State of Foreclosure as a Tool for Frauds on Investors:


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

SERVICE 520-405-1688

State of Foreclosure as a Tool for Frauds on Investors:submitted by DCB
The Federal Reserve Board, and the Treasury Department’s FDIC and OCC divisions have in the aggregate made a factual and legal determination statutes and rules under those agencies’ jurisdiction have been violated by fourteen (14) regulated banks. As a result of these agencies’ investigations and findings they have collectively imposed a civil order of sanctions upon the 14 banks. Implementation of the sanctions order has been assigned in a rule-making action to a 1st tier of OCC-supervised group of independent contractors—including major accounting firms. The most basic jurisdictional reason the sanctions could be imposed was the abuse of federal judicial and administrative machinery to seize or attempt to seize borrowers’ homes. The sanction was imposed through “alternative dispute resolution” process of review of a wide-swath of borrower grievances The core conduct penalized was misuse of defective documentation to motivate court actions.
Additionally, there are five (5) of these institutions that have implicitly made an admission of the abusive practices in state courts. The federal sanction against 14 signed servicer-collectors is now reinforced by an offer of $25 billion by 5 of the largest of these institutions to 40-50 states in exchange for releases of state civil liability for abuses of the processes of the state courts, and County Clerks of Court, and county records keepers generally. These filings constituted an industry practice that presumptively injured the home-owners, and abused state court processes generally. The remaining issues to be decided by the OCC though its contractors and the several states which agree involve the orderly distribution of proceeds to victims proportional to injury suffered. It is now a matter of legislative and judicial notice that misconduct and unethical conduct occurred as an industry practice.
The sanctions and settlements in lieu of civil action with states’ Attorneys General of relate exclusively to federally-regulated bank-affiliated collection agencies. There will be individual borrowers who suffered equal or greater harm from the same types of misconduct for whom no relief is granted by either the federal sanction or the planned state settlements:
1) those who were involved with the named bank-collectors but which did not elect to submit requests for review Independent collection agencies.
2) those who were not involved with the named bank-collectors—but with independent “non-bank” or private label collection agencies—these remain subject to FTC jurisdiction which has not been exercised.
3) Those who entered into SEALED or otherwise “Confidential” settlement agreements prior to the matters complained of becoming a matter of widespread public knowledge, susceptible of judicial notice. The publication of the front-page robo-signing expose by the New York Times in October 2010 is a rational cutoff date.
Private label loan origination is often associated with similar private-label debt collection. These often involve initial predatory lending and predatory collection—surpassing the misconduct found for 14 and admitted widely by 5—all banks. By implication the private labels’ securitization conduct, misrepresentations and omissions resulted in substantial investor losses. The comparative lack of regulatory oversight at all levels of these private label operations was also not disclosed to homeowners who entered into agreements with these “rogue” operations. There was a substantial undisclosed risk and future cost in dealing with these entities—fundamental to the transaction—but not disclosed to the borrower. Only now does the full cost become known to hapless homeowners.
By default, for these homeowners, David VS Goliath civil litigation is the only route allowed to preserve those citizens’ First Amendment Right to “Redress of Grievances” and Fourth Amendment Right to “Due Process of Law,” and under the Fourteenth amendment which imports those Rights into state law. The industry practice found and admitted by the regulated banks is left unbridled among the private label debt collectors. These rights have been impaired by the admitted practices and face further risk because of lack of equal application of justice among similarly situated citizens—by reason of the lack of regulation of private label enterprises.
Under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, these Citizens must have a protected Rright to apply to, and state their case to: any legislative body, any judicial body and any division of the administrative branches. They would otherwise be disenfranchised from vitally protected Rights of great importance to public policy. Today these Rights are commonly impaired by secrecy imposed by these private label collectors in civil litigation. There are: Sealed and Confidential settlement talks and drafts, Sealed and Confidential enforced settlements, Sealed and Confidential Motions, Complaints, Answers and Counter-complaints. These secrets lay the foundation for demands for emergency and closed hearings, gag orders and other restraining orders and injunctions. If connected to actions taken by the unregulated collection agency, rather than simply the amount of settlement, then this course of action is taken by the collection agency is designed to prevent identification of patterns of misconduct. This cloak of secrecy substantially impedes civil and criminal, private and public, investigations—and may rise to Obstruction of Justice, commonly characterized after Nixon’s Watergate fiasco as a “cover-up”. These facts are described by the State of Arizona:
“BoA is Impeding Investigation Says Arizona Attorney General’s Office”…Jan. 26, 2012 (Bloomberg) — “Bank of America Corp. is impeding an investigation of its loan modification practices by negotiating settlements with borrowers who must agree to keep them secret and not criticize the bank in exchange for cash payments and loan relief, Arizona officials say… The borrower ‘will remove and delete any online statements regarding this dispute, including, without limitation, postings on Facebook, Twitter and similar websites,’ and not make any statements ‘that defame, disparage or in any way criticize’ the bank’s reputation, practices or conduct, according to documents filed in state court in Phoenix….” BUT, “…the…bank won’t enforce the non-disparagement provision if [the borrowers] talk to investigators, the bank’s lawyers have said in court filings.”

66 Responses

  1. @john

    i’ve got a 6 p.m. vet appointment. My lab ripped the dew claw half out chasing a rabbit in our yard last night. I tried to take care of it but my vet skills are comparable to my legal skills. I have been very down today after the comfirmation of what I knew was going to happen, but email me and I’ll catch up with you tomorrow.

  2. @katheryn – I’ll email you today.

  3. @jg

    Checked with the court this morning; all is well. When the court sets a hearing; notice is done electronically now and automatically goes out to all parties. I told the clerk my standing with the judge is already tainted in the fact that I am pro se and if I show up on the 22nd and waste the court’s time because I didn’t know to notice the other side; I might as well sign my own death notice right there. She, at least did find some humor in that!

  4. @JG

    Ohhh. I sent the attorney a copy of the motion with the COS that also went with my copy to the court for filing. I can’t file in person as I live 2 hours from the court. A week or so after I filed it, I received a notice from the clerk’s office telling me it had been scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 22 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom number “whatever”. It stated that Defendants objection must be filed on the court no later that 15 days prior to the hearing. I will call them later today. These are the silly kind of things that I just don’t know to even think about. You are more than welcome to read my motion, however, the only way I know how to do that is shoot it to you by email. I have not ever used scribe so I’m not sure if I can download it there and post here? Do you have access to PACER? If so, I can just give you the case number and you can read it there. Just let me know. Here is my email if you don’t want yours to be public:

  5. Katheryn – aren’t you supposed to set your own hearing? You call the clerk’s office, set it, notice it and so on. You put the hearing date and time and courtroom # on your motion and file a notice of hearing, also,
    I think. You might try discussing this with the clerk or the judge’s deputy. On the other hand, if it’s not broken……..
    I’m either confused or they are being nice to you -or- someone wants to see the motion before its set?
    I’d really like to see your mtn to compel. Can you send it or link somewhere?

  6. JG & DCB

    Here is what went down: BoA did not answer any of my Interrogatories or give me any of the documents I requested through Dis.

    Another one of the bank’s infamous AVP’s filled out and signed an attached “Certification/Verification” attesting that all answers to my Interrogs. were true and complete to the best of her knowledge.

    No. 1 – They didn’t answer anything.
    No. 2 – I put one Interrog. in my 25 that I requested a simple answer of “yes” or “no” and also a question that the answer is public knowledge. A test you might say, because I knew they would do exactly what they did and give me nothing. But once admitted, I would then have used it in my Admissions, a way of narrowing one less argument in court.
    This was not the only way in which the duped me. But I’ll leave that for another post.

    So I filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and also requested Sanctions

    I further made the accusation that Ms. whoever, AVP, had perjured herself with that certification because they gave me no answers and refused to answer my “test” yes or no question in addition showing they were clearly playing the avoidance game. It was more to show the court.

    There attack dog (oops.. attorney) emailed me that I had many false statements in my motion to compel and that I better withdraw the motion. I refused. So he then told me that BoA took the accusation of perjury very seriously and that I better withdraw the motion. I, once again, refused. I told him I already mailed it and couldn’t withdraw it now even if I wanted to…which I wouldn’t have anyway. So he then told me that his clients considered my accusation to be “public” defamation of Bank of America and they were discussing how they would proceed against me in regards to the defamation. I told him; tell your clients to “Bring it On”. I asked him how he could possibly, no matter how much they were paying him, represent these horrible people. He didn’t like that question much.

    I then a week later received a notice from the court that a hearing has been set for my motion.

    The next big blow-up issue was when I received a letter from him for a immediate “cease & desist” demand. It was an order but I won’t call it that because they took it upon themselves to try and stiffle my freedom of speech. This is another lengthy story so I’ll save it for another post. But suffice it to say that I did not take that letter lightly and came out “swinging”. I have sent packages with his letter and the documents supporting my statements to every media and agency I could think of. As far as I know, I am still living in the US and I have not been gaged by an order of the court so they can kiss my a$$. I also told the pit bull; what are they gonna get from me, my house. LOLOLOLOL They have gotten every other penny we had!@ Tell them they can’t get blood from a turnip. These are legal mafia criminals protected by our courts and government. This is so very wrong on so many levels that it truly does defy my reality. I give these details because you never know who else may be having the same kind of issues and they may get a spark of use from something I’ve shared!!!!

  7. @dcb – There was a case where a debtor whose bankster got relief from stay shortly thereafter filed an ap alleging the finding by the court of entitlement to relief was a result of fraud on the court. The debtor cited 7052 and 9024, (rules that provide for clarification and new action) think it was, for his action. The bankster promptly filed a motion for sanctions against the debtor for his cheek in filing suit, which was no more than a best defense is an offense strategy. So you could say that mtn for sanctions was akin to saying the AP was spurious. The bk got dismissed, so never got to see how it would have played out.

  8. @dcb – I presume the threat against Kathryn re: defamation does
    not involve prior confidentiality agreements. I can’t disagree that a spurious claim allegation wouldn’t feel like one for defamation, but surely the bars are not the same. This is in NO way meant to encourage K or ANYone, but in regard to saying something like MERS is a racket in a lawsuit, I would love to see any allegation this is a spurious claim played out for what would have to be considered for adjudication in a legitimate and level playing field.
    Sounds like you had a nasty ride.

  9. @ DCB

    Thanks. No worries!

  10. @KATE

    Be very careful how you use it—-WSJ etc can be used to recount govt releases etc—things not open to dispute–eg fed reserve charman said this—or matter of general knowledge–like the sky is often blue

    it has been used to support the fact that there was a great depression–but not sure if we are there where it comes to robosigning is generally known

  11. Id love to see your authority JG–I used to think that till i got sued—there are supposed spurious claims—and alleged abuses of prior agreements re confidentiality and nondisparagement that feel a whole lot like getting sued for defamation——-relief is for monetary damages and irreparable harm–ie injunction against speech

    you really cannot imagine how hard-ball it can get if they want to

  12. @DCB

    P.S. Thanks again for the ideas on the Judicial Notice. I did use one in my complaint about being a pro se! I will be preparing another to take with me on the hearing Feb. 22. I have refrained from filing complaints with the bar asso., because I have a list of officials and agencies I am keeping updated with my case. OCC did assign a case number, although they are about as good as nothing! I am just trying to get the word spread around as much as I can as one little peon of the many millions of us and that is a full-time job. That is the only reason I have not gone after the attorneys or brougt forth another action in State court. What are not more attorneys taking up cause with class action suits. Aslo, why not more RICO suits? Although some aspects of each of our personal cases may differ; wouldn’t many fit the legal perimeters of RICO suits?



    One consequence of that conversion is that the many secret deals set up in the past –subject to confidentiality and non-disparagement deals—can be opened by a CIMINAL INVESTIGATION SUBPOENA __BUT NOT BY A CIVIL SUBPOENA—–this is one huge and important matter to discovering potential purposeful misconduct

    also even if LPS is released of robo-signing actions—-it provided platforms that may have been used for other purposes including post-agreement—-actions—-then theymay still be on the hook–who knows yet?

    did LPS provide property management support services to its clients thu its platforms? what insurance evaluations that could be used for sieze and freeze decisions by the systems? what role does LPS play after the settlement that might harm homeowners?

  14. @John

    Thanks for the insight. This is my problem as a pro se; knowing what the particular motions are to be used with each issue. Once I am pointed in the right direction I can usually do OK from that point. I filed my objections based on scheduling issues as the lawyer did not give us a courtesy call in advance for my husband to schedule off from work. That he scheduled us on two different days and we live 104 miles away. That they have refused to answer any discovery I have requested including back to last year via my QWR (2) sent. This severly hampers my ability to answer any questions that will present to me. That they waited to schedule the depositions the two consecutive days prior to the scheduled hearing on my mnt to compel discovery. I also made it clear that I was not absolutely refusing to be deposed but not at this time. This is the short version as my mnt was 4 pages. There has to be a reason they were trying to depose us the two days before the hearing on my mnt to compel. I just find the time to coincidental to the hearing date. I do like your idea on the ex parte mnt. but see, that’s what I mean, I have heard the name “ex parte” but it would mean nothing to me unless I first researched it. What I mean is, I would not know in what context to use it. When I received the notice to depose, I had no idea how to object to it. When I did the research I came across cases where these objection to depos had been used. I didn’t run across an ex parte motion or I would have researched that also. It is all just such a tragedy that it comes to this. It shows how badly they do want the houses. We bent over backwards trying to work with them until they bled us dry and then stuck the knife in our backs. I am sad to feel that this country has become as corrupt as third world countries we have all watched from afar. So sad but we have to keep fighting loud and strong and can at least say we “tried”.
    I will be researching my idea of filing a FOIA for Fannie Mae today. Since they are “government” sponsored and have received tax money I don’t see why they would not be subject to the act? That will be today’s project. I know we all appreciate your sharing of ideas and the caring you show towards others on this site!

  15. @kathryn – on what did you base your obj to the depo? I’m not a lawyer, but you might file an emergency ex parte mtn and ask the judge to deny the depo as a sanction for discovery violations. He prob won’t grant it, depending on his bent. When judges won’t compel or otherwise follow the rules in rulings, it is really difficult.
    The other thing about failure of your opponent to answer discovery is how it might be used against them. When they don’t provide any, they are supposed to (key words here) have to stand on what is before the court and if it doesn’t support their claims, sj in your favor is in order.
    Sj , I believe , is an adjudication on the merits. They will try to get in stuff they refused to fork over in discovery and your objection to this should be well taken. Doesn’t mean it will be, in which case a mtn for recon may be in order (of the order allowing admittance of the material withheld in discovery – see mtn in limine?), and if that fails, an appeal is prob in order. This is part and parcel of how they get their way. Wear one down.
    Who wants to appeal or knows how to?
    I would only deal with the attorney OF RECORD.

  16. @KATE
    I have seen things which suggest they are pushing past the point of unethical conduct hard toward potential obstruction of justice

    I suggest you look carefully at some cases in your jusisdiction on both obstruction or related offenses–see if a private citizen has any right to enforce——and if indicated file complaints with bar and or govt charged with enforcement.

    If an individual is an active attorney she has sworn to uphold the law and that includes informing govt of illegal acts

    Thus there is an inherent conflict for an atty who observes illegal conduct on the part of another party vs confidentiality an nondisparagement—it is my surmise that we are going to see a landslide of suits to enforce secrecy—this is abhorrent –what is there that is secret

  17. @John

    It is very complicated and confusing especially for a pro se but in the last year they have had four different attorneys who have communicated with us. The attorney of record with the court is handling the adversary proceeding. Actually, I just got off the phone with him. He is not a happy camper right now. I filed an objection to their notice to depose us. They have stonewalled me on any discovery. He had the audacity to tell me it does not matter whether or not they answer my discovery and that I can’t use that as a reason to refuse to be deposed. He then got angry and told me I was wasting he and his clients’ time and money. I told him he and his clients’ have been wasting my life! I told him to read my objection a little more carefully; I was objecting to being deposed at this time. They have had months to depose us and I filed a motion to compel discovery which was set for hearing on the 22nd. Out of the clear blue sky they suddenly have the need to depose us on the 20th and 21st. Ain’t that a coinkydink? The other attorneys I have thwarted off with sending threatening communications back. In addition to these banksters being outright crooks, they also have no idea what is going on with their internal operations. All they know is they want your house and they are clueless as to how it is handled. Example: Is there one main person there who is aware that they have had four different attorneys threatening us? Most crooks have their operating procedures fine tuned. These idots couldn’t find there way out of a wet paper bag. These people are absolutely unconsionable. They honestly believe that they own the country and everyone in it and we better dummy up. Is all of this for real or have I somehow been tossed into the Twilight Zone?

  18. kathryn – what do you mean another attorney “started the f/c process”?
    Do you mean without stay relief? Doesnt’ matter if it were the man from uncle, can’t do that without stay relief once bk filed. I think you care because from my experience, they will try to proceed (later) on the act(s) started “out in left field”.

  19. @ John

    Thanks! Yes, I am the notetaking queen. We are deep in to the litigation process now. It is a war! That can’t foreclose because the Chap. 7 has remained open due to me filing an adversary complaint. They never tried to get a lift stay even though a different attorney started the foreclosure process in the midst of all this. The MO of these banksters is to make everything as confusing as possible so that they can pull the wool over your eyes. They are sneaky unethical devils! All we can do is to keep fighting. Thanks for all you do!

  20. @kathryn et al – I presume you take copious dated notes when talking with snakes. Do beware tho and use caution – just talking to snakes can find us bitten. It’s too bad he didn’t threaten you with criminal action (I think defamation is merely a tort (but not in a lawsuit).
    Now if he threatened you with criminal action, that would be another story. Wonder if those guys do when their buttons are pushed. I have seen it, actually, and that was without button-pushing.

    It’s illegal to threaten criminal action in the collection of a debt.

    If those guys get out of hand and are fishing, for instance, insist on written communications?

  21. Thanks John. Their lawyer left a message today for me to call him. He didn’t seem to understand my Objection to Defendants Notice to Depose Plaintiffs. Gee, I thought I made my objections pretty clear. I guess I don’t speak legalease very well. LOL

  22. @dcb – yes, MERS may have been the public record placeholder – not even sure for reasons I have already cited that’s even available to them. Had MERS crafted their dot appropriately, there would be no contest about that one, I think, but they DIDN’T. Unfortunately, for all American homeowners, that’s not what that whole gang has claimed MERS is as we all know.

  23. @kathyrn – no defamation available in / for law suits. Can say, as larry flynt did but not in lawsuit, that opponent had sex with mom in outhouse – not actionable. He got sued because he literally published. It’s an idle threat.

  24. @usedkarguy
    go back to my earlier posts–Blackrock manages the retirement plans for the federal judges and other federal employees (FBI etc.)

    I even provided the portal judges use to go see their retirement plans.

  25. @ usedkarguy

    Back when I filed my complaint, I served it on BM (Brian Moynihan) as they refused to tell me which of the pit bulls (oops, I mean attorneys) they wanted me to cause service on. I was Ignored so the court listed them as Defendant, pro se. A few days before the expiration of the time period to answer my complaint, I get a call from the “new” attorney of record. He was very nice, of course, because he needed an extension to answer the complaint which ended up a boiler plate of affirmative defenses of nothings as well as answers claiming to know nothing, have done nothing and that I am trying to step on their Federal and Constitutional Rights. That’s part of the problem – they always confuse what they are doing as what someone is doing to them. (I use the word “confuse” facetiously”. At that time, their pit bull (oops…you know, attorney) called me and tells me BoA doesn’t want to drag this on and had given him approval to offer us a settlement to end the litigation and give them our house. They would, and he offered this most seriously and with conviction that we should take it, $2,000 sign off on a release and go start over somewhere without all this stress. I basically told him to tell his clients to go take a long vacation in a place that is really really hot and where they would find lots of other vacationers just like them! The blackrock stuff is something that dcb asked me to look into and try to make a connection with this GoldenTree gang that I ran across in my research so that’s just something I’m digging around about on my own. GoldenTree is one of the companies that is buying homes in bulk at very cheap prices. The “Costco” concept for those on the “in” to buy up the inventory at low ball prices, rent them out, therefore, taking the depreciation so they have a nice tax shelter, until the market picks up and they again sell them at a profit. Not a bad little deal especially when they are buying homes that have been fraudclosed on and snatched from people. the GSM’s offer their former insider gang buddies “blue light specials” on homes that have been obtained through fraudclosures. That is what I have been also trying to research although it is really not very pertinent to my own case personally; it is more that all of this right down to each detail was an “insider” job. The “gag” threat was to keep me from trying to find out answers that pertain to my case specifically. Also, they threatened me with going after me for causing them to be “publically” defamed in my Motion to Compel and told me before I filed the motion that I better think twice and withdraw it. I refused to withdraw my motion so I have now been waiting for the defamation lawsuit to hit my mailbox any day now. Just another day in paradise! I am also making each threat they make to me very public with regards to sending the information to government agencies and my State AG. I guess you could call me ” a one woman train wreck”. I’ll take some damage in all of this, just hopefully there will be left some pieces in tact. That, though, will be up to the judge. I just can’t sit and do nothing when our homes, our basic rights and our livelyhood is being snatched right out from under us. If we sit idly by and let this happen, we have no right to complain later when we are then living under complete elite ruler dictatorship. I’m sure people don’t want to see their children live in that kind of a world. We each must do our part, no matter how minor to wake up the masses. Think about Rosa Parks, and her one minor action of refusing to give up her seat. The ripple impact of her courage made an overall impact. We must all ban together no matter your race, religon, age, partner preference, or anything else, as we will all be one under an elitest dictatorship. Now is the time to put away any personal prejudices and group together as the 99%. I am down from my soapbox now and will try to control myself for the rest of the day 🙂 I am not proofing either so sorry in advance for any mistakes.

  26. @JG re
    “MERS is alleged agent or nominee or whatever, just pick a noun, and then it allegedly authorizes the guys who allegedly granted that noun to it the right to act in its name”

    The commonly used term in statutory or technical legal drafting is “placeholder”—legislative staff will recognize that usage

  27. DCB – hope more people here contribute to your effort.

    The other day, joann said:

    (“The trustee will not be in possession of or be assignee of record of any underlying assets for a Mortgage Security.”) Obviously can’t make assignments to itself or any other.
    **Question also arises how can they make a POA to a servicer who then makes assignments back to them? It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.**

    That is exactly how MERS and its pals, all the banksters, operate with each other, only they feign initial agency instead of poa. MERS is alleged agent or nominee or whatever, just pick a noun, and then it allegedly authorizes the guys who allegedly granted that noun to it the right to act in its name in regard to the matter authorized to MERS. And why this illegitimate dynamic is ignored by and large by the legal community is beyond me. Not only is it illegitimate, it is the definition of a racket.

  28. I can use agency government releases announcements orders or judicial pleadings and cases on industry practices described from wsj, , bloomberg, NYT and AP–with , —this can be supplemented with govt records-documents which are accessible to the public w/o charge–or the actual certified copy of same records not online—decisions are determinative–the rest is subject to rebuttal.

  29. Okay, Katheryn. I called BlackRock and I got a guy to tell me my loan is not part of the pools. Now he won’t answer his phone. Found the CDS’s in Maiden Lane 1. What does BlackRock have to hide? They ARE the 3rd party debt collector at this point.

    and I, too,think about how much money they would have to throw at me to shut up and go away. I don’t think I could anymore. Too many people getting stomped. Too much anger. If they gag you, and you spill the beans, you’re done. I’ve never been able to keep my mouth shut. Why would I start now? Especially not to save the rotten s.o.b.’s who did this. Can’t stop now, the battle is too big. Too valuable. Not to me, but to others. And like David said, what about satisfaction of any future claims? Title issues? they can’t fix this mess.

  30. Well, now that thee game is over, I can get back to work!

  31. dcb

    I’m still looking at the BlackRock Inc and Pacific Investment possible connection with the GoldenTree fellows. I pass along anything I find tomorrow. And yes, there is more about industry standards. I also still need to try and connect the premeditated fraud (my word) dots. Tomorrow is another day, now I will go watch the idiot tube to vegetate for a little while so I don’t have BoA nightmares!

  32. @JG
    Heres how I set it up for E.R. 21
    In the Matter of AURORA BANK FSB, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Before The OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION, Wilmington, Delaware, OTS Docket No. 06069, Order No.: NE-11-16 Effective Date: April 13, 2011: “CONSENT ORDER”
    “The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), as part of an interagency horizontal review of major residential mortgage servicers, has conducted an examination of the residential real estate mortgage foreclosure processes of Aurora Bank FSB, Wilmington, Delaware (Association). The OTS has identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices in the Association’s residential mortgage servicing and in the Association’s initiation and handling of foreclosure…”

  33. dcb

    there are, I believe 9 OCC consent orders out there. one specifically for BoA that I also used as an Exhibit to my complaint. Again, I am the Plaintiff and the Twombley case really hammered home the need to have a very solid prima facia complaint so I did my best, ad nauseam, to meet that legal standard so they couldn’t win on their 1st request for dismissal. Again, I knew/know very very little about law and legal proceedings prior to this fun and time consumming adventure. I am just so angry for myself and for everyone in this country getting shafted, that I refuse to be taken out quietly. How treated me and how much they have been willing to spend on four law firms to defend and foreclose just made me all the more determined. I’ll be working on my newest letter tomorrow once I redigest the information. I will pass along anything I find out.

  34. @KATE
    This is how i cited it and briefly described the relevant material to industry practice -thanks to you anfd JG–any more?

    Docket Nos. 11-051-B-SC-1, 11-051-B-SC-2 FDIC-11-194b OTS No. 11-040 FHFA No. EAP-11-01:
    “…The Agencies have identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, compliance, legal and reputational risks to MERSCORP and MERS, and to the participating Members. Members are institutions that use MERSCORP’s and MERS’ services and have agreed to abide by MERSCORP’s Rules…”

  35. @ KATE THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE LINK–is that what you are poring thru—–are there any key passages to cite re industry practices?–or at least widespread practices?

  36. @JG

    Thats exactly stuff im looking for a govt record -document that is easily accessed -only ithe Judicial notice rules are so tricky that the source MUST be a govt database–so i took the info from the scrib site and found the actual govt host site–which is what i have to cite
    to meet E.R. 21

    Do you have more of this good stuff?

  37. @dcb – here is a link to Aurora’s Consent Order which might be helpful. And how about MERS Consent Order? There are more out there.

  38. @JG

    just spent whole day setting up the template for people to discuss with their lawyers and ran down all the WSJ artcles in the last year or so————any ones that i missed people please advise

    this same process should occur for at least NYT–washington post for a shot at natl judicial notice—NYT is not necessarily well-read in say indiana–but indianoplois star i think is? and then miami herald–any other in california –im not sure

    follow the yellow brck road people get a decision based on “industry practice”

    please any articles anywhere that state it is industry practice to be sloppy and negligent or worse-please post these—

  39. @dcb – your idea to amass articles for judicial notice might be a good one. I think we should amass those articles. They may have value and your idea and offer of a template is great if only people will see that you get the articles. You may find you have to get the articles yourself…. If that turns out to be the case, I hope you will. Chalk it up to more contribution, if you will? If anyone will find articles, where would you like them linked or sent to you?
    But I was not pontificatiing, even if I were on a rant. The MERS’ dot in addition to being non-sensical and legally skewed in its recitations is an unconscionable agreement and those may be avoided and that’s the argument. This of course is a “rather large” matter and would be best pursued and argued in a court by someone who is capable of supporting and articulating the argument. I can begin the argument, but it needs help from really good minds. The borrower thought he was giving MERS, M E R S, a business with employees and corporate structure and diligence etc. certain rights (subject to the “by law or custom” caveat recited in the dot which itself warrants much more scrutiny than it has ever gotten) He wasn’t. If those rights were given to anyone at all as a matter of fact, the borrower was induced to give them to the equivalent of the boogie man. The language was willfully
    deceptive and that deceptive language and its consequence made the deed of trust an unconscionable agreement. The borrower was induced to sign an agreement he most assuredly would not have had he known the truth. I can’t yet formulate all this takes, but the bottom line is the intent of the agreement was not at all what it was made to appear because MERS is a shell entity and would never
    itself exercise the (alleged) rights recited. Normally, an entity or a person may delegate by poa or agency its rights to act to others (bearing in mind that delegation which involves interests in real property is subject to statute and Notice). What MERS knew and the lender knew but the borrower did not is that another party without exception would foreclose in MERS’ name and that by the very nature of the MERS business model, that party could do so with no right whatsover because the MERS system does not include accuracy, accountability, diligence or any type of safeguard whatsoever. This is tantamount in fact to giving that right to the boogie man. No one would do this. MERS would not even know of these acts taken in its name and it certainly didn’t do anything nor could it to assure the legitimacy of, the factual basis for, the act taken in its name.
    The intent was to make the borrower believe in the legitimacy on all counts of the rights allegedly accorded “MERS”, which turns out to be a shell entity in the first place, when in fact, nothing existed in its operation (because it is only a database) at all to preclude a party who should not from foreclosing or alleging a right in our homes and this was known to THEM, just not to the borrower. MERS plan was someone else would do an act. Because of what MERS isn’t corporately, business-wise, etc., that act could be done (and horrifyingly was) with no basis in fact or law.
    This is in fact unconscionable and therefore voidable if not void.
    If anyone knows who is a candidate to pursue this, I hope you’ll let me know. I think I’ve got this right and if I do, it’s a pretty big deal when a collateral instrument is void or voidable and millions of them are out there (which is why the matter should be in the hands of those with the pedigree to take it on).

  40. please people gather up newspaper articles in your towns and cities that state “its industry practice to file defective foreclosure docs”

    they can be reprints of bloomberg or reuters etc——

    please stop pontificating and build a list for people to use to defend themselves–the mere filing of the newspaper article and demand for the chain of custody and note boils it all down to a workable stack–and then appeal denials–this is shooting fish in a barrel–but please stay focused–work the internet please

  41. P.S. @ DCB

    Rumor has it that they (officials) are even in on the child porn stuff. Just another way to earn more bucks. It doesn’t get any worse or more evil than that. Those that take part in the hurting and defiling of innocent children deserve no mercy. These people are devoid of a soul. They feel nothing except the pleasure gained for each and every evil dollar made. The devil has claimed too many in this world I’m afraid. Even for those not religeous in nature; they have to admit something is so terribly wrong with our society today. Sorry, this time I am finished ranting for the day!

  42. @DCB

    I just told Chris I was done ranting; but you are correct and I am afraid this will only end with much bloodshed as the only solution to making real changes. The mafia still exists, though maybe not quite as strong. This is a global size mafia; how do ordinary citizens stand a chance?

  43. Over my long and trying life I have seen countless frauds of all sorts–as an adjunct to investigative agency –more more more—–there is a pervasive and growing atmospehere of fraud —-nobody really cares as long as its not involving drugs or terrorists, porn guys and hackers that steal music—–the cost of these has been to give up on all other fronts–sooooo its really becoming intolerable –white collar crime rampant

    the ags are half corrupt at least and may be a big reason for the general breakdown –one good child porn bust or a drug bust is worth 100 white collar crimes which no longer make front page—-as long as the MF GLOBAL thief Jon Corzine is walking free and butying French castles on the Riviera–you know that there is no real law applied
    you cant sue the ags–immunity–see the cases where the soldiers turned automatic weapons on unnarmed students at Kent State U in 1970———better not cite that or todays cops will start thinking about how much fun it would be to mow down the OWS

  44. people might start simply using the judicial notice of faulty industry practices rather than exclusively slogging in the ditches—then request what you want—a note and chain of tile—id add a chai of custody–seems like many notes were basically stolen from bk—w/o release–nor proof of claim—they might be able to show indoresements but not chain of custody

  45. Can anybody point to a couple current WSJ articles that describe this same sort of stuff re “industry practices” being B…S…. or something wrongful and injurious–i need to introduce with a request to take judicial notice that its widespread knowledge that the industry practice was faulty—give me cites and ill give you all a proforma of the request–ie please help–must be a natl newspaper of general delivery–to reach all corners of us —and be credible–not USA today

  46. @ Trespass Unwanted

    You have it right, many do not. The AG works for the state and is supposed to represent the people, not what HE/SHE thinks is acceptable. All attorneys, which the AG’s are, are never supposed to conceal crimes (Felonies), enable them or participate in illegal behavior, it is a violation of their oath and punishable.

    Having said that, I think the AG settlement(s) are a crime against our citizens. Only my opinion, but AG’s should be held accountable for the crimes the banks have committed and the settlements they, themselves have forced upon citizens, who do not want them and are mere pennies on the dollar of the value of their losses.

    Let’s start filing civil suits the against the state and AG’s office. Thoughts?

  47. Attorney Stopa provided another example of indefensible. The bankster (as in Jeff’s the other day) changed strategy, and by what, a motion? denied and will get away, from what I gathered, with the denial of the existence of an assignment that would mess up the new strategy.
    There can be no doubt NO one would have signed that dot if they had understood the truth (which was known to the lender at the time) – if they weren’t defrauded.

  48. I’m with you, trespass unwanted. It is so disheartening. Really. It’s hard enough to drag one’s tail out of bed every day in this oppressive climate. It’s just hell when our state’s chief prosecutors are either, well, ignorant or whimpy or both. Are we to believe what has been alleged is really all they see?
    All these Ag’s, including NY’s, fall short of calling a spade a spade.
    “They did this, they did that, yada yada.” None has alleged the real trip: MERS is a shell entity whose main accomplishment was providing cover for interstate commerce of the racketeering-type which set an entire planet on its butt, head over heels. (Congratulations on your legacy, you expletives of a sailor-type.Really – what a legacy. Aren’t you marvelous?)
    Even the NY Ag said things like the assignments were “often” bull or the such and such was “often” bull. **&^*^! Many expletives. “Often” implies some could have been legitimate. Where was it, because I forget, where MERS was granted the authority by its alleged principals to execute assignments of deeds of trust that it could turn around and give them that authority back carte blance? Even if it were granted such authority, which this SHELL entity was not, just as there is no real authority to foreclose, MERS knew from day ONE that “MERS” would never, ever execute an assignment or foreclose and that its members would under is cover, or hell, really just anyone with a pulse if you think about it, as long as that 20.00 fee was paid to become a MERS “OFFICER” (YAHOO!) 20.00 was all it took for that 10.00 an hour new-hire to execute an assignment of interest in OUR HOMES, our most prized possessions, or to steal a home and the AMERICAN DREAM with it. Many good men and women have fought and died for that dream. I don’t care if someone got 10 liar loans, that does not
    legitimize this racket or make it any less vile.
    I said this the other day, but I think it bears repeating: I think it is in fact criminal having the borrower sign a dot which purports to give another the right to do something (foreclose) which would mean that in so giving his autograph, he would find his rights and property indefensible. I don’t think that’s speculative, and if I last long enough, I’m going to prove it. What does it do for anyone to conjur up the image of some 18 year old sitting somewhere executing an instrument about one’s home? I am not trying to fuel the fire necessarily, but I can’t get that image out of my head. I really can’t. They just don’t make pills for this.
    We read comments from people like Carie who know damn well their homes are being stolen and there doesn’t seem to be anything to do about it = indefensible. Her situation is a prime example of how we were induced to sign a document under false pretenses that would assure this happening.
    Anyway, trespass unwanted and anyone else as angry, I sure hope we can think of something to do about it. Apparently we’re it, so God help us. Guess I needed to rant so thanks, trespass, for opening the door. Well, maybe the NY guy is reeling them in and then is going to sock it to them. If anyone wants to jump on board and help me support my allegation that signing that doc which said “MERS” could foreclose was fraud, feel free.

  49. Matt Weidner posted this as one of the exhibits included in Nevada’s lawsuit against LPS. As I said, there actually is a very well thought out
    method to this madness.

    The dumb schlemiel who signed “Linda Green” had actually signed a contract about which name he was to sign, how, when and where.

    Only in America…

  50. Petition and assemblyMain articles: Right to petition in the United States and Freedom of assembly
    The right to petition was an echo of the English Bill of Rights 1689 which, following the Seven Bishops case, stated it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

    The right to petition the government extends to petitions of all three branches of government: the Congress, the executive and the judiciary.[91] According to the Supreme Court, “redress of grievances” is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain.[92] ….
    The right of assembly was originally distinguished from the right to petition. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court held that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States.”[93] Justice Waite’s opinion for the Court carefully distinguished the right to peaceably assemble as a secondary right, while the right to petition was labeled to be a primary right. Later cases, however, paid less attention to these distinctions.[citation needed]

  51. An attorney general is supposed to manage the affairs of their state such that no fraud or criminality is allowed to occur against the people.
    The People are the State, and the AG works for the People not the perpetrator. To settle for less than what will make the People whole again, should be a violation of the fudiciary duty of the AG in his/her role as a protector and enforcer of the laws of the State and it’s Constitution, and Business, Contract, andTrust Law against all that can do business within it’s territorial boundary.

    If it’s a Federal business or entity that damaged the state and it’s People by exercising a power it did not have, or trespassing into the jurisdiction of the state and doing acts against the sovereign people; the owners of these businesses should be personally liable or their companies should not be able to benefit from any bonus or profit from theft of another’s property.

    All ill gotten gains would need to be relinquished, not a subset. If someone robbed a financial entity of $1 million bucks, and spent some if it. They’d have to return all that the had left, and all profits they received from what was spent, and still be on the hook for what was not returned.

    I expect no different from this settlement.

    Tally up the value of all unlawfully seized property, court costs, county record fees, sheriff’s expenses, and multiply that by 3 for compensatory damages, and that’s the lowest you’d go for settlement.

    It’s not hard for them to carry trillions on their books as wealth when it doesn’t belong to them.

    It’s not their home. It’s not their property. They didn’t build it. They didn’t loan money for materials for it. They didn’t provide upkeep of it, they did nothing but pay a bunch of people to RICO us out of them.

    Any AG that settles in a RICO and lets the extortionist go free and pay less than he benefited from it, should be guilty of treason against their state Constitution, and then Treason against the United States Constitution for supporting the violation of an unalienable right to property, violation of our right to privacy where someone has publicly slandered our name and kicked us out of our home, our right to due process to know who has made the claim of a loss of right or an injury and we ain’t talking no computer, we are talking real party of interest, which is a right to meet our accuser and not his representative when our property is involved.

    I’m tired of the dog and pony show. AG’s have enough evidence to shut this down, and there is no benefit if the perpetrators walk and pay a nickle, a dime, or a dollar per thousand dollars for every home stolen and still get to keep the home, and stay out of jail.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent People.

    I didn’t confer any rights, verbal, written, gesture, expressed, nor implied. to any entity, business, trustee, or attorney to rob me of my home.

  52. This guy has it wrong—the 1st amendment only applies to acts of Congress. Maybe by implication agencies creating rules and issuing orders pursuant to statutory authority delegated to them by Congress

    Which raises an interesting question Can OCC reviewers and mediators or regulated banks acting under cloak of the federal order/sanction require an investor or homeowner to abandon current or future claims in courts, or stop complaining to their representatives–or their state AGs, etc–about inappropriate conduct by collection agecies?’ eg disparagement? What if its necessary to show the confidential agreement to make the point?

    Seemingly the federal govt cant be involved in that sort of thing—it shouldnt lend cover to banks to make a person waive such rights in order to get some reward mandated by govt–? And what if you cut a deal but the promised reward doesnt happen? At one time I would have thought it unlikely that a bank would not act in good faith to bargain a deal of mutual benefit–but what if its just another in a long sordid history of bait-n-switch schemes?

    For example, what if Regulated Bank XXXXX offered somebody $X for keys to a clean house, a release and deed or other sign off on day one—vacate immediately–they get the homeowner’s signatures all over their docs and have possession and title——and thow in a non-disparagement clause and /or confidentialty clause re the deal.? Then the check bounces or never arrives and you look at your credit record and see the loan is still out there as a big liability maybe with a nasty comment about being risky—-or worse you have two out there –under two different account #s for the same loan—only the 2nd one shows unsatisfactory resolution and closed with a “deed in lieu comment”–those are viewed akin to #7 bankruptcy–not like a bargained setoff of liability–more like the bank saying;

    “yes the deadbeat robbed this bank and got away with it–they are lower than subprime–never never lend this deadbeat a cent in the next 7 years” -???

    What if you thought you were freed of the deficiency as a result of setoff for 4 years of mental anguish and numerous predatory collection activities? Is the bank in fact disparaging you when it makes this nasty comment? Is the bank breaching the confidentiality clause in the settlement when it makes this nasty disclosure to the credit bureaus?

    if you complain –are you violating the nondisparagement?

    if you file a suit are you violating non-disparagement?

    How can you file a lawsuit complaining about breach of a settlement agreement–but not disclose the settlement by stating what the deal was and how they violated it? Do you file under SEAl yourself? Do you fail to attach the confidential agreement or place it in an envelope and say filed under dseal–but gain how can you complain–seek redress –if you cant openly disclose your deal–if you cant compare your experience with others? if you cant properly investigate because you have to walk on eggshells about your facts?

    What is the rational purpose to concealing as confidential a million settlements cut out of boilerplate–should confidentiality and nondisparagement BE BOILERPLATE?–or is the demand in this context simply another act of predatory collection? Is it abuse of process–or a legal act taken for the purpose of advancing an ulterior motive–like concealing a pattern of corrupt activity–as in pushing millions into silence to prevent govt from hearing about patterns of corrupt activity?

    Lots of things to think about as you sign to get that check and those promises????? Are you going to get what you bargained for and what is your recourse if you dont?

    If you have dealt with collection agency attorneys you probably can make a good guess.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

  53. Free house? I never owned it in the first place! The grant deed that conveyed it to me, was done without my knowledge, and it was conveyed to another party, prior to me, and this makes the deed to me void.

    I live here in adverse possession.

    I stopped trying to get a tro

  54. Off topic but extremely interesting: a live appeals court hearing which will, in all probability, remove any and all encombrance on the house, i.e. render the loan completely unsecured and the owner able to discharge it in BK.

    It’s long (2 hours) but one important thing is after the hearing, when Mandelman and Fransen discuss. Mandelman asks Fransen if, in his opinion, this will follow us for decades, and the impact clouded titles will have on our ability to leave our house as inheritance to our own kids or their own ability to buy a house.

    Sobering. Whatever fight we’re in right now is absolutely crucial. In Fransen’s opinion, these issues will be litigated over and over and over. Gifting the house to our kids will expose them to endless lawsuits. Is it really worth it?

  55. Neil Garfield Another Great Article.


  56. @ lies

    We all feel your pain. It is overwhelming and frightening; worse for some than others. It really is about so many things other than just the “house”. It is about our country that have reverse engineered the Robin Hood of the past. Take from the poor and give to the rich. This is about saving the 99% that have been robbed not only of money but with the illegal taking and destruction of our homes, communty, well being and self worth. They are stealing not only any monetary value from us but also our basic rights. Stay tough as long as you can; believe me I know it is no easy task but it can be done. We must all shout loud and clear that we will not stand by and allow this treason.

  57. Thanks ENRAGED ..

    “lies is all they tell” – i feel ya , but… the $$ shitty 30k is NOT the point in fighting now, we are far beyond any payoff to make ANY of this worthwhile. But otoh as our RIGHTS are stripped away 1 at a time by giving up in frustration and moving on alone.=
    Hitler indicated in a speech “the plan of insidious intent to keep the population so busy fighting daily bullshit of a few dollars that is never ending, but the consequences of a serious pain in the ass if left unattended. We would then be unavailable to stop the pieces of shit from installing the mechanism[s] to imprison us all for their benefit.
    3 long years i have no fucking life except fighting theses vampires, but we will see who is the last standing..I spent my hole life working for a living and living on almost nothing. They have no clue what real work and or fortitude are.
    Tenacity & karma will kick their ass EVERY TIME!!
    so hang in there!

  58. if wells fargo offered me 30k to walk, see ya…………………they can have the house and i will take my money and move on. my credit is so ruined. i am ready to move on and would love to have my money. i am 150k upide down. i understand not wanting to take it, there is chance you can win a free house because of this mess. its almost like playing the show deal or no deal, 30k, free house, foreclosure, or short sale??????

  59. found out the edge of fraud in 2009. stopped paying, then found the four loans and the real fraud in 2010.

    just found out in October the entire scheme of one home, and just found out last week, that our other home, we never got title to, the grant deed from the trust was missing, and the darn escrow company sent us a letter asking for release of liability for the missing grant deed, and we had no idea what that meant!

    we have been effectively squatting for ten years!

    been pro per two years in may, and yes, I am not taking the 30k, because heck I don’t have legal title in the first place, on either home”
    that would be fraud, it seems to me.

  60. @angry,

    DCB is one of us. Apparently, he submitted that. He probably found it somewhere and sent it to Neil to post.

  61. @M.R.,

    You’ve been at it since… what? 2007? And they’re willing to do is throw a pathetic, pitiful $30K bone at you? I’d be insulted!

  62. Neil
    Who or what is = DCB? as “State of Foreclosure as a Tool for Frauds on Investors:submitted by DCB”

    sorry if the answer is obvious [ it is not to me ]

  63. “The federal sanction against 14 signed servicer-collectors is now reinforced by an offer of $25 billion by 5 of the largest of these institutions to 40-50 states in exchange for releases of state civil liability for abuses of the processes of the state courts, and County Clerks of Court, and county records keepers generally. These filings constituted an industry practice that presumptively injured the home-owners, and abused state court processes generally. The remaining issues to be decided by the OCC though its contractors and the several states which agree involve the orderly distribution of proceeds to victims proportional to injury suffered. It is now a matter of legislative and judicial notice that misconduct and unethical conduct occurred as an industry practice.”

    This is SO not acceptable! Who is going to pay to straighten out all the land recordation? At the very minimum, enough money should be provided for so that states, individually, can hire people to fix that horrendous mess!

  64. Just got an overnight express letter from chase. they are offering me $30,000.00 to walk away.

    they can take that $30k and stick it up their greased up hind end!

  65. where is this report in the official records?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: