Moynihan Must Testify in Fraud Suit Brought by Bond Insurer

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment; The fact they he is being forced to testify is a major breakthrough the wall silence used by the banks and servicers. BY this article I am asking for people to review the court file, get the pleadings and memorandums and send them to me at neilFgarfield@hotmail.com. Everyone should be paying attention to this case, and everyone should be reading everything. The insurer is making the case for the borrowers at the the same time as they are making the case for recovery of money paid by them under false pretenses to the wrong parties, screwing both the investors and the borrowers.

NEW YORK | Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:00pm EDT

(Reuters) – A New York judge has ruled that Bank of America (BAC.N) CEO Brian Moynihan must testify in a lawsuit brought by bond insurer MBIA Inc.(MBI.N) which claims the bank fraudulently induced it to insure risky mortgage-backed securities.

The judge said Moynihan could provide relevant testimony in the case due to his position as CEO, former president of investment banking and the fact that he oversaw the process of integrating Countrywide into Bank of America.

Bank of America acquired mortgage lender Countrywide in July 2008. MBIA filed a Countrywide later that year. In 2009, MBIA claimed Bank of America was liable for Countrywide’s conduct.

Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, is fighting several legal cases following the global financial crisis and had sought to block MBIA efforts for Moynihan to give evidence.

MBIA was once the largest U.S. municipal bond insurer. It announced a restructuring in 2009 after incurring large losses insuring mortgage debt.

Bank of America had asked New York Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten to rule that Moynihan did not need to testify, arguing that MBIA was seeking his deposition only to harass the bank and that Moynihan had no unique knowledge about the case.

But the judge on Wednesday denied the request, according to court papers made public on Thursday.

“The knowledge Moynihan gained as part of the (Countrywide) Steering Committee is unique, and it is material and necessary to MBIA’s successor liability claim,” the judge said.

Moynihan was involved in “high-level decisions regarding the Countrywide transaction” and his testimony will not duplicate that of lower-level employees, she said.

MBIA declined to comment and Bank of America did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The cases is MBIA Insurance Corp v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 602825/2008.

42 Responses

  1. Deborah Wynn- you’re welcome, I hope you found it helpful.
    Joanne- still trying to decipher your situation. Changing loan numbers and ‘instrument numbers’ suggest a loan already defaulted and currently held by a default debt buyer. How to prove? am working on it.

  2. Ian, thank you for putting that forward. I look at the path my lawsuit has taken the documents i have, the documents they poroduce and their manuevers in court and it stinks and the judge stinks and everything stinks, and im bloody fed up. none of them will be put behind bars it would already be done if that was the intention – think about the intention.

  3. Are these people really thinking the lenders/ debt collectors are going to come up with the originals and or better fraudulent paper work to foreclose.?http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-foreclosure-factory-pushing-the-files/

  4. All! Terrible loss of anyones life, for all three of them. The banks have a river of blood on their hands and so do the government officials that deregulated the industry, and every party apart of this fraud on innocent people across the globe. Including judges that are judging unconstitutionally with disregard to the rule of law.

  5. @Dying truth,

    Just clicked on it. Holy Sh*$t! I can’t imagine knowing that the SWAT is coming and still blogging.

    I only have a hunch. I’ve never known cubed2k’s name of even first name. Only that he was very deep in debt, was fighting like hell and going to court, was drinking himself to oblivion, was going off the deep end and that he was from Modesto.

    That would describe many, many people. And the “going off the deep end” is going to become more and more common. When I say that it will blow, I know it will. It HAS to. Otherwise, we’re done as a species. No order, no rule, no justice, absolute chaos? It’s been tried over and over. Never ends well.

    @Carie,

    Didn’t you exchange e-mails with cubed2k at some time? Can you send him one and see how he is doing? A few of us here are really concerned.

  6. Sorry the word was ‘EVAPORATED”.

  7. Hmmm! When in questioned the “holder in due course” becomes dormant?
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_50/b4062028776327.htm

    doctrine–to insulate themselves from problems with the underlying loans.

    Under the doctrine, a homeowner who believes that a lender deceived him about the terms of a loan can’t press such claims against the purchaser of a mortgage, such as a mortgage-backed securities trust. The holder-in-due-course doctrine protects pension funds and the like from having to worry about any misbehavior by home lenders–and thereby greases the wheels for the whole mortgage-securities market. But it’s a different story if, as appears to be common practice, the trust waits to complete paperwork transferring a loan until after it goes into default. In that case, the holder-in-due-course protection evaporates, and anybody who tries to foreclose could face defenses from the borrower that he or she was lied to when seeking a loan.

    For investors in mortgage securities, this nightmare scenario has not played out yet. But suddenly it seems a lot more plausible than it did just a few months ago. Foreclosure is turning out to be trickier than many on Wall Street anticipated. Observes David D. Dowd Jr., a federal judge in Akron who joined colleagues in trying to streamline the process for handling foreclosures when the housing bust hit: “I think they liked the procedure we set up–until we started asking nasty questions about whether they actually own the note.”

    Orey covers corporations for BusinessWeek .

    Reader Discussion

    bad-lawyer

    Dec 5, 2007 8:08 PM GMT
    As to Mr. Mullen’s stolen check, his bank is required to verify signature. Failing that, his bank is liable. Mullen, owner of the checking account, has a reasonable time to inform his bank of fraud/forgery. Checkcashing firm has a duty of care not to cash suspicious checks and customer: it is required to call the Drawer(Mullen) if the check is big, unusual, new customer. Presentment warranty protects the bank from checkcash firm but not from Drawer; disgorgement from forgerer is feasible because he is an identified criminal. A Holder in Due Course loses his special protection if he has inquiry notice and constructive notice that there’s something “fishy” about the check and customer. A genuine looking check does not give checkcashing firm a Holder in Due Course status.

  8. Ian, I think people need to be very careful purchasing foreclosed homes by not purchasing them. They are stolen homes and the title insurance companies are covering their own hineys and once again leaving the clean up to the unsophisticated ( in language and law and mortgage documents, and the nieve fact most people are still in the dark about trusting the unthinkable crooks in the lending and title business.) Most of us on this blog were in that catagory a while back at least I was. The parties taking a stand against Kamila Harris are full of BS. propaganda. Just like their rants that the government should not encourage dead beat homeowners, however the government should encourage dead beat lenders to steal houses for free and encourage them with our tax dollars supporting them against US! These traitors are afraid due process and the constitutional right to fight for our property against theives and embezzelers will put them out of business and stablize the market for the American families and create jobs again and we wont be their servants. They might be afraid of jail time. What is the count on the rats jumping ship today?

  9. Enraged,
    Well his name and address was James H Ferrario
    2141 Chrysler Dr #1
    Modesto, CA, 95350
    And he posted here at this weblink > http://assets0.chanarchive.org/4chan/b/42240 as the whole thing transpired (you may be able to identify him by his character).

    I somewhat have a feelng that your intuition was spot on. Still very sad no matter what.

  10. Re Kamala Harris and Homeowners Bill of Rights:

    “The banking industry is opposing the key elements in Harris’ proposals, including her core legislation to increase homeowners’ due process rights and to expand terms of the national settlement for all California homeowners.

    The industry particularly objects to letting individual borrowers go to court if they feel they have been wronged. Allowing that would “result in a de facto moratorium on foreclosures,” the California Bankers Association said in a statement last week. Letting borrowers sue to halt foreclosures could “unduly delay the inevitable” and result in some homeowners being awarded monetary damages when they suffered no real financial harm.

    “This just allows for an excess of litigation that is just going to stall progress in California and stall the housing recovery,” said Dustin Hobbs, spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Association. “You can guarantee that future loans would be expensive, more expensive than they are now. For some homeowners, that will price them out of the market.”

  11. @Dying truth,

    I hope I’m not but too much of what cubed2k disclosed about himself seemed to jive with that Modesto story. Well, unless he comes back to write here and appease our worries, we may just have to take it to our grave with us: one of us flipped and did the unthinkable…

    I really hope not.

  12. Joanne, so true, it is not easy to protect yourself. The courts are not easy, even for an attorney. The judicial system , at least the lower court judicial system, has become a gaming system, judged by unconstitutional law. Pro Se’s are treated like the enemy to the court instead of recieving special consideration. The higher courts in the U.S. Appeals court and U.S. Supreme courts look to be judging by the rule of law. So dont give up in the lower courts, go on to the higher courts. I dont even consider the loss in the lower court to ammount to much, cause it is done by unconsitutional law and treason against the U.S. Constitution,therefore has no credibilty or justice of any kind.. Plan not to win until you are in a higher court. I am a fighter and have my case Pro se (propria persona) in the Appeals court right now, waiting for the judgment. We need more pro se’s. Pro Se’s are winning. I hope most of you will join Neils national law firm attack back on this outrageous crime. He is a blessing and gives us all hope. He is skilled at this and knows the judicial system and the game playing. The courts are game played and manipulated. So much crime has inbedded itself into our government, including a judicial system that has lost its credibility to be respected just like the rest of our government..

  13. Enraged,
    I think you were right. Read my comment in the Iceland article.

  14. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 19, 2012 at 10:02 am said:

    “Another win for Americans not just this homeowner.”

    This one is a big win and about time. Much interesting in the judges ruling. They are breaking fast and furious lately for those lucky enough to be able to afford to follow through in court. You are right it is a victory for all but not unless someone goes to court and stays in court and can make it relevant in their own state. Ignored by Ag’s and lawmakers and others so to speak who could do things without forcing homeowners who cannot afford it to go to court but don’t do those things and are satisfied with settlements from pretenders while the sham continues.

  15. Here is a road map for responding to a proof of claim. Here $2mm POC Objection by Debtor was Sustained. They could not produce the documents and by the time they did it was too late. Pleadings for excusable neglect to set aside. Court determined proper service. Onewest tried to come in and there were objections. This is a foreclosure mill in Texas. Brice Vander Linden and Wernick(“The Brice Firm”). This is a good one.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86426446/Kalsuh-Opp-Deutsche-Bank-Brice-Firm-Mark-Estel-Sustained-proof-of-claim-objection-onewest-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-as-trustee-indx-20

  16. @carie
    “What do y’all think of this”:

    Thought about it some more….I still have title until I don’t. So how about they put the foriegners in here right now paying rent. I would agree to let their rent payments go in a govt. escrow account with an agreement in place that the govt. agencies will determine the beneficiary according to the rule of law before they can be paid. The agreement would also include an investigation of whether my own payments reached a lawful beneficiary in the past and an accounting of exactly how much is owed that party today according to the rule of law.

  17. @Carie,

    I deal with refugees every single day. We are the only country having signed the Geneva Convention that provides food stamps, insurance and cash assistance to refugees (rightfully so) BUT does it by taking away from the rest of the population.

    Every single member of the convention has a universal healthcare system. A retirement system that is not on the brinkx of collapse. A foreclosure system that protects homeowners and will force the banks to negotiate better terms before it is allowed to seize anyone’s house. Every single country except us, the USA.

    When I say it will not end well, I think about those refugees who will the first ones to get killed when it blows: people are fed up with giving, giving, giving and when they have nothing left to give, something still gets taken away from them by force if necessary.

    It WILL blow. People are becoming pitted against each other. I would venture to guess that those refugees moving into vacant homes will have the hardest time dealing with their neighbors, if the community was originally tight knitted. Everything “humanistic” put into place by this regime is irremediably hurting us, citizens. The ways to hell are paved with good intentions. I truly believe that Obama means well. Yet, he has, in 4 years, managed to create for us the kind of hell no one ever imagined could exist here.

    When it blows, it will be so bloody and violent that we may very well see the disparition of our entire country. Mandelman wrote yesterday a very strong piece about Obama. I voted for him. I have regretted it ever since.

  18. @carie
    “What do y’all think of this”:

    The article says:

    “The challenge is to find a landlord and then explain that their future tenant is arriving in the United States and has no employment, no immediate future employment, and no credit history, but to please give them a place to live,”

    “is arriving” should be changed to “is a natural born citizen” and “no credit history” should be changed to “previously perfect credit history has been trashed”. The rest of the paragraph works just fine.

  19. “… that Moynihan had no unique knowledge about the case.”

    Don’t let KEN LEWIS escape testifying!! Remember when Lewis was outed we said “they’re dumping the people WHO KNOW.” And how about calling a shareholder, or 2, to explain why the new look? Anything less can only be considered the pretense of an accounting.

    These guys deserve to suffer not only for what they did, but for their ‘swingin’ dick’s’ TBTF arrogance all along the way when they were so very brazenly confident it was all in the bag. LOOK @ the suffering they’ve caused to all in foreclosure, or not.

    Get THIS man & his MODEL off the street so he can do no further harm.

  20. War is on… Public disclosure of fraud on the part of boards and their members is now the norm. Not that it triggers any judicial pursuits, mind you… All it does is make it “acceptable”. See, the more fraud is pointed out, the more it becomes a case of tif-hey-all-do-it-so-why-bother?

    Investors pissed at James Johnson, a guy with what we would call “a checkered past”, had he properly been stopped and investigated much, much earlier. Today, those guys are called “winners”, “the 1%”, “the elite” which, in certain circle, is where you want to be.

    Thursday, April 19, 2012
    Sequoia Fund Manager Campaigns Against Goldman Board Member, Former Fannie CEO Jim Johnson

    A telling taboo in elite circles is the issue of corruption. At INET last year, after a panel discussion on the financial crisis, Jamie Galbraith said he was astonished that there was not a single mention of fraud. His observation was met with a resounding silence.

    Similarly, I had a colleague tell me today that I shouldn’t use the “c” word, meaning corruption, since it would alienate potential allies. The logic is similar to arguments against being shrill. He claimed that even if a lot of people in positions of authority engage in corrupt looking behavior, that doesn’t mean they understand it to be corrupt, so calling the corrupt will merely get them worked up to no useful end. They could well think they are doing the right thing and just be victims of cognitive capture.

    I deeply oppose this line of argument. First, it assumes that decision-makers don’t recognize when they are taking ethically problematic actions. The people I know who have yielded to institutional pressures to do the wrong thing say they knew they were doing so and found a way to rationalize it. And I suspect even sociopaths know where the lines are. They have to do a better job of covering their tracks when their conduct is dubious.

    Second, it assumes that it isn’t worth taking a firm position on ethics because it will turn off powerful people who have engaged in questionable behavior. Better to be less accusatory in order to have a dialogue with them. I don’t buy that because being indulging their justifications of their conduct helps preserve a bad status quo.

    One aspect of American exceptionalism is many still believe the US is cleaner and more above board than most other advanced economies. But if you go overseas, you will find that a lot of businessmen see the US as not particularly ethical. One British colleague who has worked with major US firms described the US as becoming more and more a scam-based economy (in fairness, he was really talking about the financial services industry). An American who works a great deal with foreign investors said his clients saw the US at best as on a par with other big countries, at worst, with Russia.

    One of the big reasons for the erosion in US behavior is the notion that elite crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted because it would harm the system. Glenn Greenwald describes the pardon of Richard Nixon as a critical embodiment of this principle. And while people in influential positions have long been able to get away with all sorts of bad conduct, it’s one thing to have, say, speeding tickets disappear quietly (the hoi polloi are no wiser) and quite another to have a tax cheat oversee the IRS. In the old days, propriety and reputations mattered, and that served to check bad behavior.

    So it is important to define norms and not shy away from words like “fraud” and “corruption” when they fit. While it would be nice if more people in power were capable of feeling guilt, shame will do. Thus naming and shaming are legitimate strategies for letting the elites know that the broader public is not fooled.

    It’s also important to recognize that some people at the top of the food chain are willing to criticize bad actors. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, the well respected investment firm that among other things, manages the fund Sequoia, sent out a letter that is blistering by the reserved standards of that industry. It says that former Fannie chief Jim Johnson, who is currently on the board of Goldman and Target, is not fit to serve on any corporate board. Those of you who read the book Reckless Endangerment may recall the detailed discussion of how Johnson aggressively cultivated support in Washington and helped forge a coalition among affordable housing backers, banks, realtors, and homebuilders (I read the book as being far more anti-Jim Johnson than anti the GSEs per se).

    The Sequoia letter says it will vote against Johnson continuing as a Goldman board member and urged clients to join them in opposing him. It describes how Johnson has “been at the center of several egregious corporate governance debacles,” not just at Fannie but also as a board member of United Healthcare and KB Homes. Oh, and he also got a Friend of Angelo sweetheart loan, when with his rich pay package, he was hardly in need of a break on his mortgage.

    I urge you to read this short, scathing letter in full.

    It’s welcome to see an investor wage a campaign against a tainted board member, particularly one seen as particularly connected and influential. Along with the investor rejection of Vikram Pandit’s pay package, this may be the beginning of a long overdue demand for greater accountability from the governing classes. And these calls are harder to ignore when they come from experts and peers.

    http://www.sequoiafund.com/images/rcg.pdf

  21. In addition to Ann @ 7:54 am:

    So, not to be intentionally ‘obfuscational (?)’ we start out with American Home Mortgage which went bankrupt in 2007 (?) which then became AHMSI Delaware, and/or AHMSI Maryland, and now is changing its name to “Homeward Residential” according to Housingwire:

    Wilbur Ross’ AHMSI changes name to Homeward Residential, adds correspondent lending February 17, 2012

    http://www.housingwire.com/news/wilbur-ross-ahmsi-changes-name-adds-correspondent-lending

    …or Delaware AHMSI is, or Maryland AHMSI is, or both of them are. Do I have that right?

    How many cards are there in 3 Card Monte?

    And if it were really, truly 3 Card Monte, can’t you get arrested for that?

    That AGs’ Settlement’s deterrant power sure has made the banksters ‘cut the shit’ hasn’t it? Thanks so very much Judge Collyer. You’ve got them shivering in their shoes now.

  22. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 18, 2012 at 8:25 pm said:…..

    Shelley. Thanks. I saw that too. Very interesting they list the Oklahoma cases as the reason for new underwriting policies. Just wait until more and more state supreme courts come down on the same issues which I believe they ultimately will. We haven’t heard a decision on Eaton yet either. Just thinking the tide could actually turn one day – interests of many previously banker friendly entities could turn on a dime to the benefit of homeowners who just need and deserve rule of law (not because suddenly friendly or sympathetic to homeowers – a by-product – they will do it in their own interest).

  23. Ian, on April 19, 2012 at 6:57 am said:…….

    Ian – thanks very succinct and clear. You should send it far and wide to every govt rep and agency and press organization even if ignored. We need clear articulation of this demanded over and over to the powers that be and mainstream needs to get educated. It isn’t complex. It’s banker spin that it is complex and irrelevant and the judges and everyone else buys it. Your explanation was simple. Anonymous is sometimes too complex. Investors should care about this too now. Way past time. Time to expose this and demand discovery of it in or out of court.

    Question – I have an equity line with a 0 balance never used – second to the first which is now in “default” (there is an issue with NOD and ADOT – bogus beneficiary on NOD – bogus assigner on ADOT who is not a beneficiary and can prove this and that they were fully aware they were not beneficiary in writing from them in advance – no sale date yet). Same bankrupt “lender” on both loans originating same time. No ADOT recorded for the equity line. It remains open. I have not closed it. Did not want to rock the boat. It even helps credit a bit because of 0 balance on an open line of credit even though 0 now available because of drop in value of property (not reported – full original limit still reported as open) only – now credit is shot because the “default” on the 1st anyway. I find it curious that they have not closed the equity line as they have done to many with same profile. There was funny business with the equity line when the new “lender” assumed the servicing in the bankruptcy of the recorded “lender”. Too many things to go into here and have correspondence ect. but the account number was changed for one thing and account numbers for both mortgages and the refinanced mortgage were changed (numbers added in front) on the credit reports. (Wish anonymous was an attorney – he would like to get ahold of my stuff going back 15 years same “lender” and would have a field day with his “theory”).

    Both 1st and equity line were refinanced with same “lender” over five years ago now. Have all securitization info on first – loan schedule “intentionally omitted” from psa. Have not been able to figure out trust for the equity line. Thinking I should close the equity line ( a phone call to them will do it because it is 0 balance) and demand the note in timely fashion according to the laws in place for that for the trustor – non-judicial. The timining of the demand is critical in order to have the right to receive it. Trying to figure out whether this adds or hurts a possible case in the future (ought to be filed now or very verynear future but can’t afford attorney presently- am someone who could be just passively forclosed without a whimper in non-judicial even with a strong possible case just because presently hopefully temporarily broke).

  24. TOP SECRET TRIAL TRANSCRIPT- What All of America Should Know About American Home Mortgage Servicing (AHMSI)
    April 18th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    WAKE UP AMERICA….THERE ARE IMPORTANT “SECRETS” IN THE TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED BELOW THAT ALL OF AMERICA NEEDS TO READ…

    I’ve been pounding away on the issue of “capacity” for a very long time….it’s true, just google, “Compendium of Capacity Cases”. The argument has several parts, but the first and most important part is,

    Who exactly is suing me? Now in some cases it’s clear, but the situation regarding AHMSI illustrates exactly why capacity matters and why we cannot allow these plaintiffs to continue getting away with violating basic pleading rules.

    There are in fact two AHMSI. A Maryland corporation and a Delaware Corporation. These is not just a technical distinction, they are as different as night and day. And this key fact should be disclosed in the tens of thousands of foreclosure cases pending all across this country in which one version or the other is a Plaintiff or was the Plantiff. The pleading requirement is simple, it’s either:

    1. AHMSI a Delaware Corporation or 2. AHMSI a Maryland Corporation

    And because one is related to a federal bankruptcy proceeding and the other did not, we need to know, and certainly judges all across this country need to know, which it is we’re dealing with. But the darnedest things are happening in my cases…

    NO ONE IS TELLING THE JUDGES THAT THERE ARE IN FACT TWO AHMSI?!?!

    Right, I know, it’s shocking…isn’t it. I mean, they probably are waiting to get around to letting judges know that the books and the records and the affidavits and the assignments and all that evidence filed by the old AHMSI or prepared by the old AHMSI relied upon now by the MAGIC! brand spanking new AHMSI. I’m sure all the attorneys are busy preparing the motions and making proper disclosures to the court so that courts all across this nation are aware of this little game of three card monty.

    Read the transcripts and more at

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/04/top-secret-trial-transcript-what-all-of-america-should-know-about-american-home-mortgage-servicing-ahmsi/

  25. DeborahWynn- we aren’t sure if the MBS were ‘securities products’ or not. The notes apparently never made it into the trusts, that is why there are for the most part, no mortgage loan schedules. And if there are, when compared from one trust to another, the notes have been pledged to multiple trusts. This is why you get a ‘satisfaction of mortgage’ on a robosigned sheet or two of paper, instead of the note you signed, returned to you. This is why it is of great importance to know where your payments are going, as the prior ‘mortgage’ may never have been paid off. This dovetails 100% with ANONYMOUS collection rights to false GSE default debt and subsequent fraudulent insurance payouts.
    If the notes were actually used to collateralize the MBS investors’ cash investment, then they could not concurrently be used to collateralize the mortgage/deed of trust. This is why the ‘securities’ and the ‘note’ can’t exist concurrently. They are guaranteeing two streams of payments, instead of just one.

  26. @shelter1banks0
    when did it become a securities product, was it already a securities product or was it a holgraphic paper bag as Neil puts it, and befor the sukker who signed a “mortgage” “deed of trust” contract came into the picture, as in a foregone conclusion, otherwise how did goldman make all that money on betting on default and steering their own customers into risky products. for which they got a slap on the back of the hands, bet that hurt. now try to get into court with all that, pro se, dont stand a chance. any attorneys out there that want to work that hard on contingency . write me djw4zen@gmail.com.

  27. Shelly A. Erickson- interesting piece about Stewart Title automated system. But in what context is this to be taken? Is this the disclaimer for an automated title policy? Or what?

  28. @shelter1
    So true. Without your property and your signature there WAS NO DEAL. Plain & simple. This “not a party to the PSA & therefore homeowner is not free to argue it” has been the machination of the Courts to deny the Homeowner ‘full circle’ DUE PROCESS. The Courts intentionally obsructed, held that “final nail,” out of the Homeowners’ reach in defense. ‘Just go ahead & do your defense w.o. that piece.’ Skip the parts about abuse of your signature in order to HAVE a property to ‘pass around the room’ for their windfall. Therein lies the core of the Ponzi- the inflation of the bubble in essence; protect the banks in essence. We don’t give a toot about ‘your investment (in your home), lifelong savings, or the pensions. We’re (the banks) going to leave globally, piles of hollowed out corpses, pensions, global economies, at OUR pleasure! We plan to leave Homeowners TOTALLY SPENT- DEAD beats!

  29. Jail DeMarco !

  30. Moynihan doesn’t have unique knowledge?! How can that be said with a straight face? Oh, because BoA and their attorneys are psychopaths–almost forgot.

  31. Haven’t a few of those guys already testified in the past couple of years and nothing came out of it except more money being printed to pay for settlements and fines?

    So far banks are still standing thanks to constant crutches from the feds, no one has been jailed, they’re still running the show. What’s the big deal? Is that supposed to make us jump with joy?

  32. When the “support wall” no longer supports the house, the house will fall! ….

  33. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, affidavits • attesting • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • fabricating • false information • false sworn documents • foreclose • illicit business practices • improper statements • imp, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  34. What I don’t get is if we are paying (were) and they were making interests off our product we were also ‘investors’ in a sense because it wasn’t really mortgage products but securities products so why wouldn’t the person who signed the documents be recognized as a quasi investor as well – after all at the end of it all they make $100,000 to millions of dollars from interest paid by homeowners into a securities scheme – let’s remove the title ‘homeowner’ and calls us what we were – enablers – we facilitated these securities transactions thus we should be recognized as investors – albeit quasi . . .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: