    The one claiming to be the creditor wants you to file that form with your taxes to indicate you abandoned the home.

    I’m thinking they don’t pay taxes on a loss if you ‘left them’. But I don’t know really, legally or otherwise what it means except it indicate abandoned…it that the abandoned amount, or the abandoned value? I don’t know.

    Someone who does a short sale, do they get the Abandoned form?

    What I’m trying to say is the banks are behind the scenes dragging their feet on the remedy, and all along there are many stages to the deception that we end up participating in without realizing it.

    When we don’t protect our rights, we look/appear to knowingly, willingly, and intentionally agree to do these things we are doing because we got a piece of paper in the mail that ‘told us to do it’.

    I know it sounds crazy, but I’d like to send someone a piece of paper with instructions and watch them just do it like a game of ‘Simon Says’.

    I never abandoned my home. I could not in good conscious and of my Free Will, send a form to the IRS stating I Abandoned my home, and point to Fannie Mae and the fraud foreclosing back as the creditor. That was a lie.

    I got two 1099A forms and I could not send in either because I had no contracts with either to support the form that was sent to me in the mail.

    Filing a false tax form and attesting under penalty of perjury it is true correct and complete would put the burden on me.

    So I followed my conscious. Conscious is something that life has.

    Now I know that if someone sends me a contract that does not have enough protections for me, I consider it an offer to contract. To make it useful for my purposes, I ‘counter-offer’ by placing the protections I need in the contract and sending it back with signature. If they accept, then we are in agreement (meeting of the minds) and have a valid contract.

    But to receive an unfavorable contract and to just blank sign it without protecting our rights, is just, well dumb.
    There I said it.

    We are smarter than that, and many never considered writing on the contract the ‘additional terms of the agreement’ that would make it a favorable contract for them.

    When you send it back, it’s the only contract they can enforce if they choose to enforce it.

    But I won’t be ‘giving’ anyone any chances to walk over me.

    I believe that they are liable for the theft of my home and the taxes of the value they received in the property they stole.

    Since it’s not ‘ABANDONED’, and they have possession of it, well I guess the IRS needs to knock on their door for some tax money for their windfall.

    Banks have to review all foreclosures done between 2009 and 2010 whether we fill out a review form or not.

    There is no way I will lose a right because I refuse to create a contract with a company I never had a contract with.

    Period.

    You have rights. Recognize them and protect them.
    And, if you don’t believe you have them and don’t protect them, then someone will continue to ignore them. Why would a business fight for your rights when it doesn’t benefit them for you to know what they are?

    ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle642-20111030-07.html

    You have the power. Not using it, is no excuse.
    We can blame ourself for the problem we are in, and the problems we create.

    We are co-creators.

    I created this response.

    Recognize how we are creating too, and see how the banks are letting us make the problems we are experiencing and then they sit back and say it’s not their fault.

    I love you all of us One.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, state, jure divino, in jure proprio

  15. Good afternoon folks, another State is snooping around instead of helping out:
    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/11/kingcast-mortgage-movies-sees-state-of.html

    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2011

    KingCast Mortgage Movies sees the State of Delaware and Eckert Seamans all up in Lamar Gunn’s business…. more dirt like Maryland and New Jersey?

    Yes indeed folks…. here’s some back story for you about a man who in my opinion was victimized by another fraudulent foreclosure. Now they say his CUSIP numbers don’t match. I believe otherwise. Here is how the State of Maryland snoops around because they are heavily vested in mortgage-backed securities. Here is how Eckert Seamans pals at Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard hide from KingCast/Mortgage Movies cameras in New Jersey part one.

    Keep in mind my “cohort” as U.S. Trustee Larry Sumski would say, is a former mortgage broker. I am a former title insurance producer and Todd Wetzelberger in Maryland is a developer. And Randy in Wisconsin is an investor. We all know the bulk of the U.S. Justice system and the foreclosure mill attorneys are breaking the Law each and every day. Role models for Wall Street, I guess. State Of Delaware (167.21.1.224) [Label IP Address]

  16. Pursuant to US Const. Art. Amend. X “the People” are the only body politic Constitutionally vested with the Powers to conduct nationwide independent Fraudclosure reviews for wrongful actions of depravity taken by Pretender Lenders.

  17. @Trespass,

    We may not be made whole but we’ll come out stronger, less gullible, less willing to deal with anything TBTF (whether it be a Walmart or a bank) and capable of saying “No” to anything we don’t understand.

    We were naive and too proud to question what we were signing, even though they were shoving a mountain of illegible and undigestible documents under our nose. Banks were greedy and played us like violins: they knew if they sugarcoated the poison, we would take it. We might have refused it once, twice maybe. When it became “the new way of doing things”, we didn’t have a prayer. They were the “experts”. We trusted them.

    It won’t happen again. Now, banks expect people to shy away from OCC with the exact reasons given here by posters: what if it is another way to screw us up? What we must do is contact OCC. The more people take advantage of this program and the more obvious it will become that fraud was, indeed, widespread and a way of doing business.

    Don’t let the banks get away with it. Remember: they took everything.
    What more could they take from us? We have nothing left. Not even our truts, our health, our dreams.

    Contact OCC, whether you believe your were wronged or not. It is not what you believe that counts, it’s the number of people who will claim their audit. Just do it for the sake of doing it. You may not get the house back. You may not get anything back. What you will accomplish, though, is that OCC will be inondated with claims and the numbers will finally be known.

  18. Opinion.
    Keep your eyes open if you can.
    The banks have the responsibility for reviewing their foreclosures for those years.

    Why do you worry whether they can find you or others?
    Does not finding someone remove the fact that the foreclosure was done in fraud?

    Is it possible that the ones they find, they can trick into contracts that are unfavorable like they did with the modification contracts.

    Most of the judicial decisions in favor of people whose homes were stolen, the one robbed was not even in court.

    Not finding someone doesn’t mean they’ve lost the right to receive what was taken from them, or compensation for financial harm and injury.

    Many have been trained to fear or fight.
    There is another thing one can do, sit back and wait.

    Instead of being tricked by what they say, what is it they have not said.

    Look at this statement, and stop ‘inferring’ things that aren’t said.

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

    That didn’t say if you aren’t found by April 30, 2012, you lose a right to have the fraudclosure/theft reviewed.

    This is a statement of you contacting them. A request…go get the legal definition of that.

    OCC never said they only way we would get a remedy is if we made a request…they never said that. Go read the Cease and Desist order. The banks are ordered to review them all and make us whole.

    That’s not legal advice, it’s only opinion, but what you need is in many places…why? Because by their rules they operate in the ‘Law of Confusion’. All the information cannot be in the same place, and you will be hard pressed to locate all the information you need in one place.

    Protect your unalienable rights on whatever you sign. Even if you have to write ‘All Rights Reserved’…just protect yourself. Just because someone makes an offer doesn’t mean that your lack of knowledge won’t put you into further harm.

    By their own admission, there can be no law impairing the obligations of contracts.

    Make sure you don’t place your signature on a document that binds you in a situation unfavorable to you.

    Adults enter into contracts.

    We are all adults here.

    If someone is incapable of managing their adult affairs, well they have ways of taking advantage of you for not being mature enough to educate yourself and being a dependent requiring someone else to take care of you.

    I love you. All of us, One.

    Many will make it through this economic coercion graduation. Many will not fair so well, but they can point to whoever signed a contract without understanding what they are agreeing to and what rights they are reserving or relinquishing.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, state, jure divino, in jure proprio

  19. hey all my sister has a citigroup final judgement 1/29/2009
    she fits the criteria for the review but she is afraid once they know where she is and she is afraid she will be sued for the remainder of the amount since it was a short sale after judgement. is this occ thing actually a scam to find people to sue for short sale amounts??? she is very worried about contacting them and opening up a can of worms. please help

  20. A friend of mine who was foreclosed on by BOA, and moved out of her condo just received a letter from the OCC for the review, she still lives in the same town though, but they found her and she read the letter to me last night. I think they will find the people but will some of the people know what to do about the review. My friend is 81, she had no clue that she was in foreclosure till they posted an eviction notice on her door, now she has no idea what to do with that letter for the review. I will help her and I will see what they’ll do for her, will keep everyone posted.

  21. HARP Strikes A Sour Chord from FORBES
    Around 11 million homeowners, about 25% of all homeowners, owe more debt on their homes than the homes are worth, hence the term “underwater mortgage”. Most were victims of the housing bubble (2004-2008) fueled by easy financing that artificially inflated prices while people were buying houses, or borrowing against their existing homes. The interest rate on these mortgages in most instances is in excess of 6.5% but the homeowners do not qualify for refinancing at current interest rates as low as 4%. This means the homeowner is paying hundreds of dollars and in some instances thousands of dollars more each month than he would otherwise pay if he could refinance at current rates.

    Lenders may have already written off a portion of these loans for financial or tax reasons, but the borrower is still treated as owing the entire amount with monthly payments still due per the terms of the mortgage, including payments on amounts the lender may have treated as a loss. Every month the lenders get the borrowers to make payments on the underwater loans, the lenders receive a windfall of interest payments well in excess of current market interest rates. Lenders actually prefer to keep the homeowner captive to the terms of the mortgage and debt in excess of home value. Imagine how much is being paid on underwater mortgages each month to the satisfaction of the lenders. Every month a homeowner writes a check on an underwater mortgage is another victory for the lender.

    It is in this environment the lender plays on the homeowner’s fears and takes advantage of his moral predisposition to pay what he owes. It is obvious that if most people stopped paying on their underwater mortgages lenders would no longer have the luxury of letting the homeowners twist in the wind. Of course, this will not happen because most people fear the stigma of foreclosure and bankruptcy and do not want to be among the first to default in what may not be a mass movement. So most borrowers will act the way lenders are counting on already.

    If the President and Congress really want to help these homeowners, a program much broader than HARP (Home Affordable Refinance Program) should be established. For example, legislation could provide for a new subset of a Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy for underwater mortgages only, but without the stigma of the B(ankruptcy) word. Under this program underwater mortgages would be modified based on the fair market value of the home, and the net worth and income of the homeowner.

    Continuing with this example, homeowners that meet the following criteria would be eligible to participate: (1) home value less than 85% of the mortgage, (2) annual PITI (principal, interest, property taxes and insurance) greater than 30% of homeowner’s adjusted income (mostly cash income less taxes and other specified permitted expenses), and (3) an adjusted net worth (e.g., excluding certain assets that would be exempted in a conventional bankruptcy) less than 25% of the mortgage amount. If the home value is at least 75% of the mortgage the interest rate would be reduced (not below current market rates) and principal amortization would be deferred (not beyond the original mortgage term) so that PITI would be no more than 30% of adjusted income. If the value of the home is less than 75% of the debt the principal amount of the debt would be reduced so that the home value is not less than 75% of the reduced mortgage. The reduction of debt would be further limited so as not to increase the homeowners adjusted net worth in excess of 25% of the reduced mortgage. The interest rate reduction and deferral of principal amortization discussed above would also apply to the reduced mortgage so PITI is no more than 30% of adjusted income. In situations where a mortgage cannot be modified as discussed above because 30% of adjusted income cannot support payments on a modify mortgage, the program would allow for a short sale with the borrower no longer liable for all or part of the remaining loan balance. Most important, this program would allow the borrower to immediately reduce PITI payments to no more than 30% of adjusted income until the debt restructuring is completed thereby discouraging lender procrastination. The establishment of the program itself may make lenders more willing to work with homeowners outside the program.

    This program would not create a windfall for the borrower. Borrowers with substantial income or substantial net worth will still be expected to honor their loan obligations or pursue existing alternatives. However, I suspect such legislation would not be popular with lenders, parties who provided guaranties related to securitized debt, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But like the pig in the python, it is time for our economy to digest the underwater mortgage problem.

  22. Price Waterhouse story only in German :

    http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,799424,00.html

  23. Independent Foreclosure Review ??
    Who is my Server in this case ? # 1 = BNC (Dead NA )
    #2= AHMSI ( Dead NA ) # 3 = CHASE (no answer after 208 pages
    fax and cert.mail .NO Mortgage paper exist anymore ?
    Looks to me , nothing was or is wrong ?

    O, by the way : Price Waterhouse accounting missed in Germany the
    $ 50 Billion .WOW.

  24. @lies is all they tell

    I have had a post office box for 25 years and have received all of my mail and bills that the post box. Even the monthly billing statements from Well went there. I even received my NOD and Trustee Sale Notification at both my home and post box. But I am not going to hold my breath about getting a notification. I read somewhere that they are “going to try” find these people. If anyone believes that then they believe in the tooth fairy. Another lame attempt to make the people feel something is being done to help. I don’t believe anything will be done.

    Happy Thanksgiving to all.

  25. FORECLOSURE JUSTICE ADVOCATES ARE THANKFUL IN 2011

    Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Fraud Digest, Thanksgiving 2011

    …for the ACLU for fighting for the rights of homeowners and for
    exposing courtroom injustices

    …for New York Judge Arthur Schack, for his intolerance of lies by
    banks, for exposing the massive problem of fraudulent documents
    used in foreclosures, and for writing the following in response to a
    sworn affidavit from a bank lawyer, Margaret Carucci, that an officer
    from Downey Savings & Loan could vouch for the accuracy of the
    documents: “Ms. Carucci affirmed under the penalties of perjury that
    she communicated on Christmas Eve with the officer of a defunct
    financial institution. This is a deceptive trick and fraud upon the court.
    It cannot be tolerated. This Christmas Eve conduct, in the words of
    Ebenezer Scrooge, ins‘Bah, humbug!’” (Downey Savings and Loan
    Association, F.A. v. Trujillo, 2011 NY Slip Op 51517 (U)). Judge
    Schack has led the way to honesty in courtrooms.

    …for Florida Appellate Court Judge Juan Ramirez, Jr., who wrote
    in his dissent, “I dissent because I cannot condone the unprofessional and unethical means used by the bank’s counsel, with the trial court’s complicity, to obtain an amended final judgment in this case…This case is the quintessential denial of due process. Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here appellant was granted neither. A final judgment was amended from $216,485.73 to $529,630.64, and the appellant was only informed after the fact when he received the conformed copy in the mail…In my view, to affirm what happened here requires that we turn a blind eye to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Code of Judicial Conduct, to say nothing of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida.” (Phillips v. Centennial Bank, No. 3D10-2910, (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011).

    …for Neil Garfield and his Livinglies weblog for his endless efforts to
    educate consumers and their lawyers on “the largest economic fraud in human history.” Neil is the source of so much valuable information –
    He is a one-man Consumer Protection Bureau and THE SOURCE for foreclosure defense.

    …for Dylan Ratigan for making the word “fraudclosure” part of the
    American vocabulary and for telling the story of tens of thousands of
    American families impacted by fraudulent foreclosures when much of
    the rest of the country would only focus on investors’ losses.

    …for Max, April and Nye – because when everyone in a movement
    knows you by your first name, you have fought the longest and been
    an inspiration to the most.
    …for Jack Wright who gives us MSFraud.org.

    …for Floridians Lisa Epstein, Damian Figueroa, Michael Redman,
    and Mark Stopa Esq, Matt Weidner Esq. for speaking the truth on their blogs, at great personal cost, assisting tens of thousands of citizens across the country who educate themselves regarding foreclosure fraud and injustice, and reporting what actually goes in in county courtrooms every day.

    More at http://www.msfraud.org/articles/foreclosure-justice-advocates-are-thankful-2011.pdf

  26. Hopefully these accounting firms will see what is happening to the one JPMorgan hired and note that when caught giving false fraud information and concealing evidence and covering up can make them loose their business, making them liable for false information, and then due to 42USC 1983, our Bill of Rights, and First Amendment, and the US. Constitution, liable for the banks crimes, when they become a contracted party in their course of busiess or are they protected from being a contracted party to these crooks. Looks like they should have to be hired by an outside source. All employees, volunteers,and contracted parties are liable for an entity that is being sued.?

  27. can any one answer these questions

    1 how are they going to find these people? thnk about it if they foreclosed on your home and you either left the home or were evicted forwarding addresses only last a year by the post office. how do they expect to find these people. my sister was given one of those subprime mortgages. adjusted to almost her entire salary. she left her home. she could not afford it and didnt know about this fraud. how are they going to find her? she is in boom fook egypt hernando county florida. there is no way they can find her. chase foreclosed on her last year after a mortgage broker quick cliamed the house from her in a scam closing her 2nd house was also foreclosed on, yes folks 2 homes foreclosed on in 2 years on a widow whom made 40k a year respiratory therapist. one of the foreclosed homes she was still living there and they served my neice the papers she was only 12 yrs old. they told her to give the papers to her mommy. she forgot about them..

    2. how can we beleive this bogus bull sheet?

  28. they are the people who do the attestations in all the 10K filings of all the failed Trusts, they attested that the Trusts were of sound origin and that all the loans were in the trusts.

  29. Price waterhouse, really? and I am so ignorant to have thought that the OCC was really going to fix this problem. Fuck u OCC

  30. usedkarguy is there a link?

  31. 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

  32. Why do I feel so insulted? Is it because the same guys who destroyed this economy and countless lives, figuratively and truly, are now fully employed and paid by our tax dollars without any say from us while 15% of our honest workers who were the victims of the sharks are homeless and out of unemployment benefits?

    Is it because, having created a financial monster it’s taken us years to figure out, we’re now officially giving them all latitude to “correct” the situation we know they won’t… because it would mean admitting their fault and there is no way they can?

    Is it because, somewhere, somehow, I expect to hear that they did such a grand job auditing and finding no mistakes, no Ma’me, not one! It was completely on ther up and up! that we gave them a $20 million bonus?

    I think it’s the idea that they will have a job after having taken ours that irks me the most…

  33. Rust Consulting in Mpls., MN for Wells Fargo.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: