Settlement is a Scheme to ratify the Other Schemes of Banks and Servicers

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SERVICE 520-405-1688
Editor’s Comment: With the Revolving Door between the finance sector and public law enforcement, it is hard not to wonder where Oregon Attorney General John Kroger will be employed when he finishes his term as AG.  
SPIN:
A great deal of spin has been put out there about how much more enforcement power the states are going to have over the banks. Even if that was true, it is likely to be blunted in the conflict of laws situations that will be raised in any major effort by States to hold Banks and servicers responsible for the the full extent of the havoc they have created in housing and the economy.
The so-called settlement like the securitization scam that brought it in front of the American people, is a scam.
  • There was no actual securitization process — the banks and servicers pretended as though the loans were securitized all nice and pretty with proper handling of the money and the paperwork, and they used their credibility as bankers to give false assurance to investors and borrowers alike that financial institutions were the experts in loan underwriting and creating ironclad documents to collateralize the real estate to assure repayment. In reality the investment banks, and servicers have done everything possible to make every investor penny  move from the investor to the investment banks and servicers. The proposed settlement enables and facilitates that process.
  • Until it was far too late, over the objections of those who DID know what was going on, when the public, government, pension plans who provided the money found out that the whole thing was a hoax.
  • There was no loan underwriting, confirmation, reviews of viability of the loans. I know of one particular case where the “projected income” from another scam was used as the basis for approving the loan. No ordinary loan underwriter would accept that. And there was no paperwork of any value — there was only sham paperwork giving the appearance of a loan closing when the documents intentionally mislead the homeowner borrower into thinking that the loan process was normal, like it had been for hundreds of years.
  • The “paperwork” was missing because of two things: (1) the pretenders wanted to claim ownership over loans on which they had not underwritten or accepted the risk of loss, paid for, or funded, so they created a grey area with straw-men and “nominees.” and (2) the reason they wanted that grey area was that they were going to sell the loan multiple times from multiple “owners” and create “trading profits on assets they did not own. It worked — so far — but only because they have not yet been put behind bars.
  • When it came time to foreclose on loans that were based upon false appraisals, false income and false underwriting procedures, they needed to present the picture of  a standard foreclosure, so they created (fabricated) the documents that would like right, but had no substance.
  • Specifically the Banks and servicers had neither the creditor nor the debt in the court room or non-judicial sale and they were assured, in non-judicial sales, that substituted trustees would not due their homework because the “trustees’ were persons employed by or controlled by the pretenders. Those documents were fraudulent, faked and forged with notary stamps being used like children”s markers by people who had no idea what they were signing, who was signing and whether the signature was valid.
  • Now we get to the point where after scant investigation in which very few law enforcement personnel were involved, a settlement is proposed in which the real objective is to ratify the bad loans, ratify the bad origination paperwork, ratify the bad papers of “transfer” of the loan, and ratify the credit bid at auction of a non-creditor, ratify the foreclosure sale and ratify the evictions, with small payments to people who lost all their money and equity on property that legally they still have a right to claim ownership.
  • The Banks and servicers promise to be good in the future but we all know that they have millions more properties ready to go into foreclosure, that they have no interest in modification of settlement of each loan or property, and that they intend now to make a business out of packaging up these ill-gotten properties into rental units that will be sold to even more investors.
  • Besides the obvious criminality of forging documents, recording false documents, and fraudulently misrepresenting themselves to “substitute trustees” and the courts, the settlement glosses over the largest problem confronting the nation in the housing market — the corruption of title in the state, county registries that can’t be fixed by some global settlement.
  • Either you own it or you don’t. If you do, then you should be able to get an affidavit or other document from the person whose title claim is apparent but not real — or get a court order commanding the homeowner to provide that title affidavit or getting a court order declaring the rights and obligations of the parties. They can’t do any of that because they have no basis upon which to do so. They are the the originator of the loan, they did not fund the loan, they did not pay for the loan and their paperwork is all false. No homeowner is going to cooperate without a much more substantial payment and no court is going order title transferred to a stranger out of the chain of title.
  • The settlement like its counterparts in the loan origination, underwriting, transfer, foreclosure and eviction counterparts, is a sham in that it takes trillions of dollars of stolen property and allows the miscreants to created this mess to not only get away with a tiny fraction of payment that they owe, but provides a mechanism in which more lawyers for banks and services can hoodwink overworked judges into thinking that  now the title question and the wrongful foreclosure question are settled and it is “inevitable” that these people should be evicted.
  • These people are mostly composed of people who sought and were denied modifications even though they offered far more money on valid enforceable plans than the proceeds of foreclosures in which the investor lenders were shorted vast sums of money that went (a) to the pretenders who took fees out of what was left of the property in feeding frenzy and (b) to the investment banks who diverted the money of the investors away from the funding of loans ( thus guaranteeing that the pool would fail) and who diverted the “trading profits” and other third party obligee payments that were received and sometimes credited to the investor lender but never reported to the courts or the borrowers.
In short, the settlement, like everything else we have seen in this mess is a scheme to ratify other schemes.

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger says he’ll sign on to multistate foreclosure settlement with largest loan servicers

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger said Wednesday he will sign on to a multistate pact settling wrongful foreclosure chargesagainst the five largest loan servicers.

The proposed settlementwould set aside between $100 million and $200 million to help “underwater” homeowners with principal reductions and refinancings. Homeowners are considered underwater when the balance on their mortgage exceeds their home’s value.It would also net the state $30 million and give an estimated 8,000 Oregonians who believe they’ve been wronged during a foreclosure checks for up to $2,000.”I am confident that signing this agreement is in the best interest of Oregon consumers,” Kroger said in a statement this morning. “This agreement penalizes banks that engaged in wrongful foreclosure practices and brings badly needed relief for distressed homeowners.”

More information
Oregon Attorney General John Kroger has set up a website for homeowners to request more information about the settlement as it becomes available. He also has a question-and-answer pageabout the proposed deal.Also, read It’s Only Money’s 2011 column on how to deal with poor loan servicing.

The proposal reportedly would waive Oregon’s right to bring civil lawsuits against the servicers for their foreclosure practices. But it does not bar Oregon or other states from pursuing how mortgages might have been improperly securitized — that is, bundled together and sold to investors.

It also would not impact homeowners’ rights to sue servicers in court. And it allows states to pursue criminal charges against the banks, if necessary.The fate of the agreement remains unresolved, however. State attorneys general in California and Delaware have publicly rejected the settlement, saying it won’t protect enough distressed homeowners. Ultimately, a federal judge must approve the agreement, possibly late this month, Kroger’s chief of staff Keith Dubanevich said.
Dubanevich said 18 states have signed on to the agreement. The deadline for signing on is Monday.
A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who spearheaded the settlement talks, confirmed this morning that other states have signed on to the agreement, though he would not say how many.
“I think it’s safe to say that AGs who helped negotiate the proposed settlement, including my attorney general, support the agreement,” Miller’s spokesman Geoff Greenwood said.The Associated Press has reported the settlement will cost the servicers — Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial Inc. and Citigroup Inc. — up to $25 billion, depending on how many states sign on to the agreement.
Dubanevich provided new details of the settlement, which hasn’t been released publicly. He said the settlement establishes new protections for homeowners in the form of 42 pages of servicing standards.
The standards prohibit the servicers from conducting a foreclosure sale while considering homeowners for a modification  — the so-called “dual-track problem.” It also requires servicers to be clear and responsive to homeowners when they ask who owns their loan, Dubanevich said.
A national monitor will oversee compliance with the standards, Dubanevich said, and a federal judge also will ensure the banks comply.
However, many homeowners won’t be covered by the agreement. Smaller servicers have not signed on to the pact. The deal covers mortgages held privately during 2008 and 2011, but not those owned by government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Fannie and Freddie own about half of all U.S. mortgages, roughly about 31 million U.S. home loans, according to the AP.
“This is just one of many steps that have to be taken before we completely clean up the housing and financing industry,” Dubanevich said today. “There are plenty more financial institutions out there we’ll turn our attention to.”
Consumer advocates generally agreed with Kroger’s decision.
Angela Martin, executive director of advocacy group Economic Fairness Oregon, called on legislators to put the state’s $30 million payment toward foreclosure-relief and prevention programs.
“I don’t believe we get a better deal by holding out for a larger settlement or a different settlement down the road,” Martin said. “Once the money arrives in Oregon, we need to make sure we spend it strategically.”
Nancie Koerber, co-founder of Central Point homeowner advocacy group Good Grief America, called last week for Kroger to hold off and further investigate the finance industry. But after reviewing some details of the settlement today, she called it “a decent compromise.”
“It appears that there is no money in the budget for large lawsuits, and in addition, the AG’s have few (laws) in place to go after (servicers),” Koerber said.

Late last week, Kroger issued temporary rules detailing behaviors by servicers that violate state consumer protection laws, giving homeowners and the state another weapon in court in wrongful foreclosure cases. The Oregon Legislature, which convened today, will consider permanently adopting even tougher standardsfor all servicers, not just the top five.Since 2008, Kroger’s office has received 1,700 complaints about loan servicers, making it the fourth most complained-about industry in that time, the department says.
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKennahelped negotiate the agreement. But his spokesman Dan Sytman said he would make no announcement about McKenna’s intentions until next week at the earliest.– Brent Hunsberger

30 Responses

  1. Hello Livinglies,
    I was wondering on a similar note,, A title (when referred to this kind of loan) is an official document used to prove ownership over a certain asset. In order for the title to be valid, it has to meet certain requirements (mostly going through a series of administrative stages) Moreover, in order to be useful for getting finance, it has not only to be valid but also be free from restrictions (either judicial or administrative)
    Keep up the posts!

  2. My $.02 here

    Lawsuits should be filed against the AG’s who make settlements and conceal the fraud. It is the attorney credo to not, knowingly conceal a crime in the course of their defense or representation of any client, never mind an entire class of citizens AND deprive them of their right to be heard in a court.

  3. Bribes??

    Hard to believe Oregon AG would sign on in light of the recent lawsuits.
    Hard to believe ANY AG would sign on in light of the rampant fraud.
    Makes no sense at all…at least without a more thorough investigation.
    So let’s say they say they investigated and decided to come up with this settlement. The real truth is that they found so much fraud, they decided to get a settlement going ASAP before it REALLY gets bad.

    Romney says we need to push through as many foreclosures as possible so the market can reach bottom. So now we have a REALTOR running for President ??
    Does he realize that PEOPLE are in those homes??

    Should have had a moratorium AGES ago.

  4. Question: If/When this settlement goes through, what effect will it have on foreclosure defense in our courts of the individual states? Will any precedent have been set that erodes our chances in defending our individual cases?

    thanks

  5. “…the banks will continue to commit foreclosure fraud regardless of signing the settlement with law enforcers.”

    “… any attorney general who signs up for it is giving up any claims related to securitization fail and all the leverage that flows from them?”

    By Abigail Caplovitz Field | February 2, 2012:
    ” … The Depth of Schneiderman’s Betrayal If Signs the Servicer Settlement…: http://abigailcfield.com/?p=882

    “NY AG Eric Schneiderrman… joining in…the likely release of securitization fail…would be a profound betrayal of New Yorkers, and frankly, all Americans.”

    …any time a seller of securities…lies to investors…destroys the value of the investment, it’s securities fraud. And what could be a more important, value-destroying lie than telling you (investors) that the Trust owns the loans when it doesn’t….

  6. @ANON
    I agree generally–yes the debt investors especially pension funds and other long term holders wanted to lock in those favorable long term rates–what really worries me is that in a year –after election–those guys are going to be screaming that the FED should run the rates through the roof as in 1977——in order to get their ROR up to the amt needed to fund the plans–they are still carrying 8% rate assumptions in calcing future cash flows—where are they going to get those rates????

    this suggests that even ultra low rates today to buy houses will disappear and at 8% refis on sale etc–home prices will nosedive again just as the baby boomers that are now fat and happy in soon to be empty nests will get caught–with big losses—if they leverage the home to pay the rapidly inflating college costs–then there will be a whole new wave of underwater stuff–iv seen this before–1977-1981

    had to do long term seller financing–hidden low rate loans assumed but not notcied to lenders –because od due on sale clauses–i guess it would be best to get out now of real estate unless its absolute bottom-feeding–who will buy millions of McMansions? cost of heating/cooling will skyrocket–re taxes ?

    it looks like a bleak retirement

  7. @ CARIE:
    Further discussion to your points.
    “5810.10 Personal contract and tort liability of trustee.
    (A) Except as otherwise provided in the contract, for contracts entered into on or after March 22, 1984, a trustee is not personally liable on a contract properly entered into in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity in the course of administering the trust if the trustee in the contract disclosed the fiduciary capacity. The words “trustee,” “as trustee,” “fiduciary,” or “as fiduciary,” or other words that indicate one’s trustee capacity, following the name or signature of a trustee are sufficient disclosure for purposes of this division.
    (B) A trustee is personally liable for torts committed in the course of administering a trust or for obligations arising from ownership or control of trust property, including liability for violation of environmental law, only if the trustee is personally at fault.
    (C) A claim based on a contract entered into by a trustee in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity, on an obligation arising from ownership or control of trust property, or on a tort committed in the course of administering a trust may be asserted in a judicial proceeding against the trustee in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity, whether or not the trustee is personally liable for the claim.” [Emphasis added]
    1) THERE WAS NO TRUST CREATED, THEREFORE PARAGRAPH (A) DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY
    It follows as a matter of logic that for there to be a trustee eligible for the special statutory privilege of immunity described below, and cited by the purported Attorney for defendant in the Motion to Dismiss, there must have been formed in fact a legal trust, ab initio. The following authorities refute that claim on the facts of this case as set out in the attached affidavit.
    The Ohio codification draws upon the UNIFORM TRUST CODE (Last Revised or Amended in 2010), drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS,
    “Report on HB 416: The Ohio Trust Code
    As Enacted
    Prepared for the Joint Committee on the Ohio Trust Code of the Legal, Legislative, and Regulatory Committee of the Ohio Bankers League and the Estate Planning, Trust, and Probate Law Section of the Ohio State Bar Association
    Alan Newman, Reporter for the Joint Committee
    The University of Akron School of Law
    http://www.ohiobankersleague.com/pdf/hb416asenacted.pdf

    “…Policy considerations.
    Much of the OTC is a codification of the existing common law of trusts, the adoption of which will not change Ohio law. Pre-OTC Ohio trust law, however, is relatively sparse and is found in scattered statutes and sometimes difficult to locate case law. Further, on some issues of trust law there is not well defined and accepted common law.“

    The prefatory statements to the Uniform Trust provisions note:

    “The Code is supplemented by the common law of trusts, including principles of equity. To determine the common law and principles of equity in a particular state, a court should look first to prior case law in the state and then to more general sources, such as the Restatement of Trusts, … The common law of trusts is not static but includes the contemporary and evolving rules of decision developed by the courts in exercise of their power to adapt the law to new situations and changing conditions. It also includes the traditional and broad equitable jurisdiction of the court, which the Code in no way restricts.”

    Later under the model trust law is:

    “SECTION 107. GOVERNING LAW.
    The meaning and effect of the terms of a trust are determined by:
    (1) the law of the jurisdiction designated in the terms unless the designation of that jurisdiction’s law is contrary to a strong public policy of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the matter at issue; or
    (2) in the absence of a controlling designation in the terms of the trust, the law of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the matter at issue.” [Emphasis added.]

    Per the comments to the Uniform Act; “the location of the trust property” is relevant in establishing the requisite “significant relationship”. Consequently, a review of Ohio law as already cited by the defendant’s purported counsel is pertinent. Ohio law as noted above draws upon the uniform trust law.

    “SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST.
    A trust may be created by:
    (1) transfer of property to another person as trustee during the settlor’s lifetime or by will or other disposition taking effect upon the settlor’s death;
    (2) declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds identifiable property as trustee; or
    (3) exercise of a power of appointment in favor of a trustee.

    Comment: [in the model act]
    This section is based on Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 10 (Tentative Draft No. 1, approved 1996), and Restatement (Second) of Trusts Section 17 (1959). Under the methods specified for creating a trust in this section, a trust is not created until it receives property. For what constitutes an adequate property interest, see Restatement (Third) of Trusts Sections 40-41 (Tentative Draft No. 2, approved 1999); Restatement (Second) of Trusts Sections 74-86 (1959)…”

    A general power of appointment is one which allows the holder of the power to appoint to himself, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his or her estate the right to have the beneficial use and enjoyment of certain property covered by the power of appointment. In this case the trust failed under any of the three conditions by want of any reasonable description of the property to have been the trust property.

    If the settlor had followed the prescription set out in the Indenture and Servicing Agreements as filed with SEC, the issue would not arise, the trust would survive as an enfranchised entity under state law and that trust would have met the requirements for tax-exempt treatment as a REMIC. However, the settlor-depositor failed to follow its own representations and warrantees as set out in the securitization documentation.

    The Model law Comment adds, ironically;
    “A declaration of trust can be funded merely by attaching a schedule listing the assets that are to be subject to the trust without executing separate instruments of transfer. But such practice can make it difficult to later confirm title with third party transferees and for this reason is not recommended.”
    [Emphasis added.]
    http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2004final_rev.htm#TOC1_7

    The foregoing described mechanism, a loan “schedule,” was exactly that contemplated by the securitization documents.

    As stated in the affidavit of______, the purported trustee was not entrusted with the homeowner promissory notes by the purported settlor-“depositor” pursuant to the Indenture and Pooling and Servicing Agreement. There was no appointment of power over specified assets nor transfer of those assets. There was no appointment by a filing of a loan schedule with SEC as represented in the SEC filing. There was a mere blank page where the list was to have been appended. There was no transfer of intangible property by way of a specifically described detailed listing of loans, with the Delaware Secretary of State –UCC division. There was again a mere blank page. The assets were not even described in the most general sense. These blank filings were represented by the SEC filer, bankrupt American Home Mortgage, as the triggering events for the establishment of the trust. Hence no trust was actually created.

    Thus the role of the purported trustee must be re-construed in terms consistent with the actual facts. The failed trust defaults to existence as a mere joint venture. The purported trustee is in fact the Operator of the joint venture at best. A mere operator of a failed or defunct estate of assets, however accumulated, is not entitled to the privilege of immunity granted a true trustee with property or appointed to exercise power over specified property.

  8. @CARIE
    “SECTION 107. GOVERNING LAW.
    The meaning and effect of the terms of a trust are determined by:
    (1) the law of the jurisdiction designated in the terms unless the designation of that jurisdiction’s law is contrary to a strong public policy of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the matter at issue; or
    (2) in the absence of a controlling designation in the terms of the trust, the law of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the matter at issue.

    Per the comments to the Uniform Act; “the location of the trust property” is relevant in establishing the requisite “significant relationship”.

    “SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST.
    A trust may be created by:
    (1) transfer of property to another person as trustee during the settlor’s lifetime or by will or other disposition taking effect upon the settlor’s death;
    (2) declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds identifiable property as trustee; or
    (3) exercise of a power of appointment in favor of a trustee.

    Comment: [in the model act]
    This section is based on Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 10 (Tentative Draft No. 1, approved 1996), and Restatement (Second) of Trusts Section 17 (1959). Under the methods specified for creating a trust in this section, a trust is not created until it receives property. For what constitutes an adequate property interest, see Restatement (Third) of Trusts Sections 40-41 (Tentative Draft No. 2, approved 1999); Restatement (Second) of Trusts Sections 74-86 (1959).” [Emphasis added throughout]
    http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2004final_rev.htm#TOC1_7

    As stated in the affidavit of______, the purported trustee was not entrusted with the homeowner promissory notes by the purported settlor-“depositor” pursuant to the Indenture and Pooling and Servicing Agreement. There was no appointment of power over specified assets nor transfer of those assets. There was no appointment by a filing of a loan schedule with SEC as represented in the SEC filing. There was a mere blank page where the list was to have been appended. There was no transfer of intangible property by way of a specifically described detailed listing of loans, with the Delaware Secretary of State –UCC division. There was again a mere blank page. The assets were not even described in the most general sense. These blank filings were represented by the SEC filer, bankrupt American Home Mortgage, as the triggering events for the establishment of the trust. Hence no trust was actually created.

    Thus the role of the purported trustee must be re-construed in terms consistent with the actual facts. The failed trust defaults to existence as a mere joint venture. The purported trustee is in fact the Operator of the joint venture at best. A mere operator of a failed or defunct estate of assets, however accumulated, is not entitled to the privilege of immunity granted a true trustee properly appointed.

  9. fyi—my psa had no loan schedule and no loan purchase agreement in it—the courts don’t give a damn about any of it—they are foreclosing and stealing no matter WHAT laws are being broken…

  10. This section is based on Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 10 (Tentative Draft No. 1, approved 1996), and Restatement (Second) of Trusts Section 17 (1959). Under the methods specified for creating a trust in this section, a trust is not created until it receives property.
    http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2004final_rev.htm#TOC1_7

    Thus if no loan schedule was filed as represented with either SEC or SEC state per UCC, then no proof of trust–no REMIC–no standing of trustee under basic trust law–and we must try to reconstrue the securitization.

    What is the trustee? OPERATOR of a joint venture—this has significance in respect of trustee lability. Under model acts and commmon law a trustee properly appointed is not liable for negligence–but an operator of a JV is.

    Think about this carefully—the servicer ACTS like the operator often enough—-but can a party that is merely enforcing collection rights on his own behalf-truly be an OPERATOR much less a trustee–even if the PSA appoints a servicer with rights and duties —the purported trustee must have some role–and liability because it was compensated to do something–ergo it must be a jv operator w/o liability shield for wrongdoing

  11. @ carie

    ’cause if there lips are moving, they are lying!

  12. @ANONYMOUS

    How is it that the servicers are STILL getting away with saying things like “the investor/owner of your loan…”

  13. @ANONYMOUS

    Yup…”You owe the money…” That seems to be the mantra…
    Doesn’t matter if the entity demanding the alleged “debt” has produced fabricated, fraudulent, and forged documents that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any “lender/funder” of any “loan”…in order to steal/repossess your home…

  14. @Chris,

    “Hey, we reelected a Mayor in providence that was a convicted Felon”. Yep. And Alaska reelected Stevens, also a felon.

    Only in America. Remind me again, how much different are we really from Congo, Zimbabwe and Uganda?

  15. @ Enraged

    Hey, we reelected a Mayor in providence that was a convicted Felon…does that say anything about the state? My family still lives there. I love the beaches, food and miss my friends, but the weather, cost of living and beaches here are better, plus more accessible.

  16. The “investors” spoken of here were “collection rights” “investors”, which is why the securitization, at least as to MBS, was fraudulent. The “refinances” were never valid “mortgage” refinances because the prior “loan” was never paid off.

    Once in actual default, the courts do not care about the “past.” YOU OWE THE MONEY. That is all they care about. And, as a result, nothing gets beyond — you owe the money. Most important, is fraud in the subprime refinance origination.

    Look, feel bad for the duped security investors, they actually thought they were purchasing cash flow pass-through to valid MBS. I sympathize with their outrage when they found out — not valid MBS. But, these security investors have been compensated, for the large part, and their only concern now is how to find an alternative security “Pass-through” investment that will pay the same interest rate that they were promised on the false MBS investment. Feel bad. Municipalities and pension funds struggling to find that alternative rate. But, I do not feel bad enough. Because the real victims, the homeowners, subject of the fraud, still suffer. And, AGs want them to continue to suffer with a settlement that does not address the fraud to homeowners.

    Security Investors? Live with it. Federal Reserve says low interest rates are here for a long time. There are no “alternatives.” Why? Because government decided “covering” for the banks’ fraud was the best way to address the fraud. They made their choice, in 2008, and now have to live by it. No going back, when, in effect, this is exactly what must be done. .

  17. Opinion,
    Every state constitution should have a provision that protects the people in their person and their property from UNLAWFUL search and SEIZURE!

    As soon as you know there is fraud and this UNLAWFUL act occurred in your STATE and if it’s a FEDERAL (N.A.) BANK, it’s a gross trespass into the rights, sovereignty, immunity, and privileges within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. The state and federal governments share the same territorial boundaries but the state still has the rights, reserved.

    There isn’t a law passed by Congress that can give rights or power to any Bank, that was not released to the bank by the states.

    I have yet to see any agreement where the banks can destroy a state’s registry of titles, make the sovereign people of the state, homeless, and through fraud, seize property and not have an identity.

    What AG has missed the basics of their own state constitution and the powers reserved by the state; regardless of how many laws are on their legislative books?

    It is treasonous for the state to not protect it’s people and not protect the property within it’s territorial boundaries outside the jurisdiction of the Federal and the businesses therein.
    ———————————–
    Misprision – A word used to describe an offense which does not possess a specific name. United States v. Perlstein, C.C.A.N.J., 126 F.2d 789, 798. But more particularly and properly the term denotes either (1) contempt against the sovereign, the government, or the courts of justice, including not only contemp of court, properly so called, but also all forms of seditious, or disloyal conduct, and leze-majesty; (2) maladministration of public office; neglect or improper performance of official duty; including speculation of public funds; (3) neglect of light account made of a crime , that is failure in duty of a citizen to endeavor to prevent the commission of a crime, or having knowledge of it’s commission, to fail to reveal it to the proper authorities.
    ———————————–
    Double Standard – Set of principles which permit greater opportunity for one class of people than another and commonly based on differences such as sex, race or color and hence invidious standards which may offend equal protection of law to the discriminated minority.
    ———————————–
    Trespass – An unlawful interference with one’s person, property, or rights. At common law, trespass was a form of action brought to recover damages for any injury to one’s person or property or relationship with another.

    ———————– Court Cites ——–
    The reservation to the states respectively only means the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and which they had not parted from by that instrument; any legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power delegated would be trespassing upon the rights of the states or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void. Gordin v. U.S., 1864, 117 U.S. 697, 76 L. Ed. 1347. See, also, Hockett v. State Liquor Licensing Board, 1915, 110 N.E. 485, 91 Ohio St. 176, L.R.A.1917B, 7.
    ——————————————
    Federal Union has only the powers expressly conferred on it and those reasonably implied from powers granted, while each state has all governmental powers except such as the people, by Constitution, have conferred on United States, denied to the state, or reserved to themselves. U.S. V. Butler, U.S.Mass.1936, 56 S.Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L.Ed. 47,4 O.O. 401.
    ————————————-
    In absence of their consent, states are immune from suits against them by their own citizens or by federal corporations, although such suits are not within explicit prohibition of this amendment, notwithstanding suits arise under Constitution and laws of the United States. Starr v. Schram, C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1944, 143 F2d 561.
    ———————————–

    It’s time they are called to the carpet for the people, as all these recent rulings are dealing with ‘person’, and it’s obvious this land holds both and the People who were here first and never left – have rights, protections, immunities, and sovereignty.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent People, a state (also, a state of Conscience, a state of mind, a state of life), jure divino, in jure proprio

  18. @chris,

    I love Newport! I was in Mass for many, many years and going to the mansions was one of the highlights of the summers. That and Plymouth plantation. Never much cared for Providence, though…

    I don’t know if RI is the most corrupt state but I do seem to remember that the Italian mafia was very much prominent there for a long time… So, you may have a point.

  19. Are the people in any state that signs on to this ” travesty in the making” going to re-elect their current Attorney General??!!!

  20. @ Enraged

    Yes, you are right.

    Me, I’ll take quality over quantity and fast all day. Coming from Newport, RI, I definitely get it. Probably the most corrupt state in the U.S.too.

  21. CONNECTICUT

    Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said in an e- mailed statement yesterday that he would also sign on to the agreement. The deal “would impose tough new servicing standards on banks and hold them accountable for what have become familiar abuses,” he said. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-01/bank-foreclosure-accord-backed-by-oregon-attorney-general.html
    Connecticut seems to be fairly quiet—but to acknowledge losses by its citizens.
    “Beyond the economic hardships laid upon homeowners suffering from years’ of ever more aggressive predatory lending and loan-broker induced excessive home prices—investor public and private pension funds, and insurance investment accounts also suffer. Predatory collection involves both over-collection and under-remittance. These are so well-established facts commonly noted in public press as to warrant general Judicial Notice and/or Legislative Notice. Claimants’ demands cannot be taken at face value. Oppression in the judicial system of unknowing investors and overwhelmed homeowners by unethical attorneys acting for the exclusive benefit of purported loan servicers/ collection agencies cannot be condoned. The failure to confront this problem today will haunt the future careers of all public officials. They will be tested and re-tested on the actions that they took or failed to take. “
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/05/19/statement-by-ct-attorney-general-george-jepsen-concerning-mortgage-foreclosure-investigation/
    AG Jepson seems to be anxious to get on board—he apparently would have signed in May –not later than November 2011.
    http://articles.courant.com/2011-11-30/news/hc-green-mortgage-mess-1201-20111130_1_mortgage-delinquency-rates-thousands-of-foreclosure-related-documents-loans

  22. The Oregon AG Kroger expressed his opinion that it would be better to take his cut and run than litigate for years. I went through years of announced investigations–any noise out of these guys and came up largely empty. In his case–which is NO CASE—one has to agree with him.
    see for yourself below:
    OREGON

    “Feb. 1, 2012 (Bloomberg) — Oregon’s attorney general agreed to join a proposed multistate settlement over foreclosure and mortgage-servicing, saying it penalizes banks and offers relief to homeowners.

    The settlement will provide $30 million to the state and as much as $200 million in relief to Oregon homeowners, including those facing foreclosure, Attorney General John Kroger said today in a statement.

    “This agreement penalizes banks that engaged in wrongful foreclosure practices and brings badly needed relief for distressed homeowners,” he said. “I am not confident we could get a better agreement on this limited set of issues if we litigated for several more years.” http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2012/rel020112.shtml http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-01/bank-foreclosure-accord-backed-by-oregon-attorney-general.html
    See for complaint form: http://www.doj.state.or.us/homeowners/
    If you are a homeowner facing foreclosure you may be entitled to additional assistance. To receive updates as more information becomes available please sign up at http://www.oregonattorneygeneral.gov/homeowners
    Frequently Asked Questions can be found at http://www.oregonattorneygeneral.gov/homeowners/faqs.shtml
    Contact:
    Tony Green, (503) 378-6002 tony.green@doj.state.or.us

    A previous formal announcement of investigation involved a mod firm that couldn’t get mods approved—but did not refund front-end payments.
    OREGON SUES CALIFORNIA LOAN MODIFICATION COMPANY
    “October 7, 2011
    Lawsuit accuses NOD Consultants, LLC, and principals Nicolas R. Godbout and Grant A. Gerhart, of misleading Oregon homeowners

    Attorney General John Kroger today announced a lawsuit accusing California-based loan modification company NOD Consultants, LLC of illegally collecting about $90,000 in fees from nearly three dozen Oregon homeowners and then refusing to provide refunds after the company failed to obtain promised loan modifications.

    “We’re going to do everything we can to prevent distressed homeowners from being taken advantage of ,” said Keith Dubanevich, Chief of Staff and Special Counsel to Attorney General Kroger. “We would like to thank Rep. Dennis Richardson for his help in bringing this company to the attention of the Oregon Department of Justice.” http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2011/rel100711a.shtml

    In an earlier “ride on coattails” settlement Oregon received money from JP Morgan-Chase for anti-competitive practices. http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2011/rel070711.shtml

    Oregon also sued Countrywide for defrauding the state investment funds by false and misleading statements. http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2011/rel012611.shtml

    October 5, 2010
    Pablito Diaz Quinon pleaded guilty to aggravated theft and forgery

    Attorney General John Kroger today announced a guilty plea in a case prosecuted by the Department of Justice’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force.

    “The Mortgage Fraud Task Force plays a critical role in combating mortgage fraud committed against homeowners and financial institutions as well,” said Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams.

    Pablito Diaz Quinon (DOB: 11-18-68) pleaded guilty in Tillamook County Circuit Court on Monday afternoon to one count of Aggravated Theft in the First Degree and one count of Forgery in the First Degree.

    Quinon took possession of a residence at 2302 9th St., Tillamook, by mortgage fraud. Quinon also used someone else’s Social Security number to file his tax returns.

    Quinon has been in jail since July 13. He was sentenced to probation and will be turned over to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    This case was investigated and prosecuted by the Oregon Department of Justice Mortgage Fraud Task Force. The U.S. Department Housing and Urban and Development Office of Inspector General, Social Security Administration, ICE, Tillamook Police Department, Tillamook County Sheriff’s Office and Tillamook County District Attorney’s Office assisted with the case.

    Senior Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Groux of the Mortgage Fraud Task Force prosecuted the case for the Oregon Department of Justice. http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2010/rel100510.shtml

  23. @chris,

    Thinking long-term is not an American institution. Look at what happened after the 1972 oil crisis: Europe invested millions into alternative/renewable energy. European countries spent millions developping solar, thermal and wind energy infrastructures (and yes, unfortunately, billions in nuclear…). America never did. In fact, when I was living in southern California in the early 80s, it is unbelievable how many small solar-energy companies went belly up.

    Look at the roadways on the East Coast: they get repaired every years because of snow plows. Why? Cheaper on the instant than investing into roadways like those in the Sierra Nevada that last 10, 15 years but do require a considerable upfront investment.

    It’s the American way. Everything, right away. My husband in his shop has a sign: “I can do it fast, I can do it well and I can do it cheap. Pick two.”

  24. So, I guess if I commit Felonies (plural) I can negotiate a settlement with the AG to mitigate my sentence with enough money.

    I see no mention of “authority” of servicers to foreclose, either. I guess that is of no importance in the agreements?

    And what are they going to do about the free-fall of home prices? Down the road more short-sales, coupled with 10 million foreclosures.
    Hey guys, keep up the good work, idiots!

    Has anyone of them thought long-term?

  25. anyone ever hear of creditor FHLMC LBAC133

  26. @Java

    I am deeply concerned about those words used together because that is the LIE the pretenders use to get away with stealing homes in foreclosures. This is a VERY BAD use of the words…and dangerous to use together.

  27. i think some of you are way too hard on Neil……i for one have learned more than i could ever imagined in the past year just from reading his blog and i am not going to concern myself over a few words/titles

  28. You are correct Carie..investor and lender are 2 entirely different entities.

    They also keep confusing originators and bankers. people keep thinking if banks have buildings, they must be lending the money. No, No, No, not anymore and many of them bought bad investments with no authority to own or rights to anything.

    How hard is this?

  29. THERE YOU GO AGAIN, NEIL—“INVESTOR/LENDER”????
    INVESTORS ARE NEVER A LENDER. WHO THE HECK ARE YOU WORKING FOR???
    He’s getting worse, people…now he’s saying “investor lender” as if it’s one word…hmm…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: