AP Fannie, Freddie and BOA set to Reduce Principal and Payments

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

Partly as a result of the recent settlement with the Attorneys General and partly because they have run out of options and excuses, the banks are reducing principal and offering to reduce payments as well. What happened to the argument that we can’t reduce principal because it would be unfair to homeowners who are not in distress? Flush. It was never true. These loans were based on fake appraisals at the outset, the liens were never perfected and the banks are staring down a double barreled shotgun: demands for repurchase from investors who correctly allege and can easily prove that the loans were underwritten to fail PLUS the coming rash of decisions showing that the mortgage lien never attached to the land. The banks have nothing left. BY offering principal reductions they get new paperwork that allows them to correct the defects in documentation and they retain the claim of plausible deniability regarding origination documents that were false, predatory, deceptive and fraudulent. 

Fannie, Freddie are set to reduce mortgage balances in California

The mortgage giants sign on to Keep Your Home California, a $2-billion foreclosure prevention program, after state drops a requirement that lenders match taxpayer funds used for principal reductions.

By Alejandro Lazo

As California pushes to get more homeowners into a $2-billion foreclosure prevention program, some Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac borrowers may see their mortgages shrunk through principal reduction.

State officials are making a significant change to the Keep Your Home California program. They are dropping a requirement that banks match taxpayers funds when homeowners receive mortgage reductions through the program.

The initiative, which uses federal funds from the 2008 Wall Street bailout to help borrowers at risk of foreclosure, has faced lackluster participation and lender resistance since it was rolled out last year. By eliminating the requirement that banks provide matching funds, state officials hope to make it easier for homeowners to get principal reductions.

The participation by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, confirmed Monday, could provide a major boost to Keep Your Home California.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own about 62% of outstanding mortgages in the Golden State, according to the state attorney general’s office. But since the program was unveiled last year, neither has elected to participate in principal reduction because of concerns about additional costs to taxpayers.

Only a small number of California homeowners — 8,500 to 9,000 — would be able to get mortgage write-downs with the current level of funds available. But given the previous opposition to these types of modifications by the two mortgage giants, housing advocates who want to make principal reduction more widespread hailed their involvement.

“Having Fannie and Freddie participate in the state Keep Your Home principal reduction program would be a really important step forward,” said Paul Leonard, California director of the Center for Responsible Lending. “Fannie and Freddie are at some level the market leaders; they represent a large share of all existing mortgages.”

The two mortgage giants were seized by the federal government in 2008 as they bordered on bankruptcy, and taxpayers have provided $188 billion to keep them afloat.

Edward J. DeMarco, head of the federal agency that oversees Fannie and Freddie, has argued that principal reduction would not be in the best interest of taxpayers and that other types of loan modifications are more effective.

But pressure has mounted on DeMarco to alter his position. In a recent letter to DeMarco, congressional Democrats cited Fannie Mae documents that they say showed a 2009 pilot program by Fannie would have cost only $1.7 million to implement but could have provided more than $410 million worth of benefits. They decried the scuttling of that program as ideological in nature.

Fannie and Freddie last year made it their policy to participate in state-run principal reduction programs such as Keep Your Home California as long as they or the mortgage companies that work for them don’t have to contribute funds.

Banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to participate in widespread principal reductions. Lenders argue that such reductions aren’t worth the cost and would create a “moral hazard” by rewarding delinquent borrowers.

As part of a historic $25-billion mortgage settlement reached this year, the nation’s five largest banks agreed to reduce the principal on some of the loans they own.

Since then Fannie and Freddie have been a major focus of housing advocates who argue that shrinking the mortgages of underwater borrowers would boost the housing market by giving homeowners a clear incentive to keep paying off their loans. They also say that principal reduction would reduce foreclosures by lowering the monthly payments for underwater homeowners and giving them hope they would one day have more equity in their homes.

“In places that are deeply underwater, ultimately those loans where you are not reducing principal, they are going to fail anyway,” said Richard Green of USC’s Lusk Center for Real Estate. “So you are putting off the day of reckoning.”

The state will allocate the federal money, resulting in help for fewer California borrowers than the 25,135 that was originally proposed. The $2-billion program is run by the California Housing Finance Agency, with $790 million available for principal reductions.

Financial institutions will be required to make other modifications to loans such as reducing the interest rate or changing the terms of the loans.

The changes to the program will roll out in early June, officials with the California agency said. The agency will increase to $100,000 from $50,000 the amount of aid borrowers can receive.

Spokespeople for the nation’s three largest banks — Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. — said they were evaluating the changes. BofA has been the only major servicer participating in the principal reduction component of the program.

85 Responses

  1. To bad all the BIG banks aren’t working with save your home california in providing principal reduction in California- Like WELLS FARGO A BANK that has its roots in California.
    Wells Fargo won’t work with me on a principal reductions on my loan which they don’t own the loan …Freddie MAC does and they have agreed to work with mortgage holders …So what is the hold up..
    They have decided to work with me on a interest reduction but that doesn’t help with my underwater loan. Which if the economy does come back in california in the next 10 years I might break even. Questions is will my social security be able to pay the loan.. NOT…
    So guess eventually I will wind up loosing my house and all my hard work gone, So in a couple of years when I have to retire guess I will be living off California, maybe Socail Security, my kids and Welfare…
    Thank You Politician, Big Business and Banks.

  2. Amazing issues here. I’m very happy to see your post. Thank you a lot and I’m taking a look forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?

  3. @John gault,

    Remember: oftentimes, reality is stranger than fiction…

  4. BSE,

    It is not a question of being right or wrong. What I have found is that:

    1) There have been many, many more cases filed in BK than as an attack in federal court;
    2) If we were to look at the statistics on how many bankruptcy cases allowed the homeowners to stay in the house, we would find that there are very few and far between. What happens is that they get a lot of publicity but the numbers don’t necessarily agree with you;
    3) Most cases filed in federal court end up settling before trial, usually subject to a non-disclosure agreement; we, therefore, don’t know what the terms of the settlement are (bank giving up the house, homeowner being compensated enough to make up for the torment he was put through, attorney’s fees, compensatory damages, etc. It all depend how the complaint was worded);
    4) BK limits the outcome: debts are discharged, sometimes the house is too and the homeowner gets to stay and can file for quiet title but, except for the very public cases such as in NY and in Ohio, not many have had that outcome, including among the cases fought by heavy weights like Max Gardner. All too often, some kind of mod is negotiated. If you listen to Mandelman’s podcast of Max gardner, you will get that confoirmation: even he doesn’t get the expected results often.

    It’s a decision one has to research before taking. And BK demands that you comply with certain conditions which not all homeowners behind in their payments can fulfill. BK is not for everyone. Nor is federal court. Without zeroing on one or the other, it is impossible to determine ahead of time what the outcome will be.

    What matters is to get the case into court.

  5. The very interesting movie “Margin Call” (released last year, I think) was supposedly a look back at Lehman. But today, it seems much, much more prophetic regarding Chase and Dimon, especially since in the movie it’s a woman’s head that ultimately does the rolling (just like reported today re: JPMC). In fact, call me nuts but all the same, the movie so closely mirrors JPMC, I can’t help wondering if this JPMC loss were actually known but they managed to keep a lid on it for quite awhile. If that’s true, they had help.
    In the movie, the ‘fictional’ company willfully attempts to and does dump gazillions of known-to-be worthless paper on other entities. Anyone know if this happened at Lehman?
    Why are all these ceo types jumping ship? Is it a giant house-cleaning motivated by a very big stick? Or is it the jumpers own volition for the writing on the wall? Maybe it’s both. Either way, I sure hate to think that anyone deserving physical contact with the big stick may avoid it by disappearing.

  6. Enraged

    Not to say your wrong. But I have seen many cases shot down in Federal court and more cases gaining traction in BK court.

  7. A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

    The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”

    Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”

    Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, “What do you want it to equal”?

    Case closed.

  8. @Joann,

    You are right that filing in federal court against the servicer/bank tends to stop them right in their tracks. That’s what i did and they have never countered in foreclosure, even though I haven’t paid for 2 years. In addition, filing in federal allows you much more discovery than bankruptcy. I suspect that the reason they haven’t countered is that they can’t document any relationship between them and my house (I know I can’t). Lastly, you can always amend your action by adding defendants as you go, which is not feasible in BK.

    What you can also get back in federal court is your attorney fees. You can’t in BK. And if you add a count of negligence and/or breach of contract, you can obtain damages that are not available in BK. Go for it. The most important is that you file something and get on record. Once you’re past the original motion to dismiss (automatic knee jerk response from the servicer) it becomes a lot easier. You live in the house, you don’t pay and whatever you would have sent to the servicer, you pay an attorney with it. That’s what a lot of people do. that’s the only way for most of us.

  9. johngault

    I thought you would be interested in the comment to Neil’s article:


    “Summer Lakes, on September 6, 2011 at 11:00 pm said:

    Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding is the best way for anyone facing foreclosure. I suggest a chapter 7 filing. The reason for chapter 7 is the trustee must file abandonment of property, immediately thereafter is when you should file the adversarial complaint. If trustee fails to abandon the property and you win quiet title the trustee can pursue the property to pay off the creditors. The trustee can take over the adversary if the asset “real Property” hasnt been abandoned. More details are listed at http://www.bklawsuit.com.
    Finding an attorney that knows this strategy is like finding a needle in a haystack.”

    Also adding to my post below DOE’S not to be forgotten.Unknown and contingent amount.

  10. Thanks johngault. I really do not wish to file for bankruptcy even though relatively simple in my case and wasn’t considering it until I saw Neil’s post in the links to the right.


    It made sense and seemed like the right way to approach it. One thing he says about a pro se filing the AP:

    “Remember that whether you go straight into Federal Civil Court or Federal bankruptcy Court, which is a different division, and you are NOT represented by counsel, the Judge must do the legal research himself to determine the merit of your claims.”

    This is not true in state court and state court in CA is polluted by Calvo.

    “If you are represented by counsel you need to make damn sure he knows what he is doing. Most bankruptcy lawyers don’t know an adversary proceeding or TILA action from egg on the wall. They have no experience with it.”

    When I said sincere I meant legitmate claim backed up by actual and specific evidence – which I have – not frivolous or creative or wasting time or just delaying the inevitable and thus thrown out or ignored.

    It makes sense to me to list the DOT beneficiary who is also on the NOD and the NOTS. List the amount on the NOTS with a note “contingient’ or some such thing or as Neil phrased it: “state the amount of the loan as a contingent liability to them” Then also list the trust along with their indentured trustee as listed on the ADOT (not on NOD or NOTS) as unknown or contingent amount.
    Then list the servicer because he says he had a beneficial interest he could assign to the trust “For Value Received” in the ADOT as unknown and contingent amount. The amounts paid in the past to these different parties need to be determined. The amounts due these different parties are unknown.

    I really may not go this route or I may really be forced to because of no other option when time is now short but I do not mind calling their bluff right up front at the outset. Let them file the motion for releif – the AP showing the controversy is already of record (with evidence). That is what I was thinking. They might not even file the motion for releif but if they do it would make my day and the AP if well written with evidence would be a reason for the judge to refuse the motion. If not I would have the satisfaction that I did my best, it is of record and take the lumps but I would have at least delayed the process for a few months and got a hearing in Federal court which is what I want.

    Violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) is a powerful tool that I don’t think attorneys have figured out yet. The statatory penalties are not dependant on proving harm and a way for them to be paid relatively easily. There is precedent in CA that the state claims for wrongful foreclosure and even quiet title fall in the federal jurisdiction because they are pendent on the federal claim for 15 1641 g. There is good reason for the penalty. In CA for instance, it is the only protection against outright theft by just anyone available and it relates to the request for beneficiary statement in the state code (I am thinking) another protectection in a non-judicial state. There is no other. Violation can lead to fraud (and does).

    In my case there is between $9000 to $12,000 plus attorney fees that can be claimed in federal statatory violations not dependant on proving harm for these. An attorney could be paid from this initially. I wish there was one who would do this on contingency.

    I really would rather just file in federal court and not file bankruptcy. Which stops the foreclosure more effectively at least in the short term – maybe it is bankruptcy. However legitimizing a debt to a pretender is not something I wish to do. I am not saying there is no debt. I am saying the foreclosing entity does not currently have the power of sale and their is no debt owed him, no default to him and paying him or surrendering the home to him does not release the lien.

  11. SoFla Woman’s 2-Year Battle Gets Mortgage Wiped Out

    Castro said the signatures on her foreclosure documents appeared to have been signed by different people.

    Read more at http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/SoFla-Womans-2-Year-Battle-Gets-Mortgage-Wiped-Out-150863425.html

  12. MSFraud keeps track of all mortgage-related articles for the past 10 years. If you look at the past couple of months, things are definitely moving in the right direction.


    Oh! And apparently, Chase’s exposure in not just $2 Billions but… $206 Billions! Oops! Jamie boy might not get a bonus this year after all… and since all those entitites are intertwined, I wonder how many of them might just collapse. Where the hell is Warren Buffett when you need him?

  13. oops – It may be that after a bankster files a mtn for relief from stay, regardless of whether or not a debtor files an AP, the debtor may still have to file an objection to the mtn for relief from stay in the bk case.
    I don’t remember. Ask a qualified attorney. That sort of seems like double duty, but it might be so nonetheless.

  14. Well, heck. If you file bk and then file an AP (or even if you don’t file an AP or other suit), if you ever intend to go after a bankster for bad behavior, you must list the potential claim on your schedule and then probably get your bk trustee to abandon your claim. Or, if he or she likes your claim, he or she may want to join your action if it’s brought in the bk forum as an AP. A trustee is more likely to abandon the claim than join it, seeing no value to your estate (read: think you’ll fail imo) Almost everything you own in the way of an asset on the very date of the ‘bk petition’ (that’s what it’s called because it’s just a petition from a debtor until the bk is approved), even if potential, belongs to your bk estate generally with limited exceptions, like a homestead exemption, for example. (I think certain -key word – personal injury awards, for instance, may be exempt) As to the amt of that potential claim to list, consult an attorney! I think I read that listing 1k as the amt suffices, but don’t count on it. Do your own research or consult an attorney.
    Consult an attorney about how to amend a bk schedule.
    If a bankster has already filed a f/c action which you believe is bs,
    then at the time you file your bk petition, you might want to show the claim for whatever you can find to legally call that bs action. But, this gives them a head’s up you don’t want to give them. You want to see their proof of claim first. Plus, if you only file the AP based on
    a bs proof of claim, since the bad act of filing a bs proof of claim is after you filed your petition, the claim regarding a bs poc belongs to you (and not your bk estate). You dont necessarily need an AP to file an objection to a proof of claim. You could file it as a mtn, I think, in the bk case. Procedural issues: read the book and or consult an attorney. There are some docs on false proofs of claim at scribd and elsewhere. It’s NOT nothing to file a false proof of claim. It’s actionable. There is a cut-off date in bk to file a proof of claim, called the ‘bar-date”. Once that date has come and gone, it takes either your agreement or permission (which takes a motion to which you could then object) of the court to amend a proof of claim, so one might wait til that bar date has come and gone to sqwauk about the proof of claim, but be ready.
    An AP against the current pretender does not result in clear title. You may get sanctions or another reward $$$, but it will not necessarily remove the encumberance from your home. You could fashion your AP as a quiet title, but I have no opinions for that as not my thing. Still, if you won that battle (AP for false proof of claim, what-not), you might get some funds to hire an A-list attorney to fight the war. Btw, one may file bk and then change one’s mind, but the court would be watchful for an abuse of process in using the bk court for the automatic stay bk imposes. Still, people file bk and then find it’s not for them.
    I’m not an attorney.

  15. For those of you who didn’t know, this is a good site to check on new developments state by state. They keep cases updated on cases and give the outcome.


    We’ve made progress in the past 2 years. It’s undeniable.

  16. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/SoFla-Womans-2-Year-Battle-Gets-Mortgage-Wiped-Out-150863425.html

    SoFla Woman’s 2-Year Battle Gets Mortgage Wiped Out
    Castro said the signatures on her foreclosure documents appeared to have been signed by different peopleBy Trina Robinson and Karen Franklin | Thursday, May 10, 2012 | Updated 9:43 AM EDT

  17. People are finally starting to wake up. Still not enough.


    Mortgage Litigation Activity Hits Record High, Expected To Continue Upward Trend

    April 19, 2012 Increasing foreclosure-related legal cases helped drive the Mortgage Litigation Index to a record high in the fourth quarter of 2011.

    The index tracked activity for 244 court cases involving mortgage companies — a 12-percent increase from the previous quarter and a 62-percent increase over the same period in 2010, according to online news site MortgageDaily.com.

    Litigation is expected to increase in the coming months as consumers, federal regulators and state agencies begin to examine other companies, Notaries and practices that were not bound by the terms of the National Mortgage Settlement, according to Dallas, Texas-based law firm Ballard Spahr analyzing the Index numbers.

    “The phenomena that led to the surge in litigation in the fourth quarter of 2011 has intensified in 2012,” noted Ballard Spahr partner Christopher Willis. Willis specifically expects to see more criminal indictments stemming from the “robo-signing” crisis.

    Foreclosure cases accounted for more than 40 percent of litigation in the final three months of 2011 — a 123-percent increase over the same period the previous year. In response to the Settlement and other legal and enforcement efforts, many companies are ensuring that their Notary employees and supervisors are trained in proper notarial procedure.

  18. As a strategic matter when one needs more time, it would be better to not file the AP right away. Wait til the bankster files a mtn for relief from stay. Banksters don’t generally file for relief from stay right after the bk petition. It’s usually a couple / few months later. If you wait and then file the AP at that time, par for the course, they will file a mtn to dismiss your AP and you have a time certain to respond. This all takes time. I’m not an attorney and this isn’t legal advice. Another advantage to waiting to file the AP is that you totally want to see who and how the proof of claim is filed. In fact, now that I think about it, this only makes sense.

  19. @ joann -lay impressions:

    Question: If you list the mortgage amount using the 3 to 4 “un-liquidated and unknown” amounts to the entities (as I count them – originator – trust – servicer and doe) do you risk having it rejected when you may be very short on the timing. (Please understand the question in the context of the article because the article makes sense to me and I don’t think it would be hard to briefly explain to anyone – clerk or judge asking why it was entered that way – very simply and sincerely with understanding –“unknown” amount to any or all of the above….and in that way not validate or legitimize anything).

    jg: if you list on a bk schedule your original lender and DOES 1 – 100 with amt unknown, what does a court make of this? Not sure. Art of the deal, I’d say.
    Or if you just list “unknown” as lender, what then? Dunno. A consideration, tho, might be the fact that those schedules are used to notify creditors of your bk and failure to notify a party could be very problematic. List ABC as servicer with “lender unknown”?
    A bk court is interested in your financial picture and a debtor is interested in the same of course, but making sure no one can scream no-notice. Is one obligated to notify a servicer? I would think the law would say yes.
    He says and again please read these quotes in the context of the article):

    “Then you should file an adversary proceeding or action under TILA, RESPA, fraud etc. making all appropriate claims for rescission, refund of interest, points, loss of value in the property etc. “

    Question: Is this “adversary proceeding” done in the bankruptcy court (the step in the above quote)? Or somewhere else? Can you file it immediately after you file the petition?

    jg: an AP is filed in a bk court only. It’s a federal lawsuit related to a BK.

    Question: Is there a form for “adversary proceeding (as in above quote)? How exactly would you format the doc? I mean the format accepted by the court (name title form ect) not neces’sarily the contents but feel free to weigh in on this also if anyone wishes.

    jg: the form of an AP is the same form as any other other lawsuit, except you must reference the BK case # and the version of BK (chapter 7, 13, 11, whatever) in the caption. There are generally specific forms which must be used when filing an AP and these may be found at your BK court’s website.

    He also says: “The second option, if you are faced with foreclosure, sale or eviction is just file the TILA action in Federal court and then go the State Court and ask the State Court to issue a stay because there is pending litigation in Federal Court.” (and again please read it in the context of the article)

    Question: Does he mean instead of filing the bankruptcy or in addition to the bankruptcy – for instance do this before filing the bankruptcy or in addition to after filing?– unclear about this. This state is however more friendly at the federal level than it is at the state level when it comes to issues of standing and beneficiary status. This is true in the federal bankruptcy court division and in the federal court division. Non-judicial DOT state.

    jg: It looks like he meant instead of filing bk, file a tila or other action (complaint) in another venue (not bk court, not an AP). You may file a tila complaint in bk court, also, as an AP, I believe. If one filed bk and then also filed a suit in another forum, chances are it would be sent to the bk court. The other forum would cede jurisdiction to the bk court, I think.

    Question: What does he mean “issue a stay” in the quote above? Is there a specific doc or format for that assuming he does not mean “Complaint”.

    jg: in a bk forum, a bankster asks for “relief from stay”. When a person files bk, there is an automatic “stay” imposed as a matter of law. This means no action may be taken to collect anything of value from the debtor until the stay is terminated, which it will be in due course. Secured lenders file for relief (this is a mtn
    in a bk proceeding) , meaning they want to be able to pursue the thing of value, generally the home, i.e., foreclosure. The debtor who does not want the bankster to get this relief from stay may do one of two things: 1) file an objection to the
    bankster’s mtn for relief from stay or file an AP. An AP may be filed as soon as the bk is filed OR when the bk proceeding has been given a case number (which is done right away as far as I know). Ask your local bk court clerk.

    Question: If time is of the essence and you also need to stay in house for as long as possible – Chapter 7 may not delay it very long – and perhaps you are judgement proof – but the entire picture could be presented at the hearing for relief of stay (just because you can and just because you wish to for the record and just because it is sincerely why you think there should be no releif of stay) even if there is no relief of stay…..

    jg: the bankster will contend certain defenses to a mtn for relief from stay require an AP and that these defenses can’t be heard in the context of a mtn for relief, which imo is generally crap. If nothing else, they can probably be heard in an evidentiary hearing in the bk case. If you don’t want those additional arguments, just file the AP. A lot of bk attorneys are cattle-movers, and not litigators, and so they don’t like AP’s because it involves litigation they are not equipped to handle (procedure, rules of evidence, etc). An AP is as I said a federal suit and its procedural rules take their root in the
    Federal Rules of Procedure (not state) and an AP relies on the Federal Rules of Evidence. This has turned into a nightmare for homeowners trying to defend their homes: bk attorneys are not by and large litigators and other attorneys don’t know the BK rules.

    I can’t answer the question re: having more time in a 13 v a 7, but I
    think a 13 gets one more time. Maybe an attorney will deign to explain this. PS Courts aren’t interested in sincerity per se: they are interested in well-made legal arguments. If one says Bankster 7653 didn’t do this without ‘mentioning’ on what legal basis you claim Bankster 7653 should’ve done a thing, well, not going anywhere generally. What violation has occurred? Like if a bankster has submitted a deficient proof of claim, so what? One has to know and recite the so what and one needs the rules on that to do so. No one should even think of filing an action without a set of those rules imo (and I only say this because of the acute shortage of qualified attorneys available to help homeowners) . They’re on line somewhere.
    If an action is filed in a venue other than a bk court, there is no stay and then one must plead for a temporary injunction to restrain the
    other guy from moving forward with foreclosure, which is a can of worms. Not a lawyer, but I think this req for injunction should be done as a mtn and not as part of the complaint itself.

  20. Broker lawyers to be investigated for cooperating in sale of NOTES as Alternative Investments Buyer/INVESTORS, conceal Promissory NOTE Sales Contract in Exchange for DEED, exchange like kind property by REO Broker Secondary Market Transfer of ‘mortgages’ as NOTES NOT LOANS, Purchase Groups, Associations, e.g. Lawyers Title Corp receive consideration paid outside of closing as allowed by HUD and RESPA exceptions BUYER/Seller do what they want in global private exchanges




















  22. The Peter Principle, also called “syndrome promotion Focus” is a principle on the organization hierarchy. According to this principle, “every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”

    Jamie boy, time to get off the train. 🙂
    On your way out, please grab Moynihan, Stumpf, Holder, Geithner, Summer, etc. Here is the list. Now, you all go play outside like good little boys fraon Harvard. And you’ll be quiet while adults clean up your messes.


    JPMorgan CEO says bank reacted badly to red flags

    “In an interview broadcast on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” television program, Dimon said bank executives were “completely wrong” in public statements they made in April after being challenged over the trades in media reports.

    “We got very defensive. And people started justifying everything we did,” Dimon said. “We told you something that was completely wrong a mere four weeks ago.”

    “Dimon did not explain in the interview why the trades went wrong. He had declined on Thursday, too, to describe details of the trades when pressed by the analysts. He said the positions were first designed to hedge risks in the bank’s investments.”


    Question: So while the whole country focuses their attention on “Real Estate” , the real money is these other investments? Do they have to disclose this information to anyone?

  24. Duh…!

  25. […] Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: attorneys general, Bank of America, Bank of America Corp, BOA, BofA, borrower, California Housing Finance Agency, Edward J DeMarco, fake appraisals, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure prevention, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, housing market, housing prices, JP Morgan Chase & Co, Keep Your Home California, Lender Liability, LOAN MODIFICATION, Mortgage, mortgage lien, mortgage meltdown, mortgages, origination documents, predatory lending, principal reduction, reduce foreclosures, reduce mortgage balances, reduce payments, reduce principal and payments, reducing principal, Richard Green, settlement, underwater homeowners, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, Wall Street bailout, Wells Fargo & Co Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  26. @Nabulla,

    Pretty stumpful story if true. I thought those happened only down south… and only to Mr. Tibbs. Tells you how much I know of the US of A.

    Loved the symphony. I shall, this minute, forward it to everyone I know.


    So, Prez Hollande told GM (apparently, they have a plant in France somewhere) that they would NOT be allowed to lay off employees unless it was absolutely economically necessary. Getting rid of perfectly good workers to line management’s pockets is not acceptable as long as the plant is making a profit. Fox is up in arms about the “socialist tyrant”. It’s going to get interesting…

  27. @ Enraged….

    “Enraged, on May 9, 2012 at 2:29 pm said:
    ….Are you going to PA on 7/4?”.

    Doubt it. Probably be hanging out in the Wall Street district waiting for the NYPD to bring me coffee, donuts, mace, pepper spray, plastic handcuffs and my ’40 acres and a mule’. Hopefully, I won’t be sitting in Central Booking or on Riker’s Island waiting for transport to the Gulag or a FEMA sanctuary “for my own protection”.

    What’s happening in PA on 7/4? I try to stay clear of PA as much as possible – don’t get along to well with the rednecks in some parts. Be careful if you’re driving through. Gotta tell you this – a TRUE story. Early ’70’s in my soph year at Pitt U., driving to Bklyn to have Thankgiving dinner with family. About 11pm, stopped at roadside diner for some coffee. Took sip of the coffee, it was cold. Complained to the Waitress. She walked over and STUCK HER FINGER IN THE COFFEE. “You must be crazy boy, that there coffee ain’t cold”. Got up and headed for the door. “Hold on boy, what about this coffee?”. “What about it?”. “You ain’t paid for it.” “I’m not paying for that”. Jumped in my car and drove off. About 15 min. out, pulled over by local Sheriff. Took my papers, made me sit in car. About half hour later, truck pulls up with a dead deer in it. Told me to get out of my car, frisk me, handcuff, back of police cruiser. I sat there watching as the two “officers of the law” and a farmer drag the deer to the middle of the road and pull my car up behind the carcass. Took pictures and me to local jail. Enraged, I stayed in that jail for FOUR MONTHS before I even seen a “Judge”. No phone calls, letters, family didn’t know where I was. Eating venison at EVERY MEAL. Judge gave me “time served”, took my car (Mustang Mach I, loaded for bear), bus ticket to Pittsburgh. “Thank You You Honor”.

    So, if by chance, you happen to pass through Eatonville (or burg, I forgot), Pa. Give them a message for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJgyuAu6eo



  29. hman

    I have tried just about everything. I live in a pocket of 2500 homes. There are 92 homes in my neighborhood. All are gone but 4 of us.
    We are $ 200,000 upside down based on a purchase in 2004. I figure I made double payments over the last 7 years at least $ 1000 / mnth due to a false appraisal. So $ 12,000 / yr they fleeced X 7 = $ 84,000 plus my $ 30,000 deposit that they immediately stole upon closing and $ 75,000 remodel for floors , plaint landscape and drive way replacement that the build fk’d up and other things. These bastards owe me money ..I will not walk without a fight. That fact is I have tried everything. Nothing works in the corrupt state of Arizona. Maybe everyone should walk away, FIRE Jan BREWER !
    Keep us posted


    1990’S THROUGH 2007 TITLE RESOURCE GROUP, PHH, CENDANT, US HOME MORTGAGE, PURDENTIAL, AND Radian has partnered with Title Resource Group TRG

    Radian began securing the foundation of American homeownership more than 30 years ago.

    The Radian group of companies are separately capitalized but share a unified strategic focus. Our roots formed in 1977 with the founding of our predecessor company, CMAC. In 1992, CMAC went public, then merged with Amerin in 1999 to form Radian. Since uniting our principal operating entities under the Radian brand in 2002, we’ve increased our breadth and depth of services and customer base. Today, Radian provides private mortgage insurance and related risk management products and services to mortgage lenders nationwide

    Our financial guaranty business has provided insurance and reinsurance of municipal bonds, structured finance transactions and other credit-based risks, and has provided credit protection on various asset classes through financial guarantees and credit default swaps

    Radian Asset Assurance Inc.
    c/o Assured Guaranty Corp.
    31 West 52nd Street
    New York, New York 10019


    Word Mark CMAC

    Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S:




    FIRST USE: 19770500.


    Serial Number 73664623

    Filing Date June 4, 1987


    Registration Number 1521221

    Registration Date January 17, 1989

    Owner (REGISTRANT)

    Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED

    Attorney of Record TIMOTHY J. LOCKHART

    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK

    Register PRINCIPAL

    Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).

    Radian’s history.




    Radian increases focus and resources on its core mortgage insurance business.


    Radian discontinues writing new financial guaranty business.


    Radian and MGIC announce and ultimately terminate plans to merge and form MGIC Radian Financial Group.


    Radian establishes presence in Australia.


    Radian forms relationship with Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited.


    Radian receives authorization by the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority to create subsidiary, Radian Financial Products Limited.


    Financial Guaranty subsidiaries, Radian Reinsurance and Radian Asset Assurance, merge into Radian Asset Assurance Inc.


    Radian receives authorization by U.K.’s Financial Services Authority to create subsidiary, Radian Asset Assurance Limited.


    Principal operating entities unite under the Radian brand.


    Radian acquires Enhance Financial Services Group, including ownership interests in C-BASS and Sherman Financial.


    CMAC and Amerin merge, forming Radian and its MI subsidiary.


    CMAC goes public.

    Commonwealth Mortgage Assurance Company (CMAC), Radian’s predecessor company, is founded.

  31. WAKE UP!


  32. They aren’t going down alone. They will make absolutely sure to take down with them every one of their creditors.

    Positively stumpful! Hopefully, it will make a few bank attorney firms think… Might even grow them a conscience…


    As Dewey Collapses, Partners and Retirees Face Big Financial LossesBy TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
    Published: May 11, 2012
    For the law partners at Dewey & LeBoeuf, losing their jobs may be the least of their worries.

    Ángel Franco/The New York Times
    David P. Bicks, a partner at LeBoeuf for nearly 40 years, leads a group of retirees fighting for pensions.
    DealBook: A Dewey Bond Offering Made No Mention of Partner Guarantees (May 10, 2012)
    Common Sense: Dewey’s Fall Underscores Law Firms’ New Reality (May 5, 2012) They are likely to lose the money they were required to invest in the firm. They could lose their pensions. They may have to give back money they have already been paid. And even if creditors eventually agree to accept a small portion of what they are owed, the partners may owe taxes on the forgiven debt.

    Many partners have found new jobs. Still, a new reality is sinking in: not only will they lose the sizable sums tied up in the firm, they may actually owe money. And that has resulted in difficult conversations with spouses, phone calls to advisers and even for-sale signs on front lawns.

    “I tell them that the minute they leave my office or end our phone call, they should immediately contact a personal bankruptcy lawyer and take steps to protect themselves,” said Jerome Kowalski, a lawyer who is consulting with some Dewey partners and has been involved in the demise of previous law firms.

    Dewey’s staff assistants and office administrators, as well as its retirees and retirees’ widows, will be caught in a collapse of the firm, too.

    “I have to drastically cut down on my lifestyle, sell my home and lower my overhead in order to have my I.R.A. last me the rest of my life,” said Grace Hobelman, a widow in her middle 70s who owns a town house in the affluent Kalorama section of Washington.

    She said she feared she would lose her annual pension, which was about half of what she received before the death of her husband, Carl, a partner who worked at LeBoeuf for more than 40 years.

    A legal assistant who has worked at the firm for several years, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she still works at Dewey, said that employees who had 401(k) retirement plans — the firm matched their contributions up to 3 percent of their salary — could take those with them, but little else.

    “There are staff members who have been with the firm for over 30 years and are being ushered out without a proper package — well, without a package at all,” she said.

    Dewey & LeBoeuf would certainly not be the first law firm to fail in recent years. But it would be the largest — more than 2,000 employees worldwide at its height — with a stable of top lawyers in a range of fields. Dewey’s roots go back 100 years, while LeBoeuf’s date to 1929.

    Their merger in 2007 helped sow the seeds of the firm’s current problems, with top partners guaranteed lofty payouts worth millions of dollars that the firm, in the end, could not afford.

    Morton A. Pierce, a former vice chairman of the firm, underscored what was at stake for the top partners in his resignation letter last Friday. Mr. Pierce, one of the highest-paid partners, who had a contract paying him $8 million a year, informed Dewey that he was owed $61 million, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

    At the same time, at least one group of retired partners from the legacy LeBoeuf firm has started to fight for their pensions. David P. Bicks, a partner at LeBoeuf for nearly 40 years who remains of counsel, meaning he is available for consultation, is acting as one of their representatives. He said the majority of their pensions were unfunded — meaning they were paid from revenue — and not backed by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. He said about 75 current and former partners were receiving payouts, and collected about $6 million in total last year.

    “I have been fielding calls from these people and it is just tragic,” Mr. Bicks said. “These are people who built a great institution and who had nothing remotely to do with the events that have brought the firm to its knees. Their questions to me are always, ‘How could this have happened?’ ”

    There are 1,788 participants in three Dewey & LeBoeuf pensions that are insured by the pension agency. Those pensions are 59 percent funded with unfunded liabilities of more than $8o million. On Thursday, the pension agency said that it would take over the plans to try to collect as much money as possible to fill that gap, and that many pensioners would be covered by its insurance, up to certain limits.

    As for the current partners at the firm, which was structured as a limited liability partnership, they are generally not individually responsible for the firm’s obligations. But in the event of a bankruptcy (or perhaps even outside of a bankruptcy), they could face certain claims. They are also last in line to be repaid anything owed them, behind banks and creditors.

    That means partners are unlikely to recover any money they were required to keep with the firm. (In recent years, partners had to keep 36 percent of their target compensation in the account, according to Mr. Bicks, although they sometimes borrowed the money to meet the requirement.) Normally, partners would take their funds with them when they left.

    It is also likely that partners may only be able to take losses on their tax returns in small increments, said Noel P. Brock, a tax lawyer, assistant professor at West Virginia University and the former partnership tax practice leader at Grant Thornton. He said the partners might also be required to pay taxes on canceled debts of the firms, since that is generally treated as income.

    And if the firm were found to be insolvent, say, at some point last year, the bankruptcy trustee or the firm’s creditors could make a claim that the partners were paid too much and try to recover the excess. Or creditors could try to collect profit made on cases that partners began at Dewey but took with them to a new employer — known as unfinished business, according to Allan B. Diamond, who served as the Chapter 11 trustee in the bankruptcy at Howrey L.L.P.

    There is not much the partners can do to shield themselves now. “In my experience, most of the time partners will end up settling with either a bankruptcy trustee or a creditor’s committee,” said Tracy L. Klestadt, a bankruptcy lawyer who represented former law partners at Thelen L.L.P. and Heller Ehrman L.L.P. in the bankruptcies of those firms.

    Annette W. Jarvis, a lawyer who is one of the co-heads of the finance and restructuring department at Dorsey & Whitney, represents about 45 of the 75 LeBoeuf retirees who stand to lose most of their pensions. She said a bankruptcy filing would at least lift the “cloak of secrecy.”

    “It’s a real problem that we can’t get any information from the firm to let us know if things are being done appropriately,” she said.

    Emily Bond, 79, has also had trouble getting answers. She retired in 1989 from legacy LeBoeuf, where she was the office administrator for nearly 30 years. Her annual pension is $63,000 but she said she might lose about two-thirds of that.

    “The partners are, I think, guilty at least of selfishness for not paying the required funding,” said Mrs. Bond, of Winter Park, Fla. “I hope they feel ashamed.”

  33. Countdown to auction.


    Please read Neil’s article from 2008 (below) and if anyone has updates current with today’s climate please post if so inclined.

    Please read the article first to understand the context.

    Assume there is no attorney willing to do this and or assume there is no money to pay an attorney……

    He mentions Chapter 13 .
    Question: Does it hold up in context of Chapter 7 in part or full as per article discussion?

    Question: If you list the mortgage amount using the 3 to 4 “un-liquidated and unknown” amounts to the entities (as I count them – originator – trust – servicer and doe) do you risk having it rejected when you may be very short on the timing. (Please understand the question in the context of the article because the article makes sense to me and I don’t think it would be hard to briefly explain to anyone – clerk or judge asking why it was entered that way – very simply and sincerely with understanding –“unknown” amount to any or all of the above….and in that way not validate or legitimize anything).

    He says and again please read these quotes in the context of the article):

    “Then you should file an adversary proceeding or action under TILA, RESPA, fraud etc. making all appropriate claims for rescission, refund of interest, points, loss of value in the property etc. “

    Question: Is this “adversary proceeding” done in the bankruptcy court (the step in the above quote)? Or somewhere else? Can you file it immediately after you file the petition?

    Question: Is there a form for “adversary proceeding (as in above quote)? How exactly would you format the doc? I mean the format accepted by the court (name title form ect) not necessarily the contents but feel free to weigh in on this also if anyone wishes.

    He also says: “The second option, if you are faced with foreclosure, sale or eviction is just file the TILA action in Federal court and then go the State Court and ask the State Court to issue a stay because there is pending litigation in Federal Court.” (and again please read it in the context of the article)

    Question: Does he mean instead of filing the bankruptcy or in addition to the bankruptcy – for instance do this before filing the bankruptcy or in addition to after filing?– unclear about this. This state is however more friendly at the federal level than it is at the state level when it comes to issues of standing and beneficiary status. This is true in the federal bankruptcy court division and in the federal court division. Non-judicial DOT state.

    Question: What does he mean “issue a stay” in the quote above? Is there a specific doc or format for that assuming he does not mean “Complaint”.

    Question: If time is of the essence and you also need to stay in house for as long as possible – Chapter 7 may not delay it very long – and perhaps you are judgement proof – but the entire picture could be presented at the hearing for relief of stay (just because you can and just because you wish to for the record and just because it is sincerely why you think there should be no releif of stay) even if there is no relief of stay…..


    Strategic Comment: There are two ways for you stop foreclosure, sale and eviction dead in its tracks. One is to file bankruptcy under Chapter 13 which is an opportunity for debtors to reorganize their payments to creditors.

    •An automatic stay goes into effect immediately upon filing with the Bankruptcy Court. Creditors who say or do anything in furtherance of collecting a debt are committing a federal crime from the moment it is filed, whether they know about it or not.

    •However, the payments include fees to the Court and Trustee which exceeds 10% of what you pay into the Court for the benefit of your creditors, so since you are strapped for cash it further impedes your ability to work out a realistic plan.

    •Also for secured debts like mortgages, the lender can come into Bankruptcy court and ask the court to lift the automatic stay which in the past has been routinely granted and for the most part still is, UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING ELSE.
    •YOU SHOULD ALSO NAME, AS THE CREDITOR, THE ORIGINAL LENDER, and state the amount of the loan as a contingent liability to them. The fact is, in most cases, you have not been presented with proof of transfer of anything, nor seen any assignment, or what rights or obligations were picked up in transactions after your closing by third parties who own the servicing rights, or the mortgage or the note. The Trustee or other party coming into court or posting notices of sale on your property probably is getting his/her marching orders from someone who either doesn’t have or can’t prove they know the amounts you paid, to whom or what is currently due. PLACE THE BURDEN WHERE IT BELONGS — ON THEM.

    •Then you should state the present mortgage servicing entity to whom you are now sending your payments (this applies only where the loan has been sold which is true in 95% of the cases) as a contingent liability in an unknown or unliquidated amount.
    •Then you should add a creditor “john Doe” as also an unknown unliquidated debt as the possible owner of a security under which he has ownership of the mortgage and note.

    •Then you should file an adversary proceeding or action under TILA, RESPA, fraud etc. making all appropriate claims for rescission, refund of interest, points, loss of value in the property etc.

    If your case is handled in this way there is a higher probability that you will survive the motion for lifting of the stay as the movant will have to prove the chain of title and authority on the mortgage and note, thus giving rise the the issue of legal standing for them to standing in the courtroom at all.

    The second option, if you are faced with foreclosure, sale or eviction is just file the TILA action in Federal court and then go the State Court and ask the State Court to issue a stay because there is pending litigation in Federal Court. Usually State Court judges are more than happy to get the matter off their desks and thus grant your motion for stay, but they might not be under no obligation to do so.

    Remember that whether you go straight into Federal Civil Court or Federal bankruptcy Court, which is a different division, and you are NOT represented by counsel, the Judge must do the legal research himself to determine the merit of your claims. If you are represented by counsel you need to make damn sure he knows what he is doing. Most bankruptcy lawyers don’t know an adversary proceeding or TILA action from egg on the wall. They have no experience with it. Very few lawyers or judges know this area since it only became important in the last couple of years.

  34. Anyone here subjected to forced placed insurance by your bankster? Call your insurance company and find out what laws exist in your state to protect you. If your state has (and maybe even if not) “overinsurance” laws, the bankster may not require coverage in more than the dollar amt of replacement cost, in other words, not coverage of the loan amt per se.

    Washington state’s statute on overinsurance fyi

    Banksters use this trick to get other insurance, generally from a subsidiary with an absurd premium, and then because of the diff in this cost and what you pay into escrow, say you are behind on your payments = bs default.

    If your insurer will not help you (beyond providing the 10th copy of your dec sheet or policy), try another co. I just heard a story about USAA insurance helping a homeowner by setting the bankster straight.

    Since overinsurance laws exist in many states, apparently, prohibitting over insurance, I wonder if these or similar laws might implicate over-insurance in the form of default swaps…………(the overinsurance laws aren’t just to stop banksters from abusing homeowners; they’re there to preclude homeowners from the temptation of loss motivated by an overinsurance amt.)

  35. @hman,

    I wish to point something out, though: the case for which you provided the link was decided in October 2011. Since then, there has been an infamous “settlement” by AGs but, more importantly, a complaint spelling out each and every fraudulent action committed by the banks. It is official, common knowledge and in writing.

    Nothing can stop anyone from refering to that complaint in all news filings or to amend an older one by using the facts outlined in said complaint. It will make it harder and harder for judges to rule in favor of the banks. It is one thing not to be aware of the extent of the fraud. it is quite another to deliberately ignore it. Judges will find themselves more and more between a rock and a hard place. Something will have to give and it ain’t gona be us: we already gave it all and then some!

  36. I’m not sure the exact case. Here’s a link to a federal judge ruling MERS is legit.


    Also, Olga Cervantes v Country wide. I think this was at district & 9th circuit appeals?

    Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (United States District Court, District of Arizona)
    On September 24, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., dismissed all federal and state law claims made by three borrowers in a complaint filed against a group of defendants that included MERS. The court discussed whether MERS was a proper beneficiary but only in the context of whether its involvement constituted the tort of fraud on the borrowers. The court found the mere use of MERS was not common law fraud on the borrowers, finding that “Plaintiffs have failed to allege what effect, if any, listing the MERS system as a ‘sham’ beneficiary on the deed of trust had upon their obligations as borrowers.”[15]

    Finally, check Vasquez V Saxon & Deutsche. This case was fought at the SC & is unbelievable. I was shocked about this verdict.

    The big one now people in AZ are waiting for is for Hogan v Washington Mutual Bank. I believe it’s already been argued and we’re just waiting for a verdict. The certified question for review in Hogan v Washington is “Can a lender foreclose its deed of trust without owning the note which the deed of trust secures.”

    I don’t know why the SC has to even seriously answer this? It’ like asking can I assign the DOT w/o the note and foreclose? It would open the flood gates for foreclosure if this is decided against the homeowners. Can you imagine only having to provide proof of the deed with no proof of the debt it secures?

    AZ has not gone for the show me the note so I don’t see how this is really any different other than now the bankers won’t have to worry about the note being in issue for discovery & they would be free to assign the Deed without having to prove anything.

  37. @Enraged,

    You are right, it is the worst thing beyond anything any of us can imagine.

    beforeitsnews dot com reports

    Their Chief Investment Office made a series of trades which turned out horribly, and it resulted in a loss of over 2 billion dollars over the past 40 days. But 2 billion dollars is small potatoes compared to the vast size of the global derivatives market. It has been estimated that the the notional value of all the derivatives in the world is somewhere between 600 trillion dollars and 1.5 quadrillion dollars. Nobody really knows the real amount, but when this derivatives bubble finally bursts there is not going to be nearly enough money on the entire planet to fix things.

    This is big!

    Cliff High at half past human dot com had some interviews in February, one is February 22 2012. In that youtube has under the name webbotproject he predicted the derivatives market collapse in March. May is not too late, in my opinion.

    Their system will collapse by their own hands and by their own actions.

    I’m very interested in the definitions of the terms he selected for the conference call that revealed the bad news.

    It’s fitting that they have an Achilles (heel) behind these trades.

    Trespass Unwanted.

  38. @Trespass,

    Hate to mention it but we’re way past “egregious”. Actually, what was done was so bad that I don’t even think we have invented a word for it yet…

    How ’bout “Dimonish”? “Stumpful”? Yeah, I can see that: “Young man, what you just did is absolutely stumpful!” Def.: “Dimonish (see stumpful): so sociopathically toxic, wrong and bad as to deserve immediate removal from society and neutering of offsprings.”

  39. Legal definition of egregious at uslegal dot com

    Egregious cases are cases involving flagrant violation of human rights.

    The following are examples of case law on egregious cases:
    In an egregious case the prosecution stubbornly refuses to file a motion despite overwhelming evidence that the accuser’s assistance has been as substantial as to cry out for meaningful relief. Such cases should be rare because there are significant institutional incentives for the prosecution to exercise sound judgment and to act in good faith. [United States v. Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (10th Cir. 1991)]

    An egregious case arises when the defendant clearly has provided substantial and valuable assistance, but the Government has arbitrarily and in bad faith refused to make a motion for departure. [United States v. Martinez, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6033 (D. Cal. 1995)]

    freedictionary dot com

    Adj. 1. egregious – conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible; “a crying shame”; “an egregious lie”; “flagrant violation of human rights”; “a glaring error”; “gross ineptitude”; “gross injustice”; “rank treachery”

  40. News Report Details Attorney General Complaints at Florida Default/Ronald Wolfe And Associates
    May 12th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    It just never stops with these guys. You can change a name, but the leopard doesn’t lose his spots…

    And still Florida’s Attorney General does nothing.

    I particularly like the revelation from Ron Wolfe that he feels Florida Default will be vindicated, he’s confident there will be no consequence. Well, listen to the latest complaints:

    WFTV’s 9 Investigates looked into serious concerns about one of the biggest foreclosure law firms in the state.

    If the bank has foreclosed on your property or you were the tenant in a foreclosure, chances are you’ve heard of the Florida Default Law Group.

    But now, investigative reporter George Spencer has uncovered hundreds of complaints and a major state investigation.

    Read more at http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/9-investigates-fake-foreclosure-money/nN2Z7/

  41. @hman – could you please remind me of the AZ case wherein its SC ruled that MERS is legit?

  42. Close you damn account already, stop this unnecessarily long and painful agony and let’s put everyone out of misery!!!! They’re going down anyway; why wait any longer? People are up in arms but we’ve got all the tools we need.

    So, DO IT!


    Taibbi: Why You Should Care About JPMorgan Chase’s Gambling Losses
    13 commentsBy Susie Madrak

    Matt Taibbi with a good explanation of why we should be upset about JPMorgan Chase and their $2 billion in gambling losses (remember, Jamie Dimon’s saying at least $2 billion):

    If you’re wondering why you should care if some idiot trader (who apparently has been making $100 million a year at Chase, a company that has been the recipient of at least $390 billion in emergency Fed loans) loses $2 billion for Jamie Dimon, here’s why: because J.P. Morgan Chase is a federally-insured depository institution that has been and will continue to be the recipient of massive amounts of public assistance. If the bank fails, someone will reach into your pocket to pay for the cleanup. So when they gamble like drunken sailors, it’s everyone’s problem.

    Activity like this is exactly what the Volcker rule, which effectively banned risky proprietary trading by federally insured institutions, was designed to prevent. It will be argued that this trade was a technically a hedge, and therefore exempt from the Volcker rule. Not only does that explanation sound fishy to me (as Salmon notes, for Iksil’s trade to be a hedge, this would mean Chase had an equally giant and insane short bet on against corporate debt, which seems unlikely), but it’s sort of immaterial anyway: whether or not this bet technically violated the Volcker rule, it definitely violated the spirit of the law. Hedge or no hedge, we don’t want big, federally-insured, too-big-to-fail banks making giant nuclear-powered derivatives bets.

    This incident is certain to reignite the debate about Dodd-Frank and may undermine the broad effort to roll back the bill, which we wrote about in the latest issue of the magazine. Staffers on the Hill started mobilizing the instant the Chase news hit the airwaves yesterday, and you can bet we’ll hear more debate in the next few months about not only the Volcker Rule but the Lincoln Rule, which was designed to wall off risky swaps from the federally-insured side of these banks.

    I’ve heard from all sides today, with some thinking the Chase trade was Dodd-Frank compliant, and others saying it probably violated both the Volcker and the Lincoln rules.

    Either way, the incident underscored the basic problem. If J.P. Morgan Chase wants to act like a crazed cowboy hedge fund and make wild exacta bets on the derivatives market, they should be welcome to do so. But they shouldn’t get to do it with cheap cash from the Fed’s discount window, and they shouldn’t get to do it with money from the federally-insured bank accounts of teachers, firemen and other such real people. It’s a simple concept: you either get to be a bank, or you get to be a casino. But you can’t be both. If we don’t have rules to enforce that concept, we ought to get some.

    In the meantime, JPMorgan shares tanked with the news:

    JPMorgan Chase & Co lost $15 billion in market value and a notch in its credit ratings on Friday while a chorus of regulators and politicians reacted to its surprise $2 billion trading loss by demanding stiffer oversight for the banking industry.

    The loss by one of Wall Street’s most respected banks embarrassed chief executive Jamie Dimon, a leader lauded for steering his bank through the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis without reporting a loss.

    “We know we were sloppy. We know we were stupid. We know there was bad judgment,” Dimon said in an interview with NBC television to be broadcast on “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

  43. The bank’s shares plunged by almost 10% on Friday, wiping $14bn from its value. Democrat Senator Barney Frank said the scale of the mistakes “blows up” the argument against tighter rules.

    JPMorgan boss Jamie Dimon said the losses resulted from a strategy of hedging that was supposed to protect the bank from risk.

    But critics disputed his claims, alleging that such losses were more likely to have come from risky bets.

    “This is not a hedge,” said Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who helped frame the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act on financial regulation.

    “This was a major bet on the direction of the economy, and when those kind of bets are lost, we all pay the price.”

    I’d like to place a bet that Jamie et al had inside information that the election in France was going to have different outcome, and that they had bet the farm on that outcome. Any takers?

    Matt Weidner is gambling that Jamie boy may have committed securities fraud, by pumping up his company’s stock and position just a few weeks ago, failing to disclose these losses, then making a forced announcement a few days later exposing these enormous losses. Did he not know at the time that his London whale was beaching?

    Pass the popcorn. I want a front row seat to the TeeBee when he and his staff are hauled out in front of the cameras….wait…what’s that you say? They’re immune from United States laws? How comes this awful fate? They don’t believe in morals and scruples like the rest of us?

    You mean to say that they can manipulate the silver market, gamble taxpayer money, and toss people to the street with no just cause….because they’re Too Fucking Big To Fail?

    Sharpen the pitchforks folks. If the G-men won’t do their job and go after Dimon, Corzine and the rest of the rat bastard pack, that job falls to us. Heat the tar…..

  44. So, the bank came and changed your locks. What to do?

    Well… Remove what the bank intalled, replace it with yours and move back in!!!

    Here is how:


    And if you want more pointers on how to keep the house, here it is.


  45. Dear Fannie, and JP,

    The door is open to the barn, and the horses are already across the canyon.

    Do you think this can be “Fixed”?

    You sent me a default notice once, a long time ago, that said I owed you money on a Deed of Trust, except by now, not only does the FBI know, but so does HUD and you, and most importantly…ME, that I never signed it in the first place.

    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY brought me into their office, and DONNA K. DEMELLO made me sign Deeds of Trust on LOT 256, on July 12th, 2007, and these Deeds of Trust are the ONLY DAMM ONES I EVER SIGNED!

    Then, the next day the 13th, LOT 107 was GIVEN to me as a GIFT, and then on the 16th, somebody FORGED my name to Deeds of Trust showing LOT 107, and recorded these forgeries, and kept the truthful ones I signed on LOT 256 HIDDEN!

    And if this was not enough, they placed the loan numbers of LOT 256 onto these forgeries.

    The FBI arrested Demello in 2010, 4 days before I filed suit, and here I am still battling this out in the system three years later, and the fact that the documents were recorded seems to be more important to the court then the fact that they are now admitted by demurrer to be forgeries.
    It’s a messed up world, and no matter what, if you attempt to take this house, knowing the documents were forged by an admitted criminal, then you will be guilty of theft, but I am sure your all quite used to the crimes, and this does not bother you.

    Mr. Investor…. how many other innocent people out there like me have had this happen to them? You do not want to know I would guess, as it would boggle your mind.

  46. 1/3 of all bees on the earth have been decimated. Remove the bees and nothing gets pollinated. No bees, no fruits. No fruits, no seeds. No seeds, no sowing. No sowing, no reaping.

    DUH…! It’s all tied. Pharma, FDA, Monsanto, banks, medicine, agriculture, etc. All tied. Get the banks and all the rest falls.


  47. It’s going to go one of two ways: either globalization will be based on such things as Monsanto to assure that everyone eats (and it will be short-lived since, within a few years, no natural plant will exist any longer, all arable soil will have been rid of every insect, hence deprived of any nutrint, and nothing will grow any more) OR

    Globalization will be without the current players: Buffett, Gates, Monsanto, Chase and all the other guys. I tend to think that we will be returning to small, self-sufficient communities and that we are simply witnessing the fall of the secong tower of Babel. May never be any globalization or it may just last a few decades…


    Genetically Modified Foods

    Genetically modified foods are compromised of organisms (known as GMOs for ‘genetically modified organisms’) which have been genetically altered for ‘improvement’. Biotechnology giant Monsanto is the primary maker of genetically modified seeds, responsible for 90 percent of the genetically engineered seed on the United States market.

    The touted reasons for genetically modifying foods vary from making a fruit larger and seedless to resisting pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. Millions of dollars are invested in this bioengineering process annually by many, with Bill Gates most notably investing into Monsanto with 500,000 shares. But are GMO foods really the solution to humanity’s problems, or are they negatively affecting virtually all life on planet earth?

    Genetically modified foods have been proven not only to be unhealthy, but also deadly. One review of 19 studies showed that with the consumption of genetically modified foods comes significant organ disruptions, especially in the liver and kidneys. What’s more, however, is that the damage posed by Monsanto’s GMO creations extend even further than public health. In fact, they threaten the environment as a whole. This is perhaps the most concerning effect of GMOs.

    Monsanto has created GMO crops that contain something known as Bt, which is a toxin incorporated into the crops with the intention of killing off insects. The usage of the Bt biopesticide within these GMO crops, however, has actually led to ‘mutant’ insect populations which are directly resistant to the biopesticide. Reports state that at least 8 insect populations have developed resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole. As a result, farmers must spray even more pesticides!

    Beyond GM seeds and the Bt pesticide, Monsanto is also the creator of the best-selling herbicide Roundup. The usage of Roundup has spawned over 120 million hectacres of herbicide-resistant superweeds that have destroyed the farmland in which they reside. In addition, much of the soil has also been damaged. Even in the face of these statistics, Monsanto continues to disregard any and all warning signs.

    Genetically modified foods present a very real threat to the genetic integrity of both humankind and the environment, and require vigorous longterm research before being unleashed on the public. That is why nations like Peru, France, and Hungary are taking action against Monsanto and GMOs over legitimate health concerns.

    Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-foods/#ixzz1ufLCVkqT

  48. I’ve said all along that the whole thing would self destruct and that our job was to make it as fast as possible to limit the casualties on tjhe way down…

    Think of how many people would be spared if we simply “pulled the plug”, i.e.: stop paying everything we are alleged to owe a bank.

  49. wikipedia has not posted this in the link, but looking at the real amount lost column, it’s easy to see where this will potentially be placed knowing it is $2.3 billion now with a stated additional $1 billion loss predicted

  50. JP Morgan does not know if they broke the law on a trade loss?

    Main Stream Media (MSM), has been known to filter, not report, or water down the real news.

    Too big to fail when the biggest bank suffers a loss that will grow and as people on the other side of the hedge decide what to do with the outstanding positions?

    This is already in the top 5 or 6 trade loses, and moving into the 4th position according to wikipedia.
    search term in wikipedia is – List of trading losses


    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, a free and independent state, life, allodial, Jure Divino, In Jure Proprio

  51. JPM’s $2bn admitted loss is but the tip of the iceberg.
    The Wall street hyena’s and sharks, are already circling
    their next victim.
    Just wait.The taxpayer is about to be shafted again.

  52. @Toile,

    Do you know what made me laugh about that $2 B Chase thing? The rogue employee who screwed it up for Jamie is… a French guy working in London.

    No lost love there… Can’t wait to see what that French prez concocts.

  53. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/jpmorgan-trading-loss-2-billion-financial-crisis_n_1510217.html?ref=business

    JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis

    “…What is difficult to tell is exactly how widespread the practices are that got JPMorgan into trouble — partly because without financial reforms, the riskier corners of Wall Street are still just as murky as they were before the crisis.

    “We never hear about these things if they profit from it,” said William D. Cohan, a former managing director at JPMorgan who now writes frequently about the banks. “They never call a five o’clock press conference saying we made $4 billion on a London Whale trade.

    “We’ll never know who else is doing it, and this is one of the big problems,” he added. “It’s an opaque black box.”

    The JPMorgan incident also highlights one other problematic trend still lingering from the crisis: Too-big-to-fail banks engaging in risky behavior that could possibly lead to government bailouts.

    “We have to decide whether we want these banks to be large public utilities — very safe, not generating humongous returns,” said Alpert of Westwood Capital, “or do we want these institutions to engage in speculation and put our system at risk?”

    All those millions of families kicked out of their homes because of fraud…and 2 billion is lost in the blink of an eye…

  54. @Toile,

    Waiting to see that happening with Covington and Burling, Jamie Boy, Stumpf, Moynihan, etc. I really believe that we are looking at a slow clean up, inside out.

    It sure would happen a lot faster if people stopped paying their mortgage and their credit card bills but No. Instead, they jacked up their credit purchases to the level of 2001. It’s surreal… Not enough pain yet, I guess.

  55. typo – hedged for 8 months (NOT years)

  56. JPMorgan Chase didn’t want to put up more money in the mortgage settlement. Of all the banks, Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo – $25 billion was the entirety of the settlement.

    How fitting to see JPMorgan lose $2 billion in one day on a position that is stated this way: “The hedge would end in December unless another trade is made to replace it. ”

    Eight (8) more months of exposure! SEC investigation! Fitch cuts it’s rating! Stock price falling!

    This is HUGE! This is BIG!
    tatement from the article:
    “may have amassed a $100 billion position in contracts on Series 9 of the Markit CDX North America Investment Grade Index, counterparts at hedge funds and rival banks said in April.”

    $100 billion dollar position? lost $2 billion now. Hedged for 8 years.

    statement from the article
    “had amassed positions linked to the financial health of corporations that were so large he was driving price moves in the $10 trillion market. ”

    So large! How many zeros in 10 trillion, how large were these positions?

    It’s about time. Thou shalt not steal.


    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent State, allodial, Jure Divino, In Jure Proprio

  57. @ Enraged….encouraged to see your post about the lay-offs at the law firm Dewey Fookem & Howe.

    Let’s hope Jamie joins their ranks soon.

  58. @Nancy Drewe–you said:


    Interesting—my 1099-A tax form from IndyMac/OneWest says:

    “Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property”

    And the date of “acquisition or knowledge of abandonment” is the date of the Trustee’s sale…

    Please comment?

  59. http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

    May 11, 2012

    May 11, 2012

    A Morris County, New Jersey Judge has today dismissed a foreclosure filed by US Bank as the claimed “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust for its repeated failure to comply with Court Management Orders compelling securitization discovery, including producing a witness of US Bank as Trustee for deposition. The Court has entered four (4) Management Orders compelling the discovery, all of which were not complied with by US Bank. The Order of Dismissal recites the deficiencies of US Bank as to the subject discovery.

    The homeowners are represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local NJ counsel Dan Schmutter, Esq. Today’s dismissal is yet another in a string of dismissals which have been entered on Motion of Mr. Barnes and his local counsel for the foreclosing Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with discovery. Previous dismissals have been entered in Atlantic, Glouster, and Monmouth counties, with Morris County being added today.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  60. http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/05/finally-jamie-dimon-and-i-agree-on-something/

    Finally, Jamie Dimon and I Agree on Something

    JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, says he doesn’t want to make excuses, but his bank’s $2 billion losses in the last 45 days were due to errors, sloppiness, terrible execution, bad judgment and strategy, and the mark-to-market environment.

    Want to know something? Those are exactly the same things that I would have guessed caused the loss of $2 billion in 45 days. I have no trouble imagining that those things could contribute to some fairly significant losses.

    Dimon also told analysts that in hindsight he should have paid more attention to “trading losses and… newspapers”?

    Okay, that shocked me. I mean, $2 billion is a lot of money to lose in 45 days when it could have been prevented just by noticing the losses and paying attention to newspapers.

    I think I’m going to go ahead and send Mr. Dimon a one-year subscription to the New York Times. I know he has the money to buy his own subscription… or the entire newspaper for that matter, but he must be terribly busy because he lost $2 billion in 45 days for want to newspapers so it seems the least I can do.

    And I sure am glad he didn’t want to make any excuses. I hate CEOs that lose billions and then come out making all sorts of excuses, don’t you?

    According to CNN/Money…

    “The group that suffered the losses is part of the bank’s so-called corporate unit, and had been making trades designed to hedge against risk.”

    Wait a minute… they were trying to hedge AGAINST RISK? And they LOST $2 BILLION? Now, that must be frustrating… I hate it when that happens. Like, when I’m eating really carefully and I stick a fork right through my cheek. Don’t you hate that?

    CNN/Money also had the following to say…

    “Last month, rumors swirled around a JPMorgan employee based in London who had, according to the Wall Street Journal, been taking large positions in credit default swaps. The employee was said to work in the bank’s Chief Investment Office.”

    So, according to the WSJ on April 6, 2012, the guy had been “dubbed the London whale,” and was a “French-born J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. employee named Bruno Michel Iksil.”

    “Mr. Iksil has taken large positions for the bank in insurance-like products called credit-default swaps. Lately, partly in reaction to market movements possibly resulting from Mr. Iksil’s trades, some hedge funds and others have made heavy opposing bets…”

    Oh, good Lord. We’re still doing this sort of thing, huh? Some guy at JPMorgan Chase in London was gambling with credit default swaps, no one was watching, and next thing you know the bank was down $2 billion?

    And this came as a surprise to Jamie? I guess there’s no system in place at JPMorgan Chase that might of caught the losses at $1 billion, is that right? Well, now there’s an idea for a new product that I would think would sell like hot cakes. Someone should make a $1 Billion Lost Alarm. You know, after you’ve lost a billion… the bell rings.

    And since this seems to happen in London most of the time, here’s what the UK version could look like…

    And we don’t need the Volker Rule? The rule that would prevent banks from placing outrageous bets with their own money, and place limits on the amount of capital they can invest in risky things like hedge funds and swaps, to name but two. The rule that’s part of Dodd-Frank’s financial reforms… the ones that are being fought tooth and nail by the financial services industry lobbyists and bank CEO, including Dimon.

    According to the Washington Post on May 2nd…

    “The warning from Daniel Tarullo, a Federal Reserve governor, comes as banks are putting up stiff resistance to new oversight and financial regulations — including at a private meeting Wednesday between Tarullo and the heads of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street firms, according to the Fed.”

    “Among the major new regulations that has been delayed is the Volcker Rule, which would seek to prevent banks from taking excessive risks by curtailing their ability to speculate with their own money — rather than on behalf of clients.”

    Well, I can certainly understand why no one would want to rush into the Volker Rule, especially with JPMorgan Chase losing $2 billion in 45 days… actually fewer than 45 days.

    I guess it’s really none of our business though, right? I mean, it’s not OUR bank. If JPMorgan Chase wants to take on the kind if risk involved in buying credit default swaps and the like, it’s on them. It’s not like we’re on the hook if they bankrupt themselves… right?

    Please say I’m right…

    Mandelman out.

  61. http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/05/attention-homeowners-lawyers-ag-mortgage-settlement-launches-online-complaint-sites/

    Attention Homeowners & Lawyers: AG Mortgage Settlement Launches Online Complaint Sites

    Finally, there are places online where homeowners, lawyers and other advocates can go to lodge complaints about a mortgage servicer’s handling of mortgage modifications, et al. And all I can say is, it’s about time.

    A story by Ben Hallman in the Huffington Post, quoted Joseph Smith, the ex-banking commissioner charged with enforcing the national mortgage settlement…

    “This allows me, as monitor, to hear complaints and learn more about advocates’ impressions of how the settlement is working,” he said. “Although I’ll extensively review reports and monitoring from the banks and my own team of auditors, it is still critical for me to receive information from the heart of each community this settlement serves.”

    Now, it’s probably at least somewhat important to remember that Smith has no power to investigate individual complaints or help individual homeowners in any way. Here’s what it says on the complaint form in bold…

    “Please note that the Monitor cannot intervene with the servicer on behalf of your individual client.”

    Of course, I’d also guess that he doesn’t have the manpower to read the hundreds of thousands of complaints the sites would no doubt receive if homeowners and their lawyers were actually to hear about the website. (I’m also betting that there’s not much of an advertising budget with which they’ll be getting the word out across the nation.)

    But, so what? There may be another way to view these new online complaint sites.

    Sure, there won’t be any action taken based on the complaints filed online, and nothing will likely change as a result. And I realize that if a homeowner is being dual-tracked, can’t get a response from a mortgage servicer for months, or is losing a home to a wrongful foreclosure, these sites may only represent websites effectively dedicated to ignoring complaints online.

    But, wait… there may be more. Here’s what it says on the new sites…

    “The Monitor and the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight can assist you by providing information about the organization in your state that is appropriate for you depending on your situation. By filling out the simple form below, you will open a webpage that has state-specific contact information of various organizations that may be able to help you. The Monitor will use this information to better understand how the servicers are treating their customers and detect any patterns in violation of the agreement.”

    So, I really do hope that everyone takes advantage of the new websites should they have problems with their servicers related to the National Mortgage Settlement. Here’s what Mr. Smith says about the two new sites…

    “Lawyers, caseworkers and other consumer advocates are the eyes and ears on the ground who will know first, and know intimately, what kind of difference these payments, adjustments and programs are making,” Smith said. “That’s why we’ve created this dedicated tool -– to see what they’re seeing.”

    Look, people… the man used to be the banking commissioner in North Carolina, but now Mr. Smith has gone to Washington and he says he needs us to be his “eyes and ears on the ground,” as far as the AG settlement’s effectiveness goes. So, let’s not let him down, okay?

    Besides, if you consider the math, the whole thing becomes that much more fun…

    Assuming one person can read a complaint in 10 minutes, and they were to read them 6 hours each day, working the standard 2080 hours a year, it would take 1.3 years to read 100,000 complaints.

    So, if the same numbers applied and there were a million complaints, it would take 13.3 years for one person… they’d need to hire a thousand people to get it done in 1.3 years. And that assumes everyone is writing fairly short complaints. Stretch those babies out to a 20-minute read and now we’re talking two thousand people to read them in 1.3 years.

    So, look… do you want to help create jobs in this country or what? Oh, and don’t forget to attach a large file to your complaint, I’m sure the servers are quite robust, and someone may want to read the details. Like they said back in the 60s… can you dig what I’m saying here?

    So, for HOMEOWNERS who want to file a complaint having to do with the National Mortgage Settlement, click here: WHERE CAN I FIND HELP?


    Here’s a list of topics under which your complaint may fall, as listed on the new sites…

    Documentation: Documentation problems with foreclosure, bankruptcy or your loan file

    Fees: Improper assessment of fees, including default, foreclosure, bankruptcy, attorney, late, or third party fees.

    Loan Modification: Failure to modify or refinance loan.

    Customer Service: Poor customer service, including no single point of contact or no customer portal.

    Third Party Firms: Failure to properly oversee firms working for servicer on your mortgage.

    Military Personnel: Failure to comply with legal protections afforded military personnel.

    Bankruptcy: Improper failure to provide relief to homeowners in bankruptcy.

    Force Placed Insurance: Required purchase of property insurance unnecessarily or improperly.

    Community Blight: Failure to minimize community blight.

    Tenant Rights: Violation of the rights of tenants in foreclosed properties.

    Other: __________. No issues. I just would like further information

    The Huffington Post story also pointed out that the federal government has also made available two other avenues where borrowers can appeal for direct assistance.

    1. CFPB
    One is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which you can access here: File a Mortgage Complaint. According to the Huffington Post, the CFPB,

    “… promises to forward a grievance to the financial institution, assign it a tracking number and keep borrowers updated on the status.”

    So, that’s very exciting, I would think. I mean, if nothing else it sounds like you’ll have your very own individual tracking number, so that’s something right there. I wonder how effective it will be when trying to persuade a judge not to have you evicted?

    “But, hold on Your Honor… not so fast… have I showed you my tracking number?”

    2. The OCC
    And for homeowners who were in foreclosure during 2009 and 2010, don’t forget about the OCC’s infamously dishonest and entirely corrupt, Independent Foreclosure Review, which you can access here: Submit a Request for Review. I visited the site to check out what would be involved and the best part was that right in the middle of the page there’s a warning for homeowners that reads:

    “Watch out for scams – There is only one Independent Foreclosure Review.”

    So, for parents reading this who have been looking for a really good example with which you could teach your children the meaning of the word “IRONY,” I’d have to say that your search has ended.

    The deadline to submit your complaint is July 31st, so if you’re planning to be condescendingly placated by the equivocation of your claims, you don’t want to put it off. Fewer than three percent of eligible homeowners have submitted their cases for review, so the Obama Administration is no doubt planning to announce that 97 percent of those foreclosed on during those two years were okay with it. I think that’s really taking one for the team, and I, for one, salute you.

    And although it would seem that no flaws have been uncovered as yet, that’s no reason not to participate in the process. I mean, look… someone has to win something, right? Like the lottery. Or, maybe not in this case… I really don’t know.

    Here’s what the OCC’s site says about the review:

    “The Independent Foreclosure Review will determine whether individual borrowers suffered financial injury and should receive compensation or other remedy because of errors or other problems during their home foreclosure process.”

    The OCC’s site also STRONGLY WARNS HOMEOWNERS who want to file their case for independent review NOT TO PAY A LAWYER to help them do it under any circumstances.

    Good heavens no… who would ever think of doing such a thing? I mean, give us some credit, would you?

    I think everybody knows by now that when it comes to authoring a document that alleges the suffering of financial injury for which damages or other remedy may be assessed in conjunction with errors committed by a party purporting to be the holder in due course or to have been assigned the rights of a beneficiary to a deed of trust, and or the substitute trustee who is seeking to enforce said rights as part of a foreclosure or unlawful detainer action… the last thing you’d ever want to do is hire a lawyer.

    Sheesh, it’s not like we’re children.

    After all, we handled getting our mortgages all by ourselves, initialing and signing all those contractual pages containing 3 point type about how our snapping turtle, spring loaded mortgage might result in payments that exceed our monthly income by three-fold at a time when the credit markets would require a 780 FICO and 30 percent equity to refinance.

    And if we can competently handle that sort of complicated transaction, surely we all know not to pay a lawyer a nickel for something as simple as filing a complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Look, even if the OCC finds nothing was wrong with the foreclosures in 2009 or 2010, I think we’ll all be able to join in a giant collective sigh of relief. At least we’ll know that no one “suffered financial injury” because of errors in the foreclosure process during those two years, and we can finally move from insult to injury as we close the chapter on the unnecessary destruction of some two million family’s lives.

    It reminds me of the stress tests they use with the banks… you know, the ones where every bank always passes. Like something from a Monty Python skit. Aren’t those the best?

    Move along people, there’s nothing to see here.

    Mandelman out.

  62. @Nancy Drewe,

    Is it possible to find out which pool “supposedly” (emph.) a loan was securitized with the information of who the servicer was and date?

  63. Dewey Associates Told To Leave Next Week, Ending “Drip Torture”
    by The Compliance Exchange on May 9, 2012

    Some associate attorneys at the struggling New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP are being told that their employment will end next week, according to a lawyer at the firm. The firm has suffered a raft of departures this year, losing more than a third of its partners amid disputes over compensation and a heavy debt load. At a Tuesday afternoon meeting in a multipurpose room at the firm, one group of associates was told that next Tuesday will be their last day, according to a Dewey lawyer in attendance. Other associates were given the same news at meetings held later in the day, the lawyer said.

    Read Full Article At The Wall Street Journal.

  64. AIG declares resignation of director Donald Layton from its board and considers Morris W Offit as successor

    MENAFN – – 5/11/2012 5:32:57 AM


  65. http://247wallst.com/2012/05/11/a-call-for-jamie-dimon-to-resign/

    A Call For Jamie Dimon To Resign
    Posted: May 11, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Print Email inShare.1 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) has done some severe damage to its image as the best risk manager of the large banks, and this damage may easily carry over into all of the ‘too big to fail’ banks. It is becoming more and more evident that the new ‘Best Bank in America’ title belongs to Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) as Warren Buffett keeps adding to this position each and every quarter. Now we are already hearing at
    least one call that Jamie Dimon might need to resign.

    The Thursday disclosure of a loss of about $2 billion due to egregious failures in risk management now puts J.P. Morgan Chase in the same league as Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC) and Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C). Jamie Dimon has been the most vocal bank executive out there and this is not exactly going to help Dimon in any of his future arguments against more and more bank regulations.

    Simon Johnson at MIT’s Sloan School of Management is shown here calling for the possibility of a resignation of Jamie Dimon. Johnson went on to note that if any other company lost this much then the person responsible would be forced to resign. He did note that it is not going to happen in banking where regulators move to oust Jamie Dimon. Johnson is one of the voices calling for the break-up of the big banks

    Dimon noted that this trade did not violate the Volcker Rule but it did violate the Dimon Principle. What happens when your hedges are wrong hedges? The loss could cost another $1 billion over the next quarter or two as well as the trade was called flawed synthetic credit derivatives which are volatile.

    So, back to this call for a Dimon resignation. Dimon remains one of the top executives out there in banking and in corporate America. He was recently cleared to lift the common stock dividend and to buy back stock. Dimon always said that he would buy stock back when its price made sense to do. A drop of almost 8% down to $37.60 takes this banking stock down to prices not seen since February 16, 2012. The dividend-adjusted closing price at the end of 2011 was $32.80.

    There is another call for Dimon’s role of Chairman and CEO to be split as well. AFSCME sent out an email noting, “After JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon lost $2 Billion in risky trading, today, AFSCME issued a renewed call for the shareholders of JPM to end Dimon’s reign as Chairman and CEO and adopt an independent board chair.” In short, the call is keep Dimon on as CEO but to bring in a new Chairman of the Board that is independent of the company.

    Congressman Barney Frank (co-author of Dodd-Frank) has publicly said, “JP Morgan Chase, entirely without any help from the government has lost, in this one set of transactions, five times the amount they claim financial regulation is costing them. The argument that financial institutions do not need the new rules to help them avoid the irresponsible actions that led to the crisis of 2008 is at least $2 billion harder to make today.”

    Jamie Dimon may have taken a body blow here, but the notion that this will cause his resignation seems very unlikely. The next risk is the pending downgrade of more than 100 of the top global banks from Moody’s.

    FBR was one of the firms which downgraded J.P. Morgan shares this Friday and the target was taken down to $37 from $50 previously.

    Read more: A Call For Jamie Dimon To Resign – 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/05/11/a-call-for-jamie-dimon-to-resign/#ixzz1ubz1daIU

  66. BRIEF-UDR says CFO David Messenger resigns
    Published: Friday, 11 May 2012 | 4:09 PM ET Text Size Twitter
    May 11 (Reuters) – UDR Inc :

    * Announces resignation of David L. Messenger as chief financial officer

    * Says company will commence a search process for a new CFO.

    ((Bangalore Equities Newsroom; +91 80 4135 5800; within U.S. +1 646 223 8780))

  67. @Hman,

    Fortunately, i don’t live in AZ. The few things I know about AZ are not attractive to me and Jan Brewer, in my views, is as much, if not more, of an embarassment as Walker. She probably outght to be recalled…

    That being said, i have a lot of difficulty with AGs who entered into the agreement and now declare: “My hands were tied…” I don’t recall reading anywhere that any of those AGs were put under the gun to agree to anything or sign anything.

    I still don’t understand what was behind that settlement, especially in the wake of the Chase debacle (which was more than predictible; it will happen again until the banks are dismantled and seized by We The People). We are getting closer and closer to the truth. When we learn it, many will fall.

  68. hman – from the hip (as usual): aurora wants to ditch some of its liability and baggage, so some of its principals or cronies are reinventing themselves as Nationstar would be my guess. I
    I’ll see what I can dig up. Still looking for ALS, LLC’ bankruptcy from last year that I heard about…….
    ALS, LLC was a wholley owned sub of Aurora Bank, which was a wholley owned sub of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc, which filed the biggest bk in U.S. history. Barclays was said to have ended up with LBHI’s junk, so still wondering how it is that ALS has ever claimed Lehman’s junk is theirs.
    I swear these loans were in fact sold multiple times, so they (banksters) have to get together or have some system wherein it’s decided who is going to say what when they want to snarf a home.
    Maybe that’s what they’re using MERS’ database for these days: eenie, meenie, minee, mo.

  69. hman

    Thank you for the update. Next time I am AZ I will try to attend the meeting.

  70. Because 40% of the economy is the FIRE,
    portion,this talk of “recovery” is a bad joke at our
    It took $550.bn in new debt to increase GDP by
    $250bn in the first quarter.
    The country is bust.Period.
    That realization will come to US Treasury market soon ,
    and the dollar will collapse before year end.
    A ‘perfect storm’ is converging;
    Debt limit will have to be raised BEFORE the election at the
    current rate of increase.The fiscal cliff of tax increases will
    see capital outflows.Odds of war this month,50% judging by
    Israel’s posturing, and call up of reserves.
    The BRICS nations are doing bi-lateral trade deals excluding
    the dollar for over 50% of world trade..
    Very tough times are ahead for US citizens.

  71. Can anyone understand this?

    Aurora Loan Services was purchased by Nationstar and the deal is to close soon. I was checking to see if Nationstar was registered in AZ.

    Here is what is really weird. They both have the same Doemestic Address, Foreign Address, and Statutory Agent? This can’t be a coincidence? They have the same Suite #’s and I doubt they are sharing an office? WTF?

    Here’s a link to check it out. I don’t know how/why this could be.


  72. Geanette- carie is right. The economy is not “correcting” itself. Look at it this way- When this meltdown officially began in 2008, the total of outstanding home mortgages (i know, carie, bear with me) was $13.2. trillion dollars, of which 10%, or, $1.3 trillion, were subprime or Alt-A. About 10% of these were in default.(patience, carie). So far, with TARP, TALF, loan backstops, 0% loans, shared-loss agreements, etc., the govt. has spent (borrowed, printed) over $38 trillion dollars and given it away to the financial sector. $38 trillion dollars so far for what we are supposed to believe was a ‘subprime loan problem’.
    It is clear to see, that subprime mortgages didn’t have anything to do with the problem. Now, carie, back to you…………..
    The problem is now worse than ever and getting worse by the day. The economy is not self correcting. It can’t, except in one’s dreams.

  73. sorry—meant “principal”…

  74. @Geanette

    Uh, NO—the economy is NOT “correcting itself and adjusting itself”—IT’S ALL FALLING APART BECAUSE OF COMPLETE MATERIALISM AND GREED AND FRAUD TIED TO WALL STREET AND DE-REGULATION—WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE CORPORATION AT THE TOP PULLING THE PUPPET STRINGS…you must be one of “them”…sorry, but your statement is ridiculous.

    Neil—you can’t reduce “principle” on fraudulent manufactured false default debt…when are you going to really start being on the side of the people?

  75. Nancy Drewe ,

    Your explaination of the flow of funds at 12:17 is really good.

  76. BSE

    I attended a meeting with the AZ attorney General. He addressed this exact issue. I agree this settlement doesn’t even scratch the surface. Somebody in the audience asked Tom Horne if what Jan Brewer was doing was “legal”. He said there is a provision within the settlement that allows the governor & legislature to have access to the funds if the funds are being used to recoup damages because of foreclosures. The AG said that although what they were doing wasn’t illegal he didn’t feel as if the funds should be used this way & he was pretty much powerless against them taking the $. Yes I fail to see how revamping the prisons relates to foreclosures but I guess it’s ok?

    He said the $ they were taking was about 3% of the AZ settlement. I encourage those frustrated with the $ being used to write Jan Brewer. The AG also stated that he felt that AZ was deserving of more $ but he would have had to hold out with no guarantees & it could have been years before AZ saw any of the $. He felt it would be better to take the lower guaranteed $ now. AZ was also one of the last few to sign the agreement.

    One final thing is he addressed a question on MERS and he wouldn’t comment on his opinion. He basically said his opinion was irrelevant because the AZ supreme court had already ruled & determined it’s valid that there was really nothing he could do.















  78. @bse re: arizona $: right on.

  79. These wheels may finally be turning, but it is yet an outrage that so many have lost their homes in the meantime. And it’s no less an outrage that people are still told they must be in default to qualify for
    some – any – modifications. Apparently the business model was set up that way, that way being mod for default only, whatever the underlying mechanics between the guarantors and the trusts. In its bs press release earlier this week, B of A, for instance, reiterated that its mods would be for those in default (two months) to qualify for default. Who is his right mind would default just to find out if he MIGHT get a modification, given the to-date severe abuse of those who followed like good little sheep only to be foreclosed? No, WS needs to make the correction so that WS bears the cost of modification – whatever it takes, and if it costs them more (or even any, actually), then tough. They created this problem. I’m no guru, but it appears they have to purchase the loans first and can only do so for limited reason. But, like everything those guys advance, scrutiny may find they can modify those loans when not in default. People who sacrifice everything else to make their payments should be able to modify their loans. Good Lord! We’re talking about our homes here. It shouldn’t be a crap game, especially when it needn’t be.
    What the heck kind of deal is it when a party who probably has no interest in the first place willfully induces another to put himself so
    patently in harm’s way? It’s clearly morally objectionable and I suspect legally, as well. Say no to default (if you can). You know, given the bargaining disparity, including the knowlege-base disparity, between that gang and the homeowner, even if the absence of a contractual guarantee to modify, they should be held accountable for misleading
    so many. Granted, the relationship between a homeowner and a servicer is not contractual (course that’s only true to them when it isn’t inconvenient), but there still must be some way to nail them for their deceit.

  80. Another Gov’mt official who needs to be jailed

    Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in the state legislature are seeking to use millions of dollars intended for struggling homeowners to pay for prison construction and tax cutsinstead, echoing a policy put in place earlier this year in Wisconsin by Governor Scott Walker.

    Remember the $26 billion foreclosure settlement, the one agreed upon by the five biggest banks and 49 state Attorneys General? As one of the hardest hit states, Arizona is getting $1.6 billion, as well as an additional $97.7 million to be overseen by the office of Attorney General Tom Horne, to be used for “housing counselors, legal aid, hotlines, and to help stressed homeowners with their payments.”

    Two main things to understand about these funds: they are wildly insufficient given the scale of the problem, but all the same they are extremely crucial. In March, Arizona had the highest foreclosure rate in the country, according to RealtyTrac, with 9,497 foreclosures. If any state needs all the help it can get when it comes to homeowner education, assistance, and relief, it’s Arizona.

    . . .

    Of all the horrific policies that have come out of the offices of governors like Walker in the past two years, this is one of the worst – and the most under-reported. With Walker and Brewer giving out huge tax handouts to businesses, cutting services and education, and then dipping into foreclosure fraud assistance to pay for their bad decisions, they are no different than a modern day Bonnie and Clyde. Robbery in multiple steps is still robbery, even if you’re a governor.

  81. Fannier and Freddie participated in the fraud that finacially harmed
    over 20 million US familes and others world wide. These bastards need to be jailed along with their bankster counter parts.
    Moral Hazard = DeMarco. Fire or Jail his a$$

  82. Ocwen’s planned purchase of the Saxon and JPMorgan servicing portfolios in the first quarter of 2012- servicing portfolio through acquisitions of mortgage loan servicing, special … e.g., OCWEN INFO ‘ACQUISTIONS’ PURCHASING SERVICING RIGHTS TO LITTON PORTFOLIO – of balance sheet leverage from Ocwen

    Servicing fees, which comprised 74% of total servicing and subservicing fees in 2011, are supplemented by ancillary income, including fees from the federal government for Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); interest earned on loan payments that it has collected but has not yet remitted to the owner of the mortgage (float earnings); referral commissions from brokers for real estate owned (REO) properties sold through the Company’s network of brokers


    Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:58pm EST

    Feb 27 – Fitch Ratings has affirmed the long-term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) and short-term IDR of Ocwen Financial Corp. (Ocwen) at ‘B+’ and ‘B’, respectively. The Rating Outlook is Negative. A full list of ratings follows this release. The affirmation reflects the company’s leading position in the nonconforming and nonperforming (subprime) residential mortgage servicing market, proven loss mitigation capabilities, and cost advantages provided by offshore staffing and
    technology. Rating constraints reflect the company’s ability to sustain growth
    in the longer term. Fitch believes the company’s expertise for servicing
    subprime loans will remain in demand in the near term. In the longer term,
    however, ratings may come under pressure as continued consolidation and the
    overall share of the subprime market shrinks due to lack of originations since

    Over the last two years, Ocwen has significantly grown its servicing portfolio
    through acquisitions, most recently purchasing the servicing rights to the
    Litton portfolio from Goldman Sachs. At Dec. 31, 2011, Ocwen serviced
    approximately 671,623 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance (UPB) of
    $102.2 billion, making the company the largest subprime servicer in the U.S. and
    the 12th largest servicer overall. In addition to Ocwen’s planned purchase of the Saxon and JPMorgan servicing portfolios in the first quarter of 2012, the
    company is planning a sale of a portion of its servicing assets to a newly
    formed company called Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. (HLSS). This
    transaction is expected to close in early March 2012.

    Proceeds from the sale of Ocwen’s servicing assets are expected primarily to be
    used to acquire additional servicing portfolios and pay down outstanding debt,
    which is expected to reduce the company’s leverage and yield greater earnings
    consistency over time, given the absence of valuation adjustments and a decline
    in interest costs. However, a significant portion of the company’s revenues
    going forward are likely to come from subservicing revenue received from HLSS.
    Additionally, in Fitch’s view, any positive impact from Ocwen’s de-leveraging
    could be constrained due to the shifting of balance sheet leverage from Ocwen to
    HLSS, on which a significant portion of its future revenue will be dependent.

    The revision of the Rating Outlook to Negative is supported by Fitch’s concern
    regarding Ocwen’s significant growth over the last year and its continuing
    ability to integrate large portfolio acquisitions onto its servicing platforms
    without potential disruptions. In addition, heightened regulatory scrutiny for
    the overall sector has increased the company’s operational risk profile that may
    put additional pressure on the company’s margins. Fitch recently downgraded
    Ocwen’s primary and special servicer ratings to ‘RPS3’ and ‘RSS3’, respectively.
    Fitch believes that the recent downgrade of Ocwen’s servicer ratings will make
    it more difficult for the company to grow through acquiring additional subprime
    MSR portfolios.

    While Fitch believes that positive momentum in the rating is currently limited,
    the Outlook could return to Stable if Ocwen is able to decrease overall leverage
    and sustain recent improvements in liquidity and capitalization, while
    generating consistent operating cash flows through measured growth. Fitch would
    also view positively the company’s ability to effectively manage its key
    strategic initiatives that would, in the longer term, help Ocwen enhance its
    operating leverage.

    Negative rating actions could result from the company’s growth strategy, should
    the company pursue future acquisitions that would require a substantial cash
    outlay and incremental debt that would negatively impact Ocwen’s leverage above
    Fitch’s expectations. Integration risk, materializing in service disruptions due
    to difficulty bringing onboard large portfolio acquisitions that would
    ultimately hurt cash flow generation could also yield negative rating actions.

    Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE: OCN), through its subsidiaries, is a leading
    provider of residential and commercial mortgage loan servicing, special
    servicing and asset management services. Ocwen is headquartered in Atlanta,
    Georgia, with offices in West Palm Beach and Orlando, Florida; Houston, Texas;
    McDonough, Georgia; and Washington, DC with support operations in India and
    Uruguay. Ocwen is a Florida corporation organized in February 1991. As of Dec.
    31, 2011, the company had $4.7 billion in assets.

    Fitch affirms the following ratings:

    Ocwen Financial Corp.
    –Long-term IDR at ‘B+’; Negative Outlook;
    –Short-term IDR at ‘B’.

    Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’. The ratings above
    were solicited by, or on behalf of, the issuer, and therefore, Fitch has been
    compensated for the provision of the ratings.

    Applicable Criteria and Related Research:
    –‘Global Financial Institutions Rating Criteria’, Aug. 16, 2011;
    –‘Finance and Leasing Companies Criteria’, Dec. 12, 2011;
    –‘Treatment and Notching of Hybrids in Nonfinancial Corporate and REIT Credit
    Analysis’, Dec. 15, 2011;
    –‘Fitch Downgrades Ocwen’s U.S. Residential Servicer Ratings; Maintains Rating
    Watch Negative’, Dec. 20, 2011;
    –‘Fitch Places Various Saxon-Serviced & Ocwen-Serviced RMBS on Rating Watch
    Negative’, Jan. 31, 2012.

    Applicable Criteria and Related Research:
    Global Financial Institutions Rating Criteria
    Finance and Leasing Companies Criteria
    Treatment and Notching of Hybrids in Nonfinancial Corporate and REIT Credit

    Full Description

    Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen), through its subsidiaries, is a provider of residential and commercial mortgage loan servicing, special servicing and asset management services. The Company’s business segments include Servicing, and Corporate Items and Other. As of December 31, 2011, Ocwen’s primary operating subsidiaries included Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (OLS) and Ocwen Financial Solutions. OLS is licensed to service mortgage loans in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and two United States territories. As of December 31, 2011, Ocwen serviced 671,623 residential loans and 91 commercial assets. On September 1, 2011, Ocwen completed its acquisition of all the outstanding partnership interests of Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton), a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman Sachs) and a provider of servicing and subservicing of primarily non-prime residential mortgage loans, and certain interest-only servicing securities previously owned by Goldman Sachs & Co., also a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs (collectively referred to as Litton Loan Servicing Business). During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company ceased operation of the Litton Loan Servicing Business platform.


    The Company earns fees for providing services to owners of mortgage loans and foreclosed real estate. In most cases, it provides these services either because it purchased the mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) from the owner of the mortgage or because it entered into a subservicing or special servicing agreement with the entity that owns the MSRs.

    Ocwen operates as a third-party servicer of subprime residential mortgage loans in the United States. As of December 31, 2011, it serviced 671,623 loans and real estate properties under 1,287 servicing agreements for over 50 clients. These clients include institutions, such as Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Morgan Stanley Capital Holdings, LLC (Morgan Stanley (Morgan Stanley), Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs. The mortgaged properties securing the loans that the Company services are geographically dispersed throughout all 50 states, the District of Columbia and two United States territories. The five largest concentrations of properties are located in California, Florida, New York, Texas and Illinois, which, taken together, comprise 41% of the loans serviced at December 31, 2011. California has the largest concentration with 74,944 loans or 11% of the total. The Company’s largest source of revenue is servicing fees. Servicing fees, which comprised 74% of total servicing and subservicing fees in 2011, are supplemented by ancillary income, including fees from the federal government for Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); interest earned on loan payments that it has collected but has not yet remitted to the owner of the mortgage (float earnings); referral commissions from brokers for real estate owned (REO) properties sold through the Company’s network of brokers; Speedpay fees from borrowers who pay by telephone or through the Internet, and late fees from borrowers who were delinquent in remitting their monthly mortgage payments but have subsequently become current.

    •5 PAGES OF ‘DEUTSCHE BANK’ http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/SearchForm.aspx
    •15 PAGES OF CREDIT SUISSE http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/SearchForm.aspx


    CREDIT SUISSE located at PARADEPLATZ 8, P.O. BOX 500, ZURICH, 0, SWITZERLAND (OTHER) was established as a Foreign Bank.


    CREDIT SUISSE was acquired by CREDIT SUISSE.

    •CREDIT SUISSE (2803979) 5/12/2005

    10 Institution(s) Found.

    Seq Num

    Name (RSSD ID)

    Parent Seq Num


    State / Country

    Institution Type


    * CREDIT SUISSE (2803979)



    Foreign Bank






    Domestic Entity Other






    Securities Broker/Dealer






    Domestic Entity Other


    -* FLCM HOLDING CO., INC. (3072437)




    Domestic Entity Other






    Securities Broker/Dealer


    -* BANK HOFMANN AG (3299944)




    Foreign Entity Other


    –* HOFMANN TRUST AG (3300251)




    Foreign Entity Other






    Foreign Entity Other


    —-* NORTHLAND LLC (3300309)

  83. Mr. Editor the new paperwork cures the transaction but not the title nor real ownership of the right to foreclose.

  84. This too must pass…the economy is correcting and adjusting itself..regardless of how much manipulation goes on, our economy do operate on real principles and laws of demand… the stock market eventually shows us that…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: