Nye Lavalle’s Early Warning in 2003 Profiled In New York Times


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

SERVICE 520-405-1688

“The Fraud of Our Lifetime”

Robert D. Drain, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York, said in court last month that the failure of the mortgage industry to deal with pervasive problems involving inaccurate documentation and improper court filings amounted to “the greatest failure of lawyering in the last 50 years.”

In an interview last week, Judge Drain said several practices have contributed to the foreclosure mess. One is that Fannie and the rest of the industry failed to ensure that MERS was operating legally in all states. Another is that the industry failed to perform due diligence on documentation.


EDITOR’S NOTES: Nye has contributed to these pages and while he attended my workshop, he was as much a contributor there as a participant. For homeowners, lawyers, judges, legislators, and law enforcement officials, here are the take-away points that are documented by Lavalle and referred to in this article. Lavalle is a heavy hitter, and despite the obvious clarity of his projections and observations in 2003 and the years going forward, everyone ignored him — stating that he was “over the top.” I know how that feels. But here are some actual facts that can be found and used in your litigation with the banks and servicers, Fannie and Freddie. It was a dirty business from the start:

  1. Anyone who gains control of a note can try to force the borrower to pay it — even if it has already been paid. In our current context the burden mysteriously shifts to the borrower to prove information that is solely in the possession of the their opponent who has no intention of giving it up. By pretending to be a lender or successor, banks and servicers have foreclosed on millions of properties not just improperly from a procedural point of view, but wrongfully because there was no debt, there was no default and there was no security instrument that was enforceable.
  2. In at least 2 million foreclosures,, extrapolating from currently available figures, the debt was paid in full to the creditor but the note was not cancelled, so that the same note could be subject to collection multiple time. These uncancelled notes were routinely sent by Fannie and Freddie as parties complicit in a monumental fraud. Everyone knew better but the prospect of grabbing homes from unsuspecting homeowners who knew they had stopped making payments was irresistible. Why tell the homeowner that the debt was paid? Why tell the homeowner that there was no default? It certainly looked like there was a debt and it looked like a default. So the banks and servicers ran with it.
  3. Most of the remaining 5 million foreclosures were based upon false declarations of default because the note was partially paid by third parties as set forth in the contracts between the investors, servicers and banks. These also include debts that had been paid or settled in full by receipt of servicer payments, insurance, and credit default swaps as well as commingling of funds between tranches in each REMIC.
  4. Destruction of 40% of the notes ( at a minimum) was a planned strategy to create a grey area in which anyone who could create the “original note” (even though it was lost or shredded) was able to bring enforcement actions against hapless homeowners who had no way or knowing nor any access to information as to the reality of these exotic transactions.
  5. Lavalle warned Fannie and Freddie in 2005 — 2 years before this blog began — that David Stern’s office was being cited for using fabricated, fraudulent instruments. They didn’t care.
  6. The findings in confidential analyses and reports corroborated the observations and analysis of Lavalle. But the Conclusion is what will send occupiers and others through the roof — they concluded that most people would not have the resources of knowledge to attack the system of corruption and so it was decided to allow it to continue. In other words because you are ignorant of how the money was handled, because the banks and servicers were allowed to deceive you and you were deceived, because you didn’t understand the exotic instruments in which your your signature was used, and most of all because you didn’t have the money to challenge them, you would lose your home, all the money you put into it and never know that the parties who foreclosed were literally laughing all the way to the Bank. 
  7. The solution is to get help. The analytical tools offered on this web site are now being used with some success in courtrooms across the country. We are in the process of combining the tools into packages such that the inexperienced homeowner is not forced to choose between products that he or she does not understand. And we have paralegals support services for a legion of lawyers who will shortly announce their ability to process large volumes of case competently, methodically and successfully. We are ending the days where you order a report that contains helpful information but there is no instruction or manual that explains how to use the information on title, securitization Forensic Loan (TILA) Analysis and Loan Level Accounting. Now you only need to know that the consortium of analysts, paralegals and lawyers will bring the facts of your case together for the best possible presentation. Take hope from this but no sense of guarantee. Many Judges and lawyers and even the homeowners) have trouble with the notion that the debt was extinguished without borrower payment and was instead paid by others.

A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded


YEARS before the housing bust — before all those home loans turned sour and millions of Americans faced foreclosure — a wealthy businessman in Florida set out to blow the whistle on the mortgage game.

His name is Nye Lavalle, and he first came to attention not in finance but in sports and advertising. He turned heads in marketing circles by correctly predicting that Nascar and figure skating would draw huge followings in the 1990s.

But after losing a family home to foreclosure, under what he thought were fishy circumstances, Mr. Lavalle, founder of a consulting firm called the Sports Marketing Group, began a new life as a mortgage sleuth. In 2003, when home prices were flying high, he compiled a dossier of improprieties on one of the giants of the business, Fannie Mae.

In hindsight, what he found looks like a blueprint of today’s foreclosure crisis. Even then, Mr. Lavalle discovered, some loan-servicing companies that worked for Fannie Mae routinely filed false foreclosure documents, not unlike the fraudulent paperwork that has since made “robo-signing” a household term. Even then, he found, the nation’s electronic mortgage registry was playing fast and loose with the law — something that courts have belatedly recognized, too.

You might wonder why Mr. Lavalle didn’t speak up. But he did. For two years, he corresponded with Fannie executives and lawyers. Fannie later hired a Washington law firm to investigate his claims. In May 2006, that firm, using some of Mr. Lavalle’s research, issued a confidential, 147-page report corroborating many of his findings.

And there, apparently, is where it ended. There is little evidence that Fannie Mae’s management or board ever took serious action. Known internally as O.C.J. Case No. 5595, in reference to the company’s Office of Corporate Justice, this 2006 report suggests just how deep, and how far back, our mortgage and foreclosure problems really go.

“It is axiomatic that the practice of submitting false pleadings and affidavits is unlawful,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “With his complaint, Mr. Lavalle has identified an issue that Fannie Mae needs to address promptly.”

What Fannie Mae knew about abusive foreclosure practices, and when it knew it, are crucial questions as Congress and the Obama administration weigh the future of the company and its cousin, Freddie Mac. These giants eventually blew themselves apart and, so far, they have cost taxpayers $150 billion. But before that, their size and reach — not only through their own businesses, but also through the vast amount of work they farm out to law firms and loan servicers — meant that Fannie and Freddie shaped the standards for the entire mortgage industry.

Almost all of the abuses that Mr. Lavalle began identifying in 2003 have since come to widespread attention. The revelations have roiled the mortgage industry and left Fannie, Freddie and big banks with potentially enormous legal liabilities. More worrying is that the kinds of problems that Mr. Lavalle flagged so long ago, and that Fannie apparently ignored, have evicted people from their homes through improper or fraudulent foreclosures.

Until a few weeks ago, Mr. Lavalle, 54, had never seen O.C.J. 5595. He had hoped to get a copy after helping Fannie’s lawyers, at Baker & Hostetler in Washington, complete it. He didn’t.

But after learning about its findings from a reporter for The Times, Mr. Lavalle said, “Fannie Mae, its directors, servicers and lawyers appeared to have an institutional policy of turning a willful blind eye to evidence of mortgage origination and servicing fraud.”

He went on: “When confronted directly with this evidence, Fannie not only failed to correct and remedy the abuses, it assisted in continuing the frauds via institutional practices that concealed fraudulent foreclosures.”

A spokesman for Fannie Mae said in a statement last week that the company quickly addressed several issues that were raised in the 2006 report and that it took action on other issues associated with foreclosures in 2010. “We want to prevent foreclosure whenever possible, but when foreclosures cannot be avoided they must move forward in a timely, appropriate fashion,” he said.

Fannie Mae would not say whether it had shared O.J.C. 5595 with its board of directors or its regulator, then known as the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. James B. Lockhart III, who headed that regulator in 2006, said he did not recall reading the report. “I probably did not see it as back then foreclosures were not a very big deal,” he said.

But another report published last fall by the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the current regulator, briefly mentioned some of the problems that Mr. Lavalle had raised. (It didn’t mention him by name.) It also faulted Fannie Mae, saying it failed to address foreclosure improprieties that had surfaced years before.

LIKE most people, Nye Lavalle had little interest in the mortgage industry until things got personal. Raised in comfortable surroundings in Grosse Pointe, Mich., just outside Detroit, he began his business career in the 1970s, managing professional tennis players. In the 1980s, he ran SMG, a thriving consulting and research firm.

Then he tried to pay off a loan on a home his family had bought in Dallas in 1988. The balance was roughly $100,000, and the property was valued at about $175,000, Mr. Lavalle said. But when he combed through figures provided by his lender, Savings of America, he found substantial discrepancies in the accounting that had inflated his bill by $18,000. The loan servicer had repeatedly charged him late fees for payments he had made on time, as well as for unnecessary appraisals and force-placed hazard insurance, he said.

Mr. Lavalle refused to pay. The bank refused to bend. The balance rose as the bank tacked on lawyers’ fees and the loan was deemed delinquent. The fight continued after his mortgage was allegedly sold to EMC, a Bear Stearns unit.

Unlike most people, Mr. Lavalle had the time and money to fight. He persuaded his family to help him pay for a lawsuit against EMC and Bear Stearns. Seven years and a small fortune later, they lost the house in Dallas. Back then, judges weren’t as interested in mortgage practices as some are now, he said.

The experience lit a fire. Mr. Lavalle set out to learn everything he could about the mortgage industry. In a five-hour interview in Naples, Fla., last month, he described his travels nationwide. He dove into mortgage arcana, land records and court filings. By 1996, he had identified what appeared to be forged signatures on foreclosure documents, foreshadowing troubles to come. He took his findings to big players in the industry: Banc One, Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial, Freddie Mac, JPMorgan, Washington Mutual and others. A few responded but later said his claims were not valid, he said.

Now he splits his time between Orlando and Boca Raton, advising lawyers as an expert witness. “From my own personal experience and 20 years of research and investigation, nothing — and I mean nothing — that a bank, lender, loan servicer or their lawyer says or puts on paper can be trusted and accepted as true,” Mr. Lavalle said.

FANNIE MAE, now in government hands, has acknowledged how abusive foreclosure practices can hurt its own business. “The failure of our servicers or a law firm to apply prudent and effective process controls and to comply with legal and other requirements in the foreclosure process poses operational, reputational and legal risks for us,” it said in a 2010 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Five years earlier, Fannie seemed to have taken a different view. That was when Mr. Lavalle pointed out legal lapses by some of its representatives. Among them was the law offices of David J. Stern, in Plantation, Fla., which was handling an astonishing 75,000 foreclosure cases a year — more than 200 a day. In 2005, Mr. Lavalle warned Fannie Mae that some judges had ruled that the Stern firm was submitting “sham pleadings.” Nonetheless, Fannie continued to do business with the firm until it closed its doors last year, after evidence emerged of rampant forgeries and fraudulent filings.

O.C.J. Case No. 5595 found that Stern wasn’t the only firm working for Fannie that seemed to be cutting corners. It also found that lawyers operating in seven other states — Connecticut, Georgia, New York, Illinois, Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio — had made false filings in connection with work for Fannie Mae or the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a private mortgage registry Fannie helped establish in 1995.

“While Fannie Mae officials do not have a single opinion, some officials believe foreclosure counsel are sacrificing accuracy for speed,” the report said.

The lawyers at Baker & Hostetler did not agree with everything Mr. Lavalle said. Mark A. Cymrot, a partner who led the investigation, discounted Mr. Lavalle’s fear that Fannie could lose billions if large numbers of foreclosures had to be unwound as a result of misconduct by its lawyers and servicers.

Even so, the report didn’t conclude that Mr. Lavalle was wrong on the legal issues. It simply said that few people would have the financial resources to challenge foreclosures. In other words, few people would be like Mr. Lavalle.

“Courts are unlikely to unwind foreclosures unless borrowers can demonstrate that the foreclosure would not have gone forward with the correct pleadings, which is a difficult burden for most borrowers to meet,” the report said. “Nevertheless, the issues Mr. Lavalle raises should be addressed promptly in order to mitigate the risk of exposure to lawsuits and some degree of liability.” Mr. Cymrot declined to comment for this article.

O.C.J. 5595 also questioned Mr. Lavalle’s contention that improprieties by loan servicers were pervasive. But based on interviews with 30 Fannie employees, the report conceded that the company had no mechanism to ensure that servicers were charging borrowers appropriate fees.

Other oversight at Fannie was similarly lacking, the Baker & Hostetler lawyers found. For instance, when Fannie identified fraud by a lender or servicer, it didn’t notify the homeowner. Nor did it police activities of lawyers or servicers it hired. As a result, the report said, Fannie might not be insulated from liability for their misconduct.

Lewis D. Lowenfels, a securities law expert, said he was perplexed that Fannie’s board appeared to have done nothing to correct these practices. “If it had been brought to the board’s attention that specific acts of illegality were being committed, it should have directed that relationships with the transgressors be terminated forthwith and Fannie Mae’s regulator be advised accordingly,” he said.

Daniel H. Mudd, Fannie’s chief executive at the time, declined to comment through his lawyer. Mr. Mudd was recently sued by the S.E.C., accused of failing to disclose Fannie’s participation in the subprime mortgage market.

PERHAPS no development has done more to obscure the forces behind the foreclosure epidemic than the rise of the MERS, the private registry that has all but replaced public land ownership records. Created by Fannie, Freddie and big banks, MERS claims to hold title to roughly half the nation’s home mortgages. Judges and lawmakers have questioned MERS’s legal authority to initiate foreclosures, and some judges have thrown out foreclosures brought in its name. On Friday, New York’s attorney general sued MERS, contending that its system led to fraudulent foreclosure filings. MERS refuted the claims and said it would fight.

Mr. Lavalle warned Fannie years ago that MERS couldn’t legally foreclose because it didn’t actually own notes underlying properties.

The report agreed. MERS’s approach of letting loan servicers foreclose in its own name, not in that of institutions owning the notes, “is not accepted legal practice in all states,” the report said. Moreover, “MERS’s counsel conceded false allegations are routinely made, and the practice should be ‘modified.’ ”

It continued: “To our knowledge, MERS has not addressed the issue of its counsels’ repeated false statements to the courts.”

Janis L. Smith, a spokeswoman for MERS, said it had not seen the Baker & Hostetler report and declined comment on its references to the false statements made on its behalf to the courts. She said that MERS’s business model is legal in all states and that as a nominee, it has the right to foreclose. MERS stopped allowing its members to foreclose in its name in all states in 2011.

Robert D. Drain, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York, said in court last month that the failure of the mortgage industry to deal with pervasive problems involving inaccurate documentation and improper court filings amounted to “the greatest failure of lawyering in the last 50 years.”

In an interview last week, Judge Drain said several practices have contributed to the foreclosure mess. One is that Fannie and the rest of the industry failed to ensure that MERS was operating legally in all states. Another is that the industry failed to perform due diligence on documentation.

MERS no longer participates in foreclosures. But a lot of damage has already been done, Mr. Lavalle said.

“Hundreds of thousands of foreclosures in Florida and across America were knowingly conducted unlawfully, for which there are still severe liabilities and implications to come for many years,” he said.

THERE was a time when Americans had mortgage-burning parties: When they paid off a promisory note, they celebrated by burning the release of the lien.

But they kept the canceled promissory note — and there was a reason for that. Promissory notes, like dollar bills, are negotiable currency. Whoever holds them can essentially claim them.

According to O.C.J. Case No. 5595, Fannie held roughly two million mortgage notes in its offices in Herndon, Va., in 2005 — a fraction of the 15 million loans it actually owned or guaranteed. Who had the rest? Various third parties.

At that time, Fannie typically destroyed 40 percent of the notes once the mortgages were paid off. It returned the rest to the respective lenders, only without marking the notes as canceled.

Mr. Lavalle and the internal report raised concerns that Fannie wasn’t taking enough care in handling these documents. The company lacked a centralized system for reporting lost notes, for instance. Nor did custodians or loan servicers that held notes on its behalf report missing notes to homeowners.

The potential for mayhem, the report said, was serious. Anyone who gains control of a note can, in theory, try to force the borrower to pay it, even if it has already been paid. In such a case, “the borrower would have the expensive and unenviable task of trying to collect from the custodian that was negligent in losing the note, from the servicer that accepted payments, or from others responsible for the predicament,” the report stated. Mr. Lavalle suggested that Fannie return the paid notes to borrowers after stamping them “canceled.” Impractical, the 2006 report said.

This leaves open the possibility that someone might try to force homeowners to pay the same mortgage twice. Or that loans could be improperly pledged as collateral by some other institution, even though the loans have been paid, Mr. Lavalle said. Indeed, there have been instances in the foreclosure crisis when two different institutions laid claim to the same mortgage note.

In its statement last week, Fannie said it quickly addressed questions of lost note affidavits and issued guidance to servicers that no judicial foreclosures be conducted in MERS’s name. It also said it instructed Florida foreclosure lawyers “to use specific language to assure no confusion over the identity of the ‘owner’ and the ’holder’ of the note.”

The 2006 report said Mr. Lavalle at times came across as over the top, that he was, in its words, “partial to extreme analogies that undermine his credibility.” Knowing what we know now, he looks more like one of the financial Cassandras of our time — a man whose prescient warnings went unheeded.

Now, he hopes dubious mortgage practices will be eradicated.

“Any attorney general, lawyer, bank director, judge, regulator or member of Congress who does not open their eyes to the abuse, ask pertinent questions and allow proper investigation and discovery,” he said, “is only assisting in the concealment of what may be the fraud of our lifetime.”



34 Responses

  1. @ANON

    I do not see how records can be altered—or effect thereof changed by an AG——the judicial branch has the authority—it can have more or less authority based on legislition to a point—but an AG cannot give away rights protected by a court.

    The ags can only choose not to act to enforce violations of criminal and civil law thar effect the state’s interest——for example the state AG has exclusive power and discretion to ignore opportunities to claim escheat property–and they routinely are doing so–allowing default of lost and abandoned property to go to debt collectors rather than the state

    sad that states say they are running out of money but wont enforce obvious escheats —

  2. ANONYMOUS- to which fraudulent records do you refer? About the only information on what the settlement may or may not include or preclude is referenced in Nevada AG Mastro’s 32 questions about the settlement. I think that was on Naked Capitalism last week, may be here on LL. By reading the questions, you can discern what she is reading. Sort of.
    ALSO- to your credit , Nye Lavalle’s letter and subsequent ‘interview’ with the law firm point out the GSEs not marking the notes paid, if they in fact ever had them to do so, and having everybody and their brother pick them up, make a few calls, and begin collecting on them again. “all subprime refis were just modification of false GSE default debt.” Of course we have known this for some time………

  3. Are the records going to be corrected by the AG settlement? That is what I want to know. Or, will fraudulent records stand as is?

  4. @RD

    I would tell them to get their heads out of the hole it’s buried in, conduct their own research as to what the real facts are with respect to our economy or, lack thereof, and get involved with the very serious issues close at hand. I don’t know what it will take to wake up these sleeping sheeple?

  5. What would you say to the skeptics that are out there that think that all players involved with the GSE Business Model are engaged in a simple criminal scheme, albeit of a dimension that we have never seen before, that a prosecutor would call “theft by deception” with the American taxpayer as the victim?

  6. dcb

    Great Job. Thank you as I know that took some time! The way I see it, if even one person is helped to defeat these robber barons; it is well worth the effort! Unfortunately, it looks like the banksters are going to get their way as rumor has it all will settle. Not only do the criminals go unprosecuted but our government negotiates with them. That in itself is as criminal as the acts they commit.

  7. Finance chief of troubled U.S. mortgage giant Freddie Mac found dead at home

    Although detectives would not confirm the death was a suicide, local TV networks reported the victim was found hanging in the basement.
    Mr Kellermann, who was married with a young daughter, had worked for Freddie Mac for sixteen years in various accounting roles.
    It wasn’t clear last night whether he left a suicide note or what may have prompted him to take his own life.

    According to neighbors and company officials, the 41-year-old had received a controversial bonus of about $800,000.

    Such bonuses – which totaled $210 million for executives at Freddie Mac and its sibling company Fannie Mae – prompted scrutiny from lawmakers who have questioned bonuses for executives of firms receiving government bailouts.

    Mr Kellermann hired a private security firm after reporters came to his house to ask about his bonus.

    THIS IS WEIRD–HANG YOURSELF AFTER GETTING AN $800k bonus???http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/david_b_kellermann/index.html

    no follow up that i can find

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1172595/Finance-chief-troubled-U-S-mortgage-giant-Freddie-Mac-dead-home.html#ixzz1lcSj9M62

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1172595/Finance-chief-troubled-U-S-mortgage-giant-Freddie-Mac-dead-home.html#ixzz1lcSO7VYz

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1172595/Finance-chief-troubled-U-S-mortgage-giant-Freddie-Mac-dead-home.html#ixzz1lcRfqp00

  8. Mr. Kellermann was found hanging by the neck in the basement of his posh Vienna, VA home in the affluent suburb of Washington. D.C. way back in April of 2009

    any big name newspapers report on that in any depth–seems like at least sometimes DC untimely deaths dont hit papers–i literally passed one jumper’s crime scene in crystal city which was never reported. Jumped several floors from a super-secret facility —mess on the sidewalk-stairwell where he landed—-silence as far as I know.

  9. Here’s a brief half-assed history on these bastards:

    FRANKLIN RAINES [D] – FNMA CEO (1999 – 2004) Raines accepted “early retirement” from his CEO position while the SEC pretended to investigate accounting irregularities. Fannie’s own OHFHEO also accused him of abetting widespread accounting errors, including the shifting of losses, so he and his fellow execs could “earn” large bonuses. The WSJ reported back in 2008 that Raines was one of several cronies that received below market rates for mortgages from Countrywide. Raines alone receive loans for over $3 million while CEO of FNMA. Raines’ compensation for his “work” at FNMA – $90 million.


    DANIEL MUDD [R] – FNMA CEO (2005 – 2008) Before becoming CEO of FNMA, Mudd worked at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, was an advisor to Asia-Pacific Economic Corp., “served” on the board of the Council of Foreign Relations, “consulted” at the World Bank, and held many positions at GE Capital including president and CEO. Mudd was dismissed as CEO of FNMA when FHFA became conservator in 2008. In 2011 Mudd and other GSE execs were charged by SEC with securities fraud. After his career at FNMA Mudd became CEO of a NYC hedge fund named “Fortress”. Fortress invested in purchasing tax liens on delinquent property taxes from local governments under many benign corporate names such as “Pleasant Valley Capital” and “Travis Farm Investments”. Cozy. Mudd’s compensation for his “work” at FNMA – $80 million.


    NEEL KASHKARI [R] – FNMA CEO (Tenure is murky) Kashkari was a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs, was tapped by Hank “The Shank” Paulson to lend his skills over at TARP HQ, and now rather ironically, continues God’s work as a Managing Director at PIMCO. Kashkari’s compensation for his “work” at FNMA is also murky; I’ll just assume it was too much.


    HERB ALLISON [D] – FNMA CEO (2008 – 2009) The esteemed Mr. Allison was quickly whisked off to oversee the wildly successful TARP program. I didn’t find much on his compensation during his brief stint as FNMA CEO. Allison served in various positions at Merrill Lynch and became a member of the board in 1997. He was a director of the NYSE from 2003 – 2005.


    MICHAEL WILLIAMS [?] – FNMA CEO (2009 – Jan 1, 2012) Mr. Williams is a 20 year veteran at FNMA. While “serving” as FNMA CEO, Williams managed to scrape by on less than $6 million in 2011 alone. This could and should be considered a hardship, given the complexities involved in purloining ~ $60 billion of Fed bailout money.


    Fannie’s major dance partner – Freddie – has performed equally abysmally.

    Charles (my friends call me “Ed”) Haldeman has announced his retirement plans but intends to be a good sport and stay on with insolvent FHLMC until another crony can be found to fill his wing-tips.

    That might take a while. “Serving” as CEO of the ultimate backstops for the lion’s share of the MBS Ponzi is very stressful.

    We’ll have to accept former Freddie exec David Kellermann’s testimony posthumously. Mr. Kellermann was found hanging by the neck in the basement of his posh Vienna, VA home in the affluent suburb of Washington. D.C. way back in April of 2009. It is presumed he had no help and local police have stated there was no evidence of foul play.

  10. Wall Street/Banksters/GSE’s got all of us unwitting homeowners to sign on the dotted line, in order to “play” the stock market with our signatures, without ever knowing that’s what we were doing…Bernie Madoff was right—the government IS a ponzi scheme…

  11. @ Brian..
    Thanks for posting that article. It just goes to show why some groups of powerful people do not want history to be taught in our schools.People with nefarious intentions always count on the public having a short memory. Our short memory allows them to stay in control.When history is taught, occurrences such as these will be in our mindset and act as a deterrent. We will remember. As a matter of fact your posted article should become mandatory reading for all members of Congress, the Judiciary and the Attorney Generals.Those who fail to read should be flogged with cat-o-nine tails… in public. Change will come as long as we just keep on fighting.

  12. Hats off to Nye Lavalle. Glad to see the mainstream media has finally begun to touch on the issues presented by the fatally flawed “GSE Business Model”. It’s about time as it has been going on since 1996 in my personal experience. (See letter below)

    Monday, January 15, 2001
    FROM: Richard F. Davet

    Via Facsimile 1-212-702-1364 & Regular US Mail

    Vincent A. Mai
    AEA Investors, Inc.
    65 East 55th Street
    New York, NY. 10022

    Dear Mr. Mai:

    Ms. Iris Aberbach, Assistant Corporate Secretary of Fannie Mae, has advised me that the Audit Committee was meeting during the month of November,2000 outside the presence of management, to specifically address the issues that I have brought before the Audit Committee. Ms. Aberbach has recently advised me that there was “no outcome” of the meeting relevant to the issues I have brought before you and the other Audit Committee membersI am gravely concerned with the apparent collusion between debt collector Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. and the Management of Fannie Mae with respect to the issues presented in the Criminal Affidavit filed in my litigation with Nationesbanc (Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. vs. Richard Davet, et al, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No 304224), a copy of which I am enclosing.

    It is apparent that in 1999, Fannie Mae sold my mortgage and note (copy attached) in an attempt to cover-up the fact that Nationsbanc did not have standing to sue in 1996 and that Fannie Mae “Guidelines” were ignored by both Fannie Mae Management and Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. relevant to my mortgage. Fannie Mae Management engaged in this cover-up when they knew or should have known that they were compounding the criminal acts of their debt collector, Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. Fannie Mae Management knew or should have known that any attempt to cover-up the shortcomings in adherence to Fannie Mae “Guidelines” presents grave concerns with respect to safety and soundness issues.

    Page 2
    Monday, January 15, 2001
    Vincent A. Mai
    As you well know, as a member of the Audit Committee (as well as other members of the Audit Committee), and pursuant to your fiduciary duties to shareholders and stakeholders, it is imperative that you reveal to shareholders and stakeholders the vast potential liability of such conduct and the consequential effects of that liability to shareholders and stakeholders.

    I will date my file seven (7) days for your response. Specifically, as to what action the Audit Committee has taken to protect shareholders and stakeholders from the immense potential liability presented as a result of the conduct of Fannie Mae Management and its service providers in ignoring the Guidelines set down by the Federal National Mortgage Association.

    I trust that you will timely respond in accordance with the responsible performance of your duties as an independent director and member of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Federal National Mortgage Association.

    Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.



    Richard F. Davet
    Cc: Eli J. Segal, Member of the Audit Committee of Fannie Mae
    Ann Mc Laughlin, Member of the Audit Committee of Fannie Mae
    Thomas P. Gerrity, Member of the Audit Committee of Fannie Mae
    Mr. Ken Russell, KPMG, LLP
    Ms. Iris Aberbach
    Mr. Armando Falcon Jr.
    Dr. Alan Greenspan
    John D. Hawke
    Members of the House Banking Committee
    Members of the Senate Banking Committee

  13. Brian in Virginia….the words below are not mine…but the sentiment and meaning are relevant today….all we ask is that our brothers, sisters mothers and fathers….support the efforts of all who are “Fighting the Fight”….and leading the way….

    …we should pass this info onto all of our friends and ask them to take a look at another viewpoint from an Italian immigrant lawyer from Sicily named Ferdinand Pecora…he wrote this piece after the crash of stock market in 1929 before most of us were born…

    **All you need to do is change the dates to the present and it reads as if it is from today…from the book: “Wall Street Under Oath”

    “Under the surface of the governmental regulation of the securities market, the same forces that produced the riotous speculative excesses of the ‘wild bull market’ of 1929 still give evidences of their existence and influence. Though repressed for the present, it cannot be doubted that, given a suitable opportunity, they would spring back into pernicious activity.

    Frequently we are told that this regulation has been throttling the country’s prosperity. Bitterly hostile was Wall Street to the enactment of the regulatory legislation. It now looks forward to the day when it shall, as it hopes, reassume the reins of its former power.

    That its leaders are eminently fitted to guide our nation, and that they would make a much better job of it than any other body of men, Wall Street does not for a moment doubt. Indeed, if you now hearken to the Oracles of The Street, you will hear now and then that the money-changers have been much maligned. You will be told that a whole group of high-minded men, innocent of social or economic wrongdoing, were expelled from the temple because of the excesses of a few. You will be assured that they had nothing to do with the misfortunes that overtook the country in 1929-1933; that they were simply scapegoats, sacrificed on the altar of unreasoning public opinion to satisfy the wrath of a howling mob blinding seeking victims.

    These disingenuous protestations are, in the crisp legal phrase, ‘without merit.’ The case against the money-changers does not rest upon hearsay or surmise. It is based upon a mass of evidence, given publicly and under oath before the Banking and Currency Committee of the United States Senate in 1933-1934, by The Street’s mightiest and best-informed men. Their testimony is recorded in twelve thousand printed pages. It covers all the ramifications and phases of Wall Street’s manifold operations.

    The public, however, is sometimes forgetful. As its memory of the unhappy market collapse of 1929 becomes blurred, it may lend at least one ear to the persuasive voices of The Street subtly pleading for a return to the ‘good old times.’ Forgotten, perhaps, by some are the shattering revelations of the Senate Committee’s investigation; forgotten the practices and ethics that The Street followed and defended when its own sway was undisputed in those good old days.

    After five short years, we may now need to be reminded what Wall Street was like before Uncle Sam stationed a policeman at its corner, lest, in time to come, some attempt be made to abolish the post.

    It is in the hope of rendering this service, especially for the lay reader unfamiliar with the terminology and conduct of The Street, that the author has endeavored, in the following pages, to summarize the essential story of that investigation–an inquiry which cast a vivid light upon the uninhabited mores and methods of Wall Street.”

    Ferdinand Pecora, New York City, 1939, Wall Street Under Oath

  14. You are exactly on point–see the below–i appreciate your help—see the articles of nationwide publication and good repute;

    List of Documents for JUDICIAL NOTICE
    1. New York Sues Banks Over Mortgage Registry System, WSJ, MARKETS FEBRUARY 3, 2012, BY CHAD BRAY NEW YORK—New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman sued three of the nation’s largest banks over a private national mortgage registry system, contending it has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings. The lawsuit, filed in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, names units of Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. as defendants, as well as MERSCorp., which owns and operates the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, known as MERS. In his complaint, Mr. Schneiderman alleges that MERS has effectively eliminated the public’s ability to track property transfers http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577201060859616158.html

    2. “Fed’s Raskin: Mortgage Servicers Must Fix ‘Deceptive’ Practices,” WSJ, JANUARY 8, 2012, By ERIC MORATH; “ WASHINGTON—Federal Reserve Gov. Sarah Bloom Raskin called upon mortgage servicers to fix their “sloppy and deceptive practices” and said the Fed must impose fines on servicers as part of a push for more forceful government action to fix the broken housing market… It is important “that the severe misconduct that has been uncovered in the mortgage servicing sector be addressed through intensified public enforcement of the law… “The Federal Reserve and other federal regulators must impose penalties for deficiencies that resulted in unsafe and unsound practices,” Ms. Raskin said…. Regulators, including the Fed, must take action against mortgage servicers to correct bad practices, Ms. Raskin said. For example, the Fed and other federal regulators investigated 14 of the largest mortgage servicers and last April found each had “significant problems. The review process is one of several efforts to address revelations that surfaced a year ago over banks’ use of so-called robo-signers, bank employees who signed off on huge numbers of legal foreclosure filings daily and falsely claimed to have personally reviewed each case. Ms. Raskin and fellow Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke have led the central bank’s study of housing policy, an area normally outside the central bank’s purview ” [Emphasis Added.]

    DECEMBER 16, 2011. “Nevada’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS) alleging widespread fraud and misleading of consumers, adding to legal woes at the mortgage-services company and sending its shares lower.

    The company’s shares were down 8.7% at $15.83 in
    4. “BANKS IN PUSH FOR PACT,” WSJ, BUSINESS DECEMBER 13, 2011. BY RUTH SIMON, NICK TIMIRAOS AND DAN FITZPATRICK “Five large lenders could be forced to make concessions worth roughly $19 billion as bank representatives and government officials push to put the finishing touches on a settlement of most state and federal investigations of alleged foreclosure improprieties…” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577094772749499652.html

    5. “MASSACHUSETTS SUES BANKS OVER FORECLOSURES,” WSJ, DECEMBER 1, 2011, Associated Press, NEW YORK — “Massachusetts sued five major banks Thursday over deceptive foreclosure practices such as the “robo-signing” of documents, potentially undermining negotiations between lenders and state prosecutors across the nation over the same issue…” http://online.wsj.com/article/AP42fa25a884654772aaf9a9ec07459844.html

    6. “NEVADA GRAND JURY INDICTS TWO IN ALLEGED ROBO-SIGNING SCHEME ,” WSJ, U.S. NEWS, NOVEMBER 16, 2011. BY RUTH SIMON, “A Nevada grand jury has handed up criminal indictments against two title officers employed by Lender Processing Services Inc. for allegedly directing and supervising a robo-signing scheme, in which documents filed in foreclosure cases were signed without proper legal review…” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203699404577042961074968218.html
    7. “MORGAN STANLEY IN N.Y. PACT, Wall Street Firm Agrees to Foreclosure Standards and End to ‘Robo-Signing’.” WSJ LAW NOVEMBER 11, 2011, BY LIZ RAPPAPORT, “…Morgan Stanley on Thursday became the second Wall Street giant to agree to a set of standards that aim to halt foreclosure abuses. Under a pact with Benjamin M. Lawsky, superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, the New York securities firm and three other companies pledged to adhere to business practices that aim to prevent mishandling of loans and end “robo-signing,” in which bank employees signed foreclosure documents without reviewing case files as required by law…” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577030010982458588.html

    8. “PRICE OF FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CLIMBS HIGHER”,. WSJ BUSINESS NOVEMBER 1, 2011 BY RUTH SIMON, NICK TIMIRAOS AND DAN FITZPATRICK “The price tag to settle the state and federal investigation of bank foreclosure practices has increased by at least $5 billion in recent weeks, people familiar with the negotiations say. The proposal on the table now puts a $25 billion value on a settlement by the nation’s five largest mortgage servicing companies—Ally Financial Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. In exchange for picking up a bigger tab, banks would be released from certain legal claims tied to mortgage originations. Representatives of the five banks declined to comment…” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577010421094503502.html

    9. “BANKS, STATE REACH A DEAL” WSJ MARKETS SEPTEMBER 1, 2011. BY LIZ RAPPAPORT “The mortgage industry will take a step toward cleaning up some of its most controversial practices under a deal between a New York regulator and three financial firms, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Under the agreement with the state’s financial-services superintendent, Benjamin M. Lawsky, the three firms—Goldman, its Litton Loan Servicing business and Ocwen Financial Corp.—promised to end so-called robo-signing, in which bank employees signed foreclosure documents without reviewing case files as required by law. They also agreed to comb through loan files for evidence they mishandled borrowers’ paperwork and to cut mortgage payments for some New York homeowners….” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576543021468088268.html

    10. “AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE FILES ‘ROBO-SIGNING’ SUIT,” WSJ, MARKETS AUGUST 23, 2011, BY NICK TIMIRAOS; One of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Lender Processing Services Inc., a top mortgage industry technology and services vendor, alleging that the firm improperly signed mortgage documents on its behalf and triggered millions of dollars in legal expenses as a result. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. said in the lawsuit that it had incorrectly processed more than 30,000 mortgage assignments when seeking foreclosure on properties in all 50 states as a result of the work by an LPS subsidiary. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904279004576526500703056250.html

    11. “BANKS HIT HURDLE TO FORECLOSURES,” WSJ BUSINESS JUNE 1, 2011. By NICK TIMIRAOS Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can’t prove they own the loans and therefore don’t have the right to foreclose. These “show me the paper” cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks’ paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions. This year, cases in California, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts and others have raised questions about whether banks properly demonstrated ownership. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576357462376821094.html

    12. “MORTGAGE OWNERSHIP MISCUES THREATEN FORECLOSURES,” WSJ Real estate news and analysis, June 1, 2011, “…one reason why mortgage companies have struggled to get foreclosures back on track: Banks are running into more challenges questioning whether they have properly documented ownership of mortgages. The speed of bundling loans from nonbank lenders into mortgage securities sold by Wall Street has now spawned some confusion as banks’ lawyers have struggled to properly file foreclosures showing that mortgage trusts own their loans. Some lawyers say that confusion has prompted some attorneys and other mortgage firms to fabricate and backdate documents. In January, the U.S. Trustee Program, a division of the Justice Department that oversees bankruptcy cases, raised “concerns about the integrity” of documents filed on behalf of Deutsche Bank…lawyers for American Home submitted new paperwork showing that the loan had been transferred last June to a company called Sand Canyon Corp., the parent of Option One. But that raised eyebrows because Sand Canyon executives previously testified that the firm exited the mortgage business entirely in 2008, meaning it wouldn’t have been able to assign anything in 2010…. Mark Polen, a judge on the [Florida] appellate court, wrote… ‘Decision-making in our courts depends on genuine, reliable evidence,’ he wrote. ‘The system cannot tolerate even an attempted use of fraudulent documents.’” [Emphasis added.] http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/06/01/mortgage-ownership-miscues-threaten-foreclosures/
    13. “JUDGES SEE LITTLE IMPROVEMENT IN FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES,” WSJ, HOMES APRIL 29, 2011. By RUTH SIMON, “Some judges are skeptical of claims by lenders that they have substantially improved their foreclosure procedures since controversy over the practices exploded last fall F. Dana Winslow, a N.Y. State Supreme Court Justice in Long Island’s Nassau County, said there has been only “a marginal improvement in what is being submitted to the court.…For example, financial institutions are ‘showing a better chain of title’ about who owns the debt, he said. “But I’m not seeing any additional clarity on who has control over the actual mortgage note signed by the borrower and lender and where the note is….’ In New York, foreclosure filings have declined sharply since New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman issued an order in October requiring lawyers to sign an affidavit affirming that foreclosure paperwork was properly reviewed and to their knowledge is accurate. ‘There’s almost a presumption that there may be something wrong with the documentation,’ said O. Max Gardner III, a lawyer in Shelby, N.C., who represents borrowers in bankruptcy cases. U.S. regulators have ordered banks to take steps to “ensure the accuracy of all documents” used in the foreclosure process….” [Emphasis added.] Write to Ruth Simon at ruth.simon@wsj.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703367004576289241312106726.html

    14. “FANNIE REPORT WARNED OF FORECLOSURE PROBLEMS IN 2006,” WSJ MARKETS MARCH 25, 2011, By CARRICK MOLLENKAMP And NICK TIMIRAOS, “Fannie Mae was warned in a 2006 internal report of abuses in the way lenders and their law firms handled foreclosures, long before regulators launched investigations into the mortgage industry’s practices. The report said foreclosure attorneys in Florida had “routinely made” false statements in court in an effort to more quickly process foreclosures and raised questions about whether some mortgage servicers or another entity had the legal standing to foreclose… In recent months, federal and state officials have initiated probes into whether banks and foreclosure law firms improperly seized homes by using fraudulent or incomplete paperwork. Some U.S. banks temporarily froze foreclosures to review their processes and now face the prospect of a multibillion-dollar settlement with federal and state officials. Elizabeth Warren, the White House adviser in charge of establishing the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, said in congressional testimony last week that with proper oversight, “the problems in mortgage servicing would have been exposed early and fixed while they were still small.” Ms. Warren didn’t name Fannie Mae and referred to the industry in general….” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703784004576220582457540372.html
    15. “FORECLOSURE TALKS SNAG ON BANK LIABILITY”, WSJ, LAW AUGUST 22, 2011. BY RUTH SIMON, VANESSA O’CONNELL AND NICK TIMIRAOS: “Efforts to reach a settlement that would end the long-running probe of foreclosure practices are snagged over whether banks will get broad legal immunity from state officials for mortgage-related claims. Federal and state officials are seeking penalties of $20 billion to $25 billion from Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other financial firms under investigation since last fall. The banks are pushing hard for a deal, but they have insisted on a wide-ranging legal release from state attorneys general. ‘They wanted to be released from everything, including original sin,” said a U.S. official involved in the …’” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904070604576521282894534152.html

    16. “BANKS IN PUSH FOR PACT” WSJ: BUSINESS, DECEMBER 13, 2011.. BY RUTH SIMON, NICK TIMIRAOS AND DAN FITZPATRICK, ”Five large lenders could be forced to make concessions worth roughly $19 billion as bank representatives and government officials push to put the finishing touches on a settlement of most state and federal investigations of alleged foreclosure improprieties…” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577094772749499652.html

    17. “U.S. PROBES FORECLOSURE-DATA PROVIDER-LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES UNIT DRAWS INQUIRY OVER THE STEPS THAT LED TO FAULTY BANK PAPERWORK.” WSJ LAW APRIL 3, By AMIR EFRATI and CARRICK MOLLENKAMP “A subsidiary of a company that is a top provider of the documentation used by banks in the foreclosure process is under investigation by federal prosecutors. The prosecutors are “reviewing the business processes” of the subsidiary of Lender Processing Services Inc., based in Jacksonville, Fla., according to the company’s annual securities filing released in February. People familiar with the matter say the probe is criminal in nature. Michelle Kersch, an LPS spokeswoman, said the subsidiary being investigated is Docx LLC. Docx processes and sometimes produces documents needed by banks to prove they own the mortgages. LPS’s annual report said that the processes under review have been “terminated,” and that the company has expressed its willingness to cooperate. Ms. Kersch declined to comment further on the probe. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the middle district of Florida, which the annual report says is handling the matter, declined to comment. The case follows on the dismissal of numerous foreclosure cases in which judges across the U.S. have found that the materials banks had submitted to support their claims were wrong. Faulty bank paperwork has been an issue in foreclosure proceedings since the housing crisis took hold a few years ago. It is often difficult to pin down who the real owner of a mortgage is, thanks to the complexity of the mortgage market.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303450704575160242758576742.html

    18. “UNDER PILES OF PAPERWORK, A FORECLOSURE SYSTEM IN CHAOS” (pgs A1, A24) THE WASHINGTON POST, September 23, 2010), By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Brady Dennis Washington Post Staff Writers; “The nation’s overburdened foreclosure system is riddled with faked documents, forged signatures and lenders who take shortcuts reviewing borrower’s files, according to court documents and interviews with attorneys, housing advocates and company officials.” [See also Department of Homeland Security: http://www.fbiic.gov/public/2010/oct/Financial_Services_SOSD_September2010.pdf
    19. “ERRORS LEAVE FORECLOSURES IN QUESTION” (pgs B1, B7), THE NEW YORK TIMES, September 25, 2010: “The recent admission by a major mortgage lender that it had filed dubious foreclosure documents is likely to fuel a furor against hasty foreclosures, which have prompted complaints nationwide since housing prices collapsed…While GMAC is the first big lender to publicly acknowledge that its practices might have been improper, defense lawyers and consumer advocates have long argued that numerous lenders have used inaccurate or incomplete documents to remove delinquent owners from their houses….J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge in the foreclosure hotbed of St. Petersburg, said the problems went far beyond GMAC. Four major law firms doing foreclosures for lenders are under investigation by the Florida attorney general… ‘Some of what the lenders are submitting in court is incompetent, some is just sloppy,’ said Judge McGrady of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Clearwater, Fla. ‘And somewhere in there could be a fraudulent element.’” [Emphasis added.] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/business/25mortgage.html

    Approval and Order of Judicial Notice: E.R. 21; Wall Street Journal
    The Court hereby approves the list of Wall Street Journal Articles attached as evidence of the facts set out therein as evidence of an industry practice of filing defective documents to obtain possession of homes, and other similar described failures, and such other information as is set out therein; and ORDERS that the plaintiff shall have the to use the articles in part or in full for purposes of pleadings, motions, and as admissible evidence at trials in this case.
    So-Approved and ORDERED:
    Judge ______________
    Plaintiff herein respectfully moves this court order the burden of proof to shift in respect of industry practices described in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The issues presented there included but were not limited to defective documents filed with the court to obtain possession or title to the subject homeowner real estate. Movant requests that the court ORDER that the burden to shall and has shifted to defendant debt collector to shall show cause why his activities were held to a higher standard of care than the “industry practice, or the evidence of industry practices stated in the Wall Street Journal Articles admitted as evince into this record by Judicial Notice of Adjudicative facts” filed herewith as conclusive evidence of such industry practices ALSO FOLLOWED BY DEFENDANT DEBT COLLECTOR, and if he shall not make a persuasive demonstration as he may show cause, then he shall be conclusively presumed to have followed those practices.
    This Court hereby issues this ORDER that the burden to shall and has shifted to defendant debt collector and he shall show cause within 30 days why his activities were held to a higher standard of care than the “industry practice, or the evidence of industry practices stated in the Wall Street Journal Articles admitted as evince into this record by Judicial Notice of Adjudicative facts” filed herewith as conclusive evidence of such industry practices ALSO FOLLOWED BY DEFENDANT DEBT COLLECTOR, and if he shall not make a persuasive demonstration as he may show cause, then he shall be conclusively presumed to have followed those practices.

  15. dcb

    Yes, these pit bulls (oops, lawyers) they sic on those standing up to them think they can intimidate people into asking permission to “breath”. Well we will just see about that. I have filed complaints with a copy of his letter to me to different places. Next stop will be the bar association. It is a report filed by the law firm investigating the complaints of Nye LaValle. The gov’t agencies are referred to in the report as having to keep the statistics of these exact practices I think you are referring to. I have not researched the FOIA yet but FM is a quasi-governmental agency..so it might be applicable.

    I used Catheryn Mastos complaint against BoA and actually used her case as an Exhibit to help support my allegations that what they did to us is a common business practice they use. Lots of good stuff out there but I’m not sure I am 100% understanding exactly what it is you need and for what specific purpose. I can be very slow sometimes. I am also half listening to the game 🙂

  16. 7 questions we should be asking about the settlement—an outstanding article and I think I might fax obama with some of the questions.


  17. @KATE

    Re “They keep the statistics on “patterns” of practice by servicers that may be determental to FM or borrowers.”

    What cite or site are you getting at–do you have a govt host site that i can swep in re the bad “industry practice”???

    The FOIA rules apply to getting info not posted from federal agencies.
    there are equivalent state laws where you are after them for something–FOIAs do not work against private entities unless maybe they are acting as contractors for the govt–the OCC “reviewers program springs to mind—you are definitely on the right track—please publish your discovery

    WOW —cease and desist asking questions? if yhey dont give you discovery through the channels then you are arguably being deprived of both 1st amendment right to seek redress of grievances and/or 14th amendment right to Due Process—–but this is just a wild guess –not advice

    publish–the truth shall set you free

  18. They follow forms practice according to layers of rules. Its like completing an income tax return only more complicated–you cant take a deduction on the wrong line etc.

    but you always are up against the presumption of no free house–you either pay in cash or through offset by time spent, pain and sufferring etc–all this eventually boils down to how much damage did you sustain from the debt collectors’ abuse of process, intimidation, and consumer protection violations etc

  19. I am still working my way through this report. I am on page 120 and it is very interesting to find many things required by FM that I was not aware of. My refi. was BoA bought by FM flipped back and forth between BoA and BAC. It is my hunch that FM forced BoA to repurchase my loan back when it went into default. The problem is that BoA will not give me answers to any of these questions even through discovery. This report also covers the requirement of FM to report each loan that they force the pretend lender to repurchase with the reasons why. Also, many of the fraudclosure issues are required to be reported by FM to specific agencies. They keep the statistics on “patterns” of practice by servicers that may be determental to FM or borrowers. It is much more detailed then I am paraphrasing here but you need to read it. I will be writing quite a detailed letter requesting information from FM. I did also send them the QWR letter last January that I sent to BoA and they just passed it off completely to BoA. This will probably get me another letter to “cease and desist” from their attorney, as I have been warned to ask no questions of anyone regarding the litigation but they are stonewalling me and I am and have been legally entitled to the information since last year. If they will not provide the answers then why couldn’t it be gotten through the Freedom of Information Act? So much information directly pointing to fraud could be gained from these reporting agencies that could definetely be used in court as “consistent” practices. Give me your thoughts please!

  20. @ carie

    The way I see it; when the courts start upholding the letter of the law and not handing homes on a silver platter to the fraudclosers; when we start seeing prosecutions and jail sentences; we might then begin to see a twinkle of light and a real general improvement in the economy:)

  21. @enraged

    MERS is still “alive” so they can be a “nominee” and help servicers and foreclosure mills like (Aztec Foreclosure Corp in AZ), and lawyers and real estate agents steal houses…like they did mine…

    Anybody who knows real estate agent Steve Leitner in Seal Beach, CA—he’s the guy who bid on my house—he put his name on Trustee’s Deed—then served me with an Unlawful Detainer—after I told him the sale was illegal, and informed him all about the fraudulent recorded documents…he basically said; “good luck with that—happy holidays”—then sues to evict my family…what a pr**k…sorry.

    I paid my taxes, and my husband and I are the only names on the Grant Deed…the foreclosure actually had the gall to say MERS was my creditor/lender…then in another letter they said the “investor” of the loan trust was my creditor/lender—so many lies they get away with…when will it stop?

  22. It seems to me the judges need to be removed from many of these cases. It is the piece of the puzzle that enables the fraud and forgery to continue. Why would a judge not follow the rule of law, when he/she has the evidence on paper in front of them? To me, they are not unbiased and should recuse themselves. If they will not do it voluntarily, then request the court remove them.

    Every where you look we are being denied due process. This is BS

  23. RE: How do you clear your name after so many years.

    Good question.
    Don’t try.

    It was only after all the recent fraud I discovered about the 2007 transactions, (discovered in 2010) that I decided to investigate the 1999 transaction.
    Cannot sue reasonably, as so much time has passed.
    Cannot state who did what exactly, and heck I admit I signed that release of liability on the missing grant deed.

    The only defense is defensive instead of offensive.

    They watch everything I do, and no doubt are tapped into my system, (yes, it does happen)

    So the letters are being sent out, that I DO NOT OWN THE HOUSE.
    Therefore, I will wait for the fraudulent “Trustee sale” as if I never owned it, how can they foreclose? I do not LEGALLY OWN IT!

    A simple damm fact!

    If I never acquired VALID TITLE, then all subsequent instruments, forged or not are invalid, correct?

    The key to this all is ADVERSE POSSESSION.

    PAY THE TAXES! No matter what! PAY!

    Then find a defect in your title. You don’t known in 25% of the cases due to defects, according to “First American Title Company”

  24. @ Enraged

    MERS is owned by the TBTF banks, Fannie & Freddie, so I guess technically, the banks (F & F) are really the ones fighting the suit. The more research I do, the larger of a web of collusion there seems to be and I believe that there is more collusion going on now with intertwined companies being paid by Fannie Mae that could be traced back to having insider knowledge and connections and they are now profiting on the purchase of foreclosures cheap. Fannie has tried to remain behind the curtain of OZ (the servicers). I do not believe that the real figures of this fraud have yet been unmasked. I’m not even sure if the best accoutants and analysts could get to the bottom of the real figures and who got what. It is just plain and simply staggering and the rabbit hole seems to extend out into infinity. Did you read the report that neidermeyer posted? That was many years back and the web, I am sure, has expanded and grown expotentially.

  25. This is nice but it cant come into evidence either in motion practice or trial—needs to be either a foreign case–and that is iffy if not published–cert copy needed at minimum

    need this stuff to be picked up an quoted etc in major papers

  26. @Matchr,

    That was a rhetorical question on my part… Obviously, Merscorp is the one being sued (you can’t sue a computer program). I haven’t looked at the actual lawsuit but that’s the logical conclusion, given what we’ve known for a few years.

    My other questions still stand, of course. As usual, unanswered.

  27. How can MERS be sued? MERS is a database with NO human
    employees. Who is held accountable for all the fraud committed
    in the name of MERS?
    To Martha Raysik: How do you clear your name of forgery and
    fraud after so many years? Backtracking?

  28. “On Friday, New York’s attorney general sued MERS, contending that its system led to fraudulent foreclosure filings. MERS refuted the claims and said it would fight.”

    Once again, where does MERS get the money to defend lawsuits and where would it get the money to pay any kind of a verdict (after appeal after appeal, I expect…)?

    Who is financially backing up MERS and on what basis and why haven’t the members/directors/officers personally been held accountable yet?

    Better yet… Remind me… Why is MERS still alive?

  29. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/80571135?access_key=key-1vjceq4zxh9mw57lwtn1

    Here is the letter the escrow company asked us to sign
    on June 3, 1999, releasing them from liability for the “missing grant deed.”

    A Grant Deed WE NEVER GOT!, and we did not realize what this letter meant back them. We had no idea they would make a loan with no legal title conveyed to us. They just did not care.

    I know exactly what it means today. It means I never had legal title to the property, and they knew it all along, yet made loan after loan to us, mere SQUATTERS!

  30. @neil

    Sounds like what is in the works will provide far more help for those with or like me, without, legal assistance to date. I clearly understand the method of how my note was most likely rehypothecated numerous times and the debt, although not to the investor, has been satisfied. The largest obstacle I see to this fact is on the part of the judicial system. They are not interested in the legal facts or the upholding of the rule of law; rather they are biased and will hold firm to their biases which is in complete conflict with the oath of office each one swore to rule by. We all know it to be fact; how do we force them to rule by the law. It will take years to keep moving up the appellate chain with the hopes that these judges will overturn, but that takes so much time and still no guarantees.

  31. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: appraisal fraud, banks, Fannie, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, Freddie, housing market, housing prices, investors, lost note, mortgage fruad, mortgages, nye lavalle, servicers, settlement, strategic default, uaction fraud Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  32. Here is a forged UNITED STATED DIPLOMAT signature off the second property.
    God, how were we so stupid! The United States Embassy does not use sloppy rubber stamps. It’s a blatant FORGERY!


  33. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/80423486?access_key=key-154hf1gvff22v4di2wxm

    They arrested the person that forged our name to documents, and yet, they still want to foreclose on admitted FORGERYS.

    Our name has been forged to documents for ten years, as they framed us in loan fraud.

    They get your name in a Notary Journal, then just forge your signatures to false applications and a different set of documents.

    They want to foreclose on a second property, in that they did this to us too, yet the “Kicker” is that we never legally owned it. We never got the right grant deed! How do you foreclose on a DOT when the parties never owned the property??

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: