Prosecute the Big Banks? Nothing’s Off the Table!

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Looks like Obama got the memo. Everyone dislikes the banks across all spectrums of ideology. The comment made that this is a man-made catastrophe shows that law enforcement is getting the point. And by announcing indictments in the fall and blaming the Banks and those who did the bidding of the banks as politicians, Obama scores major points from the far left to the far right. And of course there is the issue that criminal prosecutions will give borrowers far more credibility in court.

Prosecute The Big Banks? ‘Nothing’s Off The Table,’  

NY Attorney General Says


PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Americans can expect to see tangible results this fall from the task force President Obama created to investigate the financial crisis, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told TPM Thursday.

Asked after his keynote speech to the progressive Netroots Nation conference here whether prosecutions from the task force are possible, Schneiderman said: “Nothing’s off the table now. Nothing’s off the table.”

The attorney general is one of five co-chairs of the “special unit” Obama announced at his January State of the Union address. More than 100 staffers and prosecutors have been deployed, Schneiderman said, mostly in Washington, but also in U.S. attorneys offices around the country. The group has been criticized by some for its lack of results thus far. In late May, Schneiderman told the Wall Street Journal he was seeking more prosecutorial firepower. The Journal reported that the group has issued more than two-dozen subpoenas and collected millions of pages of documents. Schneiderman wouldn’t specify how much man power will be necessary.

“I’m continuing to push for more, and faster, but I’m an impatient guy,” Schneiderman told TPM. “I think we’re going to get there.”

Schneiderman’s speech stopped short of specifics for the task force. He gave credit to progressive activists and the Occupy movement’s role in public discourse, saying “true change requires movement-building” and “officials don’t create movements, movements create leaders.” Schneiderman also said the public’s faith in the financial industry is at such a low that America needs a second New Deal.

“The markets didn’t crash because of an act of God,” he said later. “That was a man-made catastrophe. If we have any sense at all, we’re going to do what our predecessors did after the last big catastrophe in the 1930s and do some real re-regulations of the markets.”

While Schneiderman spoke to a mostly receptive crowd, a small group of demonstrators gathered in front of the stage holding “jail the bankers” signs. Schneiderman’s staffers said they thought group was friendly to the attorney general’s efforts to take on the financial industry. But Schneiderman said he appreciates activists who push public officials. “I understand the sentiment,” he said. “People have a sense that they’re not sure what happened, but they feel like somebody got away with something, and there hasn’t been accountability.”

Schneiderman remains an enthusiastic supporter of Obama’s reelection campaign. Introducing former President Bill Clinton at an Obama fundraiser this week, Schneiderman said, according to Capital New York, “Given how much is on the line for everyday Americans, why in the world would we hand over the White House to the same people that left our country in a much worse place than they found it? The same recipe for economic failure is what Mitt Romney’s serving. And I believe the American people will say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to a third term for George W. Bush.”





71 Responses

  1. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, NY, States « Wrong Bailout Should States Use Settlement Money for Deficits or Housing? Oh, So What and Who Cares? » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  2. @tn

    and as for the context of the lawsuit—maybe you could tell me…I’m not sure what the legal terms would be, but I would like to sue them for lying and misrepresentations and taking my money under false pretenses and illegal foreclosure, etc…not sure what the legal terms are for things like that but I’d like to sue for whatever and however much I can.

  3. @tnharry

    Yes, it is in writing and signed by the servicer from “Indymac Mortgage Services”—which is actually just a “division” of OneWest Bank…

  4. @carie – as to your questions about showing that they only said you were “securitized”, what’s the context of the lawsuit? do you have it in writing? is the party who stated that going to be named in the suit? that would make it an exception to hearsay and admissible if so.

  5. And once again a village is deprived…..

  6. yikes, he’s back..

  7. sense

  8. @SS

    Can you please fix this sentence that you wrote (it doesn’t make sence):

    3.Under what limitations my a contract that may foreclosure be made illegal?

  9. Under what limitations may foreclosure be made illegal?

  10. Have your attorney answer these questions:

    1.What effect does illegality of the object have on validity of a contract?

    2.State two general grounds under which the object of the contract may be declared illegal?

    3.Under what limitations my a contract that may foreclosure be made illegal?

    4.What is the effect of option trading on a foreclosure?

    5.What is the effect of usury on a foreclosure versus equitable sale contract?

    Now, go win your home back . . . .

  11. ** Robo signatures – endorsement to your own account is legal under an alias
    ** False Notary jurats – void of no effect
    ** Notice of default – read it. It is by its own admission pursuant to an [account] – Not to a loan.
    ** Trustee sale – 1099 A for abandonment
    ** debt cancellation is a warehouseline fools ….a warehouse line **MersCorp – Legal beneficary of a trust asset NOT YOUR LOAN

    “Your killing me Larry” …

    Suggestions – pull your head out and write the Bar

  12. There is no bank. No lender or servicer . . .
    There is no bank
    Mental case Mandalman . . . there is no banks no bank
    Dan and Bill there is no bank ….boogie man – maybe …
    NG the ATM man – there is no bank
    Bill Blackhead there is no bank

    Oh God he’s back – telling the truth – there is no money in the truth , no books to sell or stories to tell.

    Retire Neil …Retire …the AG will pursue you for what your still doing …inciting chaos

  13. Mandelmans is a fool too …according to Soliman – you are your own worse enemy. The governement is the bank . The bank lost the loan got it ! LOST the loan. It was charged off in October 2008.

    Gov. cannot foreclose on a gov asset – its eminant domain .

    Some collections agency is pursuing your house and your letting them fools. There is nothing to reposess -umless you let them . Go pay more money and buy this and that then throw away your front door welcome mat.

    Soliman wins again in Oregon , . . J.P. Morgan Chase loses to single Woman Pro Per in Superior Court

  14. William Black is a fool

  15. Once again, from Mandelman’s website. Hey guys, do you get those? I do. All the time. let’s make it a point to brilliantly answer them as Amy did.

    Nancy Pelosi sent my reader Amy an email. And Amy replied brilliantly.

    On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Nancy Pelosi wrote:
    Amy –

Today is my 25th anniversary in Congress.

    I want to take a moment to thank you for your support over the years.

    We have made tremendous progress because you have stood with me to ensure that we continue moving America forward.

And now, it’s because of friends and supporters like you that the House Majority is within reach with five months left until Election Day.

    On this special anniversary, House Democrats are focused on the 25 seats we need to win the Majority.

    Please contribute $3 or more right now to ensure House Democrats have important resources to support strong Democratic candidates and Members facing tough challenges for re-election and hold Republicans accountable for their misguided agenda.

    President Obama needs a strong Democratic Majority in Congress and your support will bring us closer to returning the gavel to Democrats who will focus on the people’s interests instead of the special interests.

    You are the backbone of our party and we will win in November because of your tireless support and determination.

 Can you chip in today?

    Onward to victory,



    So, on Jun 9, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Amy Sheaffer wrote back:
    Dear Ms. Pelosi,

    Today is my 13th anniversary in my home.

    I have seen no progress in “America moving forward”. I have lived with the stress of pending foreclosure, postponed home auction dates, underemployment and bankruptcy for the past several years.

    Please take the time to contribute a small portion of your huge salary to: The Fund to Save Amy’s Home!!

    Your donation is greatly appreciated and will contribute to continued shelter for myself and my cat, Mr. Miles!

    Remember that a portion of your donation (or all of it) is tax deductible!


    Amy Sheaffer, MA, LMFT


    Brilliant, Amy! Absolutely Brilliant!
    I bet that felt good… maybe even great. It was good for me too, by the way.

    Oh, and do say hi to Mr. Miles for me.

  16. @Carie,

    Too funny!

    Did you notice that, among the 17 banks to be downgraded, 6 of them are “the US 6 largest banks”? (Once again)

  17. @enraged

    Speaking of “transparency”—this cracked me up—in the latest Architectural Digest magazine there is an ad that says:

    “Important paintings should be part of a “new world” diversified portfolio of transparent “non-manipulated” holdings…We own the paintings we sell, nothing is a better indicator of our conviction.”

  18. And for those who, like me, believe that lawyers are the cancer of our society, here is the list of all presidents who were lawyers and/or military, along with tidbits about their “military” service.

  19. J. G.,

    You may have a point as to identity of the entity to whom payment should be made out. Even with 18 millions in my pocket, i wouldn’t pay anyone unless and until I am satisfied that it is the entity I owe it to. L.S. is savvy enough to want the same thing…

    What matters is that, once again, we see our banks at work and it is making front page of the newspapers. Transparency will have to be effected, even if it kills the vultures. i expect transparency will soon require banks to disclose the amount of legal expenses they fork up in order to rob, spoil, destroy and kill this country.

  20. In that list of banks I just posted, notice that the strongest ones are those heavily regulated. As an example, bank mergers are forbidden in Germany, France and most other countries. Capital and reserves requirements are stringent and securitization and hedge funds are, again, heavily regulated and controlled.

    Here, unchecked and unregulated mergers are still ongoing. When we hear that Chase Bank is the biggest one in the world, this is a blatant lie. Most of its assets are in securitization and smoke and it is in 10th position worldwide.

    We’re done. Just a question of time. Even Japan (by the way, seriously investigating Chase as we speak) is doing better, despite Fukushima.

  21. Sunday, June 10, 2012

    Big US banks brace for downgrades ( likely to reduce by the end of June credit ratings for 17 large global banks) …
    June 10, 2012

    Big US banks brace for downgrades

    Banks, bond issuers and investors are bracing for aftershocks from a wave of bank downgrades expected to hit the U.S. as soon as the coming week.

    Moody’s Investors Service has said it is likely to reduce by the end of June credit ratings for 17 large global banks, including five of the six biggest U.S. financial firms by assets.

    The downgrades are expected to raise borrowing costs and crimp some lucrative trading businesses at the banks, including at J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

    The impending downgrades are adding to the unease already plaguing banks, investors and borrowers. Financial markets are on edge as the European debt crisis deepens and the likelihood grows of a Greek exit from the euro zone. Economies in the U.S. and China are showing signs of slowing.

    While banks and investors all anticipate downgrades in the coming week, many banks have lobbied Moody’s to limit the size of its cuts.

    The downgrades would mean that Moody’s ratings for the five U.S. banking giants are the lowest of the three major credit-rating firms. While Moody’s has given the market plenty of notice, some investors worry that action by Moody’s could precipitate downgrades by S&P and Fitch.

    Top Banks in the World as of June 2011

    The following are the largest and best banks in the world in terms of total assets. The top 10 banks have over $24.4 trillion in combined assets and top 50 banks – about $67 trillion. Three of the Top 7 largest banks are UK institutions. For the third year in a row, BNP Paribas is the largest bank in the world. In 2008, it was the fourth after Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Deutsche Bank. BNP Paribas’s four domestic markets are France, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg. The Bank operates in more than 80 countries and employs over 205,000 people.

    Rank Bank Country Total Assets ($b) Date
    1 BNP Paribas France 2,792.10 30/06/2011
    2 HSBC Holdings UK 2,690.90 30/06/2011
    3 Deutsche Bank Germany 2,681.30 30/06/2011
    4 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Japan 2,479.50 30/03/2011
    5 Barclays PLC UK 2,395.30 30/06/2011
    6 Japan Post Bank Japan 2,325.77 30/03/2011
    7 Royal Bank of Scotland Group UK 2,319.90 30/06/2011
    8 Industrial & Commercial Bank of China China 2,304.40 30/06/2011
    9 Bank of America US 2,264.40 30/06/2011
    10 JPMorgan Chase & Co. US 2,246.80 30/06/2011
    11 Credit Agricole SA France 2,236.80 30/03/2011
    12 Citigroup US 1,956.60 30/06/2011
    13 Mizuho Financial Group Japan 1,942.60 30/06/2011
    14 China Construction Bank China 1,818.40 30/06/2011
    15 ING Group Netherlands 1,798.60 30/06/2011
    16 Banco Santander Spain 1,785.80 30/06/2011
    17 Bank of China China 1,776.47 30/06/2011
    18 Agricultural Bank of China China 1,773.11 30/06/2011
    19 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Japan 1,652.82 30/06/2011
    20 Societe Generale France 1,590.72 30/06/2011
    21 Lloyds Banking Group UK 1,570.59 30/06/2011
    22 Groupe BPCE France 1,532.53 30/06/2011
    23 UBS Switzerland 1,469.46 30/06/2011
    24 UniCredit S.p.A. Italy 1,331.88 30/06/2011
    25 Wells Fargo US 1,259.73 30/06/2011
    26 Credit Suisse Group Switzerland 1,160.72 30/06/2011
    27 Commerzbank Germany 991.085 30/06/2011
    28 Rabobank Group Netherlands 963.910 30/06/2011
    29 Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 934.576 30/06/2011
    30 Nordea Bank Sweden 859.851 30/06/2011
    31 Norinchukin Bank Japan 839.80 31/03/2011
    32 Morgan Stanley US 830.747 30/06/2011
    33 BBVA (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria) Spain 824.389 30/06/2011
    34 China Development Bank China 775.20 31/12/2010
    35 Royal Bank of Canada Canada 765.396 31/07/2011
    36 Dexia Belgium 750.521 30/06/2011
    37 National Australia Bank Australia 708.360 31/03/2011
    38 Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank Group) Canada 696.503 31/07/2011
    39 Natixis France 656.665 30/06/2011
    40 CM10-CIC Group France 688.158 30/06/2011
    41 Bank of Communications China 672.583 30/06/2011
    42 Westpac Australia 647.538 30/09/2011
    43 KfW Bankengruppe Germany 646.807 30/06/2011
    44 Commonwealth Bank of Australia Australia 645.288 30/06/2011
    45 Danske Bank Denmark 607.573 30/06/2011
    46 Bank of Nova Scotia Canada 594.750 31/07/2011
    47 ANZ Banking Group Australia 574.362 30/09/2011
    48 Banque Federative du Credit Mutuel (BCFM) France 566.252 30/06/2011
    49 DZ Bank Group Germany 555.695 30/06/2011
    50 Standard Chartered UK 516.540 31/12/2010
    51 Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg (LBBW) Germany 514.315 30/06/2011
    52 Bank of Montreal Canada 477.471 31/10/2011
    53 KBC Group Belgium 453.575 30/06/2011
    54 Nomura Holdings Japan 443.366 31/03/2011
    55 Banco Bradesco Brazil 437.892 30/06/2011
    56 Bayerische Landesbank Germany 431.107 30/06/2011
    57 China Merchants Bank China 408.898 30/06/2011

  22. @enraged – I agree with your assessment – the bank is squeezing for fees before it will fork over a payoff statement, which apparently is to include fees known and for some reason yet unknown. (weird – maybe there is an ongoing pi$$ing match over fees) But, it appears to me that LS wants evidence of representation and for whom by the law firm, and that is somewhere the law firm does not want to go, claiming privilege. It’s hard to say. I got that from the other attorney’s comments, and LS’ attorney didn’t seem prepared to argue the merits of getting evid of the representation (if I got that right). And for that, the judge said get them a damn payoff statement. I agree about sanctions, esp since the other attorney offered no real support for any proposition that a payoff statement couldn’t have been calculated and forked over when due (other than whining generically about ‘privilege’.

  23. Carie,

    No. Banks wouldn’t have any money left to play with. Europe is sure as hell not investing into American Banks, BRIC isn’t either (it is, however, investing into our country by creating its own banks here… but it is mostly going after South America and has already made ouvertures to a few countries there, other than Brazil, already a member), and Africa has no money to invest. Take away American investors’ money (that would be…us!) and you don’t have any banks left. We’re not just talking about little checking and savings accounts. We’re talking about business accounts, pension plans, things like that.

    ToLLe: the problem is that, compared to European, Asian and African countries, we ARE toddlers. Terrible ones, too and very much uneducated (look how bad our educational system is, compared to that of other developped countries). I suspect the only countries younger than us are Australia and New Zealand, both still such an intrinsic part of the Commonwealth that, technically, they are benefitting from the wisdom developped by the UK over hundreds and hundreds of years… We don’t. We do everything “By my-self!!!” We want to create, do out thing, invent, do as we please and stick it to everyone else. And we want wars! plenty of them. We know that war is what strenghtens economies. It’s served us very, very well up until now, right?

    Follow bad example, get burnt, don’t want to learn from it. UK will pull out. It has Scotland to keep it in line. We’ll have to learn the hard way and we’ve burnt too many bridges.

  24. Sanity, perhaps? Might be nice for a change.

  25. @E.Tolle

    So, if we all DID “realize en masse” the problem—what then? A global revolution? A million guillotines?

  26. It’s simple.

    Banks don’t want to pin down a figure because they are allowed more money creation by padding any amount they want post-foreclosure and prior to selling to HUD, FDIC, F&F, or any other number of Federal Reserve led entities that love to bite the hands that feed them.

    And we the people just keep pulling back bloody nubs from all these bank-serving entities and continue to check, save, and invest our hard earned ever dwindling funds with these same institutions because we’re too fucking stupid to realize en masse that they’re causing all of the suffering on the planet and hastening the demise of civilization as we know it.

    Brutally simple and so easy a toddler could get it.

  27. I meant “get it over with…”

  28. J.G.,

    I didn’t read it the same way you did. What struck me is:
    “8 MR. BERMAN: Because there are fees that they
    9 incur, may be incurred in the future, and there are
    10 fees that …”

    L.S. wanted the pay off figure as of the court date, including fees. The bank doesn’t seem to want to give it because of fees that “may be incurred in the future”. To me, it is obvious: the bank wants to keep on adding more and more fees and is stalling resolution as long as it can. Had the bank given the pay off amount, that was it. Case closed. That is the one thing banks don’t want: get of over with.

    Had I been L.S., I might have asked for sanctions. For Pete’s sake, Berman knew damn well what he was going to court for. Once again, stalling tactics to squeeze the last drop out of the lemon. Pisses me off!

  29. I just read enraged’s ‘LS transcript’. Looks like LS is not just looking for the payoff – she is in fact after (more?) discovery.

    “The scope of discovery is broad, encompassing any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”
    Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v Sanders, 437 U.S. 350, 3521
    Also from my notes:

    “Plaintiff’s general objections are not stated with the specificity
    required by Rule 33(b)(4) and should be summarily denied. With
    respect to the plaintiff’s general objections based on privilege or work product, plaintiff has failed to identify the documents or items
    withheld, as required by Rule 26(b)(5). …Plaintiff’s obstructionist
    conduct has prevented defendant from fully exploring and evaluating plaintiff’s rights, if any**, under the note and deed of trust and this behavior has resulted in expenditures of both the court’s and the defendant’s resources far better spent on other matters. As has often been emphasized, “such dilatory tactics are in contravention
    of open discovery emobodied in Rule 26.”

    (**for one – of many – , defendant has a need-to-know-clearance, which is being denied: is plaintiff (bankster, whomever) holder or hidc (which is it, bankster?) re: available affirmative defenses, which necessarily requires disclosure of any endorsement date to see if
    the current alleged holder took the note after default, for one, because then not hidc and then note is subject to a gazzillion defenses. (Defenses are limited against a hidc.)
    Affirmative defense(s) = no mtn to dismiss, I beleive.

    FRCP 33(b)(2) states: “The answers are to be signed by the person making them (should be client – sic) and the objections are to be signed by the attorney making them.” I’ve yet to see compliance. We have to keep pounding at every turn because when the rules of procedure and evidence are actually followed, those guys will lose. If we have a judge where bias is perceived, that judge has to know or at least believe his bull is gonna see an appeal.

  30. There’s a reason that gang doesn’t want to give LS a payoff statement.
    What might it be, I do so wonder.

  31. Yeah—maybe they figure since the weather is so good, we can put up with anything…

  32. Ande Carie,

    You guys in CA really have been dealt a lousy game, and from the bottom of the deck, to boot! CA doesn’t even figure on the list of Van Jones Progressive Coalition! I guess Californian’s don’t qualify as humans…

  33. And please overlook the typos… Sucky keyboard and no money to replace it.

  34. Niedermeyer,

    I see your point and I agree with it, to a certain extent.

    It is true that those who have faced foreclosure first-hand will have a better-educated opinion than those who haven’t. That being said, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for banks to find juries who haven’t, directly or indirectly (and that’s the key word), been affected by foreclosures and horrendous bankl-related situations. In these days and ages, everyone has relatives, neighbors, co-workers, friends or acquaintances who lost their home. Banks and media to their darn best to keep the “deadbeat” spin going but it’s losing its power. Ask the military!

    Think about it: you’re a teacher and, all of a sudden, you lose a couple of students and learn that… mom and dad lost the house, the kids had to move. You will never see them again, never hear from them again and you will go to bet wondering where they are and what happened to them. It will change your taken on foreclosures. Or you’re a cop or a sheriff, told to kick someone out. You see the tears, you hear the fear, the uncertainty. I have no doubt that, as a human being, you feel the pain you’re forced to cause. A doctor in the ER learning that the patient you’re caring for was just kicked out of his house. No address, no insurance, no job. The guy needs F/U treatment. As a doc, you have to wonder where/if he’ll get it. Examples of such situations abound. Compassion is human nature. Lawyers are petrified of compassion and they do their darn best to keep it cold and technical; they were taught that way. They present everything in a cold and technical way but chase the natural and it comes back in a hurry to bite you hard and draw blood.

    I too believe that banks are scare out of their wits. Simple: the more arrogant Jamie boy gets and the more scared we know he is. We are slowly seeing a reversal. Hang on to that thought.

  35. @enraged ,

    I see the poll info on the page you linked to … I don’t see how it could be called accurate as the audience responding to the poll are all people educated on the subject ,, people like us… I do however think such a poll using a sampling of adults would be a very useful tool … I believe that the banks are most scared of a jury trial … and the judges have substantially less influence on the outcome.

    I would do the poll myself using neutrally worded questions if someone could come up with a calling list … recent jurors … list from the supervisor of elections or something similar… the fact that we would be working mostly with wired home phone numbers is actually good as it will automatically oversample old people that still have them .. they are over-represented in juries as well..

  36. @enraged

    look up the definition of smarmy and there will be his face…sheesh!

  37. Here is an excerpt of the Szymoniak hearing Carie was refering to earlier. Atty Berman is a major down-under-body-cavity, if you get my drift… There will come a point where all those attorneys are being sorted out, disbarred, disciplined, stripped of court officer’s status and the likes. Then law schools will be shut down and people will relearn to negotiate face-to-face. I see it so clearly, it’s wonderful!

    This is not some dark or exaggerated delusion from an apocalyptic horror novel. Not a page out of Kafka’s The Trial. The banks wanted to go there, but a good judge read that book and answered firmly….”Not In My Courtroom!”

    …read some of the transcript..

    And I’ll tell you another reason why I
    18 need it, Your Honor. We asked for a pay-off figure
    19 under the service agreement. And under the federal
    20 law, they’re supposed to give us the attorney’s
    21 fees and the costs. February they did. The
    22 attorney’s fees were something less than two
    23 thousand, and the costs were something less than
    24 two thousand as well.
    25 Now that Ms. Szymoniak has the funds and would like to pay it off, as of this point, we made
    2 another request for a more current date, May 31st,
    3 I believe. And the response we got back from the
    4 servicer’s attorney is, Well, that’s going to be
    5 resolved by negotiation or by the Court.

    THE COURT: What is going to be resolved by
    8 negotiation?
    9 MR. CULLEN: The attorney’s fees and the
    10 costs.
    11 MR. BERMAN: They’re not liquidated.
    12 MR. CULLEN: So all of a sudden, we can’t even
    13 do the next step which we want to do, which is pay
    14 the money to get this case resolved, because
    15 they’re withholding because of attorney’s fees and
    16 costs.
    17 So it is relevant to this controversy,
    18 Your Honor, and I would ask the Court to allow us
    19 to have that information. Thank you.
    20 MR. BERMAN: Your Honor, if I may. The
    21 discovery that is sought is irrelevant. It seeks
    22 privileged and protective information and serves no
    23 legitimate purpose. Those issues regarding
    24 settlement are not germane to this proceeding right
    25 now.

    THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you this.
    18 MR. BERMAN: Sure.
    19 THE COURT: Let’s get to the bottom line.
    20 Does your client want it paid off or not? That’s
    21 the bottom line. Does Deutsche Bank want all their
    22 money to pay it off?
    23 MR. BERMAN: Subject to negotiation, Your
    24 Honor.
    25 THE COURT: What do you mean, subject to negotiations? I don’t understand that.
    2 MR. BERMAN: Well, Your Honor –
    3 THE COURT: You tell me — are you in the
    4 position to be able to tell Lynn Szymoniak how much
    5 the pay-off figure is and everybody goes home?
    6 MR. BERMAN: Not right now, Your Honor, no.
    7 THE COURT: Why not?
    8 MR. BERMAN: Because there are fees that they
    9 incur, may be incurred in the future, and there are
    10 fees that –
    11 THE COURT: How long is it going to take you
    12 to find out what they’re willing to accept, to pay
    13 it all off? How long is it going to take? A phone
    14 call?
    15 MR. BERMAN: No. Longer than that, Your
    16 Honor. I’d be happy to go through it. There are
    17 certain things –
    18 THE COURT: What do you mean, you have to go
    19 through it? You got to call up somebody and say,
    20 “Look, I want to pay off my mortgage. How much is
    21 the pay-off figure?” You mean to tell me it takes
    22 forever to do that?
    23 MR. BERMAN: Your Honor, he’s not just asking
    24 for the totalities.
    25 THE COURT: Yes, he is. He wants to know the total thing. What are you willing to accept now?
    2 MR. BERMAN: Well, Your Honor, if that’s all
    3 that he’s asking –
    4 THE COURT: That’s what he’s asking.
    5 MR. BERMAN: No, Your Honor, the discovery –
    6 THE COURT: Hey, look. That’s what he’s
    7 asking for; all right. How long is it going to
    8 take you to make a phone call to find out what,
    9 Deutsche Bank, do you want?
    10 MR. BERMAN: Well, if it’s just a figure, Your
    11 Honor –
    12 THE COURT: That’s what he’s asking.
    13 MR. BERMAN: Your Honor, in the discovery,
    14 he’s asking for retainer agreements; he’s asking
    15 for billing –
    16 THE COURT: I know, I can read it. I’ve heard
    17 it, okay?
    18 MR. BERMAN: But –
    19 THE COURT: Uh-uh.
    20 MR. BERMAN: I’m sorry.
    21 THE COURT: I’m going to deny the Motion, but
    22 I’m going to order that you contact him within five
    23 days as to a total figure as to attorney’s fees,
    24 costs, and everything else so the poor man can say,
    25 “Look, I’m going to write you a check and get out
    of the case.”
    2 MR. BERMAN: Okay.
    3 THE COURT: That’s what he’s asking for. And
    4 if it’s much more than two thousand — much more
    5 than two thousand, because we already know he’s at
    6 two thousand.
    7 MR. BERMAN: Your Honor, it’ll be more than
    8 two thousand.
    9 THE COURT: I said much more. We know the
    10 bottom line is two thousand. So I am going to deny
    11 that, but I’m also going to order, “Plaintiff shall
    12 advise Defendant total pay-off figure, including
    13 all fees and costs.”
    14 That’s what you’re looking for.
    15 MR. CULLEN: Yes.
    16 THE COURT: I know. That’s what he wants. He
    17 could care less what your timesheet was; he could
    18 care less what your retainer agreement was.
    19 And you’re absolutely right. At this
    20 stage of the game those are privileged
    21 communications. He just wants a total figure,
    22 including all fees and costs, within seven days.


  38. So, Barack my boy, leave Europe alone to handle her problems and tackle those that we have here with your little pals Jamie and The Stumpf, shall you? Doesn’t your Bible say that you need to keep your house in order [before minding someone else’s]? Europe doesn’t need you to put your nose into it. Buddy, you can only lead through example. So far, you speak well. Clean-up action is rather lacking…

    Nobel Winner Mundell Sees Euro Survival, Financial Post Reports
    By Cecile Gutscher on June 09, 2012 Tweet

    Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell said the euro will survive economic upheaval in Europe and defy critics, the Financial Post reported.

    “The euro — barring a political revolution in Europe — is here to stay,” Columbia University professor Mundell said in an interview with the Canadian newspaper.

    Spain may today move closer to becoming the fourth euro- area nation to receive aid as European leaders hold talks in Madrid. A bailout for Spain, reeling from a recession and the bursting of a property bubble, may dwarf previous rescues in the effort to stem the turmoil that began with Greece’s disclosure in 2009 that its finances were in worse shape than was previously known.

    “If the euro is a problem for Europe, it’s because the euro has been too strong, not too weak,” Mundell said. An exit by Greece would strengthen, not weaken, the euro. “A currency union is like an alliance — shedding a small member with more liabilities than assets can make the union stronger.”

    The European Central Bank, the European Financial Stability Facility and the International Monetary Fund must assume responsibility to help ailing countries and insure that fiscal targets are met, Mundell said. Bailout recipients must also relinquish control over their finances to the European Union.

    “Bailouts have to be linked to some transfer of fiscal authority from countries that have become insolvent to the European Commission acting under the auspices, for constitutional correctness, of the European Council,” Mundell said.

    “The euro is the glue that keeps the core of Europe together,” Mundell said. “Never before has there been a currency union that covers so large a share of the world economy and that has grown so successfully and so rapidly within the space of a decade and a half.”

    To contact the reporters on this story: Cecile Gutscher in Toronto at

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dave Liedtka at

  39. 94% of people polled state that foreclosure mills are fully aware they are fabricating documents and violating the law. Guys, if you are fighting your foreclosure, insist on a jury trial: once you get past the procedural hurdles (easier said than done), from now on, it will be near impossible for any bank to win in a foreclosure case.

    I always said that time was on our side. It will be increasingly more difficult for banks to keep the status quo.

    WHOA Wells Fargo – Hawaii Halts Those Horses!
    Posted on June 8, 2012 by Deadly Clear

    Honolulu’s DUBIN LAW FIRM has successfully halted 2 more Wells Fargo eviction actions in Hawaii. Hawaii neighbor island judges are catching on as the Dubin posse rounds up another load of bandits trying to drive off with the ol’ stagecoach.

    Both of the WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as Trustee cases were originally OPTION ONE mortgages that appear to have fabricated assignments to securitized trusts well-after the trusts had closed.
    Unlike revocable family trusts – securitized trusts are tax shelters (aka REMIC) for large volumes of investment money like state pension and retirement funds and are called static trusts meaning that whatever assets make up the trust MUST be sold, assigned, transferred to the trust on or before its closing date (with limited extensions – and a lot of paperwork). Even with extensions – attorneys say it is apparently unlawful to try to sneak the asset into the trust 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years later.

    Wells Fargo knows better than to file belated assignments – so do the local attorneys doing their bidding. New York trust law has been discussed in-depth by the United States Congressional Oversight Panel. This merits repeating from the November 16, 2010 Congressional Oversight Panel’s (COP) report titled “Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation” including references to the trust controlling documents and New York trust law. See the COP testimony at page 19:

    “[I]n order to convey good title into the trust and provide the trust with both good title to the collateral and the income from the mortgages, each transfer in this process required particular steps. Most PSAs are governed by New York law and create trusts governed by New York law. New York trust law requires strict compliance with the trust documents; any transaction by the trust that is in contravention of the trust documents is void, meaning that the transfer cannot actually take place as a matter of law. Therefore, if the transfer for the notes and mortgages did not comply with the PSA, the transfer would be void, and the assets would not have been transferred to the trust. Moreover, in many cases the assets could not now be transferred to the trust. PSAs generally require that the loans transferred to the trust not be in default, which would prevent the transfer of any non-performing loans to the trust now. Furthermore, PSAs frequently have timeliness requirements regarding the transfer in order to ensure that the trusts qualify for favored tax treatment.”

    The Tehiva family on Maui has been discussed several times on DeadlyClear and sends their heart felt thanks to everyone for their help and their prayers. It paid off with the blessing of a very astute Judge. It takes a considerably high IQ to grasp the securitization scheme and start to see the Ponzi.

    Honorable Eric G. Romanchak GRANTED Tehiva’s Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond Amount for a Stay Pending Appeal stating that they could pay $2,286.56 a month to the Clerk of the District Court of the Second Circuit, Hana Division, and the payments are to be held by the Clerk in a Court-supervised bond account for the pendency of the Appeal or until further order of the Court. AWESOME!

    The Hensleys on Kaua’i also originally had an Option One loan. Option One eventually became “Sand Canyon” and was under the control of Dale M. Sugimoto, its President. Mr. Sugimoto has stated in a SWORN declaration that Sand Canyon/Option One sold its business to WL Ross on April 30, 2008 and no longer held any real estate or servicing rights and that was stated over a year before this fabricated assignment of mortgage.

    The Hensley assignment was fabricated on Oct. 26, 2009. What sneaky a trick, yeah?

    It is obvious that the path of the Hensley mortgage loan did not follow the alleged trust instructions – not just because it was too late – but because the Securities and Exchange Commission documents on file for the trust say that “On the Closing Date, the Depositor will transfer to the Trust all of its right, title and interest in and to each Mortgage Loan, the related mortgage note …” Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation is the Depositor for the WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-1 ASSET-BASED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-1 …NOT Sand Canyon.

    This means Sand Canyon isn’t suppose to transfer the loan directly to the trust and according to the securitization patents there is a good reason for this – bankruptcy remoteness. The names all sound the same but they are separate corporations – with good reason. Double / Triple sneaky, yeah?

    What makes the Hensley case and so many others like it interesting, are the questionable actions of the bank’s foreclosure mill attorneys like Rush Moore who put together the Assignments, Notice of Foreclosures and Affidavits of Foreclosure (filed after a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding). In this case, attorney for the [alleged] mortgagee, Walter Beh II, signs a sworn and notarized affidavit of foreclosure and fails to include a copy of the much too late assignment and/or a copy of the note where there should be at least some endorsements.

    Walter, ya had to see these documents in the file and connect the dots when you made your affidavit – unless of course you were robo-signing, what in the world were you thinking?! You’d risk your license for a lousy bank?

    It appears Walter is either slick as a snake oil salesman or dumb as a stump… or they just think the judges are. In any case, it’s about time these fabricating enablers were called before the courts and the bar on ethics. You are invited to take the Poll at the end of the post.

    Unfortunately for Mr. Beh and his client Wells Fargo, the Rush Moore associate appeared before another well-informed judge. Kaua`i’s Honorable Kathleen N. A. Watanabe who also ordered in favor of the Hensleys stating:

    “THE COURT, having fully considered the written submissions of the parties, having heard the oral arguments of counsel, and having considered the entire record and files in this ejectment action, hereby GRANTS the aforementioned motion as follows:
    1. Pursuant to Rule 62(d) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, the December 2, 2011 Writ of Ejectment is hereby STAYED during the pendency of Defendants’ appeal.

    2. Meanwhile, that stay is conditioned upon Defendants’ posting of a supersedeas bond, to be paid in monthly installments of $2,500.00, which amount the Court finds is equal to the current fair rental value of the subject property located at 5029 Emmalani Drive, Princeville, Hawaii 96722.”

    These 2 instances of stay pending appeals with reasonable monthly payments made to the courts are the precise remedy to begin to stabilize the economy. These are smart moves by intelligent judges that can see from the pleadings that there are some obvious flaws. It gives everyone time to reflect – the banks, the homeowners, the courts and the legislators. These foreclosures are not slam dunks anymore. It’s no wonder that other courts have started awarding huge damages like the $3.1 MILLION recently in Louisiana.

    Cheers! Now the real lawyering begins and this is where the DUBIN LAW FIRM excels. Attorneys Frederick J. Arensmeyer and Gary Dubin, in addition to a top-notch staff of A+ lawyers, put together arguments for the courts so that they may better understand what happened as these so-called mortgages morphed into securities and were traded around the world like baseball cards – not necessarily following the rules and sometimes possibly breaking or bending the law.

  40. Concerted team efforts are the only thing that will make a difference.
    Unite, team up and fight as a group.

    Van Jones Leads Progressive Coalition and 600,000 Rebuild the Dream Members to Launch “Hope for Homeowners”
    By Mel Fabrikant Thursday, June 07, 2012, 03:33 PM EDT

    Campaign in 13 States. Underwater Homeowners to Demand Mortgage Relief. Rebuild the Dream is launching a new national campaign to help millions of struggling families keep their homes. Throughout June, “Hope for Homeowners” will spearhead a coalition of underwater homeowners and partner organizations in on the ground actions and petition deliveries to senators in 13 key states — NV, FL, ME, MA, OH, AZ, GA, MO, NC, PA, TN, VA, and WI — in support of 3 bills currently before the U.S. Senate.

    Coalition members include the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, U.S. PIRG, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans United for Change, and many more.

    “While the bankers who put us in this mess roam free, American families are drowning,” said Van Jones, co-founder of Rebuild the Dream and former special adviser to President Obama. “This is just one step toward ending the mortgage crisis, but for millions of Americans it could mean the difference between losing and keeping their homes.”

    A staggering 15.7 million American mortgages are currently underwater- one in three mortgages nationwide. Millions more are unable to refinance at historically low rates, leaving them paying thousands in additional interest each month.

    “We’re going to mobilize Americans to demand bold action to help struggling homeowners through the November elections and beyond, and this nationwide on-the-ground effort is just the first step,” said Natalie Foster, CEO of Rebuild the Dream. “Congress has a chance to pass home mortgage relief that would save a homeowner thousands each year, spark the economy, and provide hope to millions of Americans.”

    The three bills supported by the campaign are: “The Responsible Homeowners Act,” which helps families refinance with historically low interest rates and is sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ); “The Rebuild Equity Act,” which helps homeowners get above water faster with shorter mortgages, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR); and the “Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act,” which expands refinancing options for homeowners with non-federally guaranteed loans, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). This mortgage relief plan would save 4.2 million homeowners an average of $2,500 each year, a total of $10 billion annually, according to Moody’s Analytics.

    This is the first phase in a larger campaign by Rebuild the Dream and Van Jones to stem the foreclosure crisis by enacting a large-scale principal reduction program so that Americans do not owe more than their home is worth, and also to advocate for a swift and thorough investigation into mortgage fraud by banks and lenders responsible for the crisis.

  41. OWS v. NYPD, et al.
    Unfortunately, “et. al” got dismissed (that would be Bloomberg, Kelly and Monell, the individuals physically vested with the power to make decisions…) BUT the class actions against NYPD as an entity remainsw.

    Once again, it is taxpayers v. taxpayers, since NYPD is paid with tax payers’ money but, at least, OWS gets to pursue that unfair arrests claim. Small victory… victory nhevertheless.


    Lynn Szymoniak’s four-year battle for her home finally ended with a large increase on her mortgage.
    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Lynn Szymoniak’s four-year foreclosure nightmare is finally over — but the activist and her attorney said she couldn’t finalize her exit without one final problem.

    Her bank didn’t tell her how much she owed on her Palm Beach County, Florida home.

    Szymoniak began fighting with her bank in June 2008, when she said it improperly sought to raise the interest rate on her loan, increasing her monthly payments by roughly $1,000. She refused to pay, and has been embroiled in legal drama ever since.

    In a recent court decision, it was determined that Szymoniak owed $1.4 million, a roughly $250,000 increase from the figure she’d been given as recently as February of this year. Her initial mortgage was for $1 million and she estimates the current value of her home to be around $500,000.

    To end the drama, she agreed to pay and even received a $2,800 refund on her purchase.

    Akerman Senterfitt, the lawyers for American Home Mortgage Servicing, with whom she’s been battling, declined to comment for this story.

    She had initially taken her mortgage out with now-defunct Option One bank, but when the foreclosure letters started coming, they were marked from Deutsche Bank. When contacted by Szymoniak, Deutsche Bank said American Home Mortgage Servicing was the responsible party.

    While trying to beat the bank’s effort to increase her rate, Szymoniak, a white-collar crime attorney, uncovered irregularities in bank paperwork. She said that important documents were fabricated and some signatures were forged.

    She began documenting her findings, which ultimately led to allegations of massive, systemic fraud in the foreclosure process as banks cut corners to save money and, at times, appeared to foreclose on borrowers who had not missed any payments.

    The wrongdoing turned out to extend to federally backed loans, and Szymoniak’s findings became the basis of a lawsuit, which ended in a $95 million settlement between the government and several banks. Szymoniak, along with six other whistleblowers, received $46.5 million from the settlement.

    The settlement check was enough for her to help provide aid to nonprofit groups that aim to help those without homes or are in danger of losing them, while still paying off her mortgage.

    “For two months I’ve been trying to get a payoff figure on my loan,” Szymoniak told an audience at the Netroots Nation conference Friday. “I could not get a figure from either the mortgage servicer or the attorneys for the bank. Last week . . . I actually had to go into court and file a pleading to order a payoff figure. The judge was incensed and said they had seven days to get me a payoff figure. On the seventh day, they filed and asked for a five day extension.”

  43. I can’t find the information about how to find out when the securitized trust was “closed”—does anyone know? Mine was INDX AR19 2006.


    No criminal charges have been filed against Deutsche Bank, Lender Processing Services or American Home Mortgage Servicing and all three of these corporations continue to pursue forecloses in courts throughout the United States using fraudulent mortgage assignments to trusts created by Deutsche Bank and sold to investors as the bank was shorting these same investments.

  45. I found this on the internet and am posting it in case someone would find it helpful:

    …The question I had was about the one narrow exception that let me counterclaim an unlawful detainer. (Counterclaims are normally not allowed in an unlawful detainer case.)

    Here’s the question I asked:

    “224 I understand that normally a counterclaim may not be filed in an unlawful detainer action. However, one narrow California exception is when the resident defendant claims ownership of the property rather than a tenancy. In a nutshell: resident owner sued trustee/bank in re quiet title and predatory loan. Bank did nonjudicial foreclosure. Bank then sued for unlawful detainer while quiet title case still open. Do you know of the case regarding the exception?”

    Here is the reply:

    The person could assert the defense that there is already another action pending.

    California Code of Civil Procedure §430.10 states:

    §430.10. The party against whom a Complaint or cross-Complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
    (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
    (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.
    (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

    [MY NOTE: see below for full quote of 430.10]

    The UD Judges bench guide is posted at

    The main issue in a UD case is possession. The quiet title action over ownership necessarily decides the issue of possession, so from your description, there is another action pending and that is a basis to file a demurrer to the UD complaint.

    A qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in an unlawful detainer
    proceeding [see Evid Code § 624; 5.45[1][c]] is contained in CCP § 1161a. By extending
    the summary eviction remedy beyond the conventional landlord-tenant relationship to
    include purchasers of the occupied property, the statute provides for a narrow and
    sharply focused examination of title. A purchaser of the property as described in the
    statute, who starts an unlawful detainer proceeding to evict an occupant in possession,
    must show that he or she acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and
    thereafter “duly perfected” the title [CCP § 1161a; Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal.3d 251,
    142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P2d 28, (Cal., 1977) ]. To this limited extent, as provided by
    the statute, title may be litigated in the unlawful detainer proceeding [ Cheney v.
    Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal.2d 158, 159, 69 P.2d 832 ]
    [MY NOTE: Vella v. Hudgins case is quoted below]

    indicates how complex these cases can be, so I urge you to have an attorney assist you with this.

    You can get a free consultation from some of the California foreclosure avoidance attorneys listed by location at

    I hope this information is helpful.

  46. wheres your focus people- Neil, is it time for another you tube
    need media help to get this to the people en mass, concept for you all, we become what we think about, thinking about whats wrong will not help we must get creative and focus on what we can do, “wheres the outrage” look to Matt Weidner in florida and the interpleader with media, im out the door to work so i cant find link, someone post it please. lets go AZ, no serious coverage here yet.

  47. Martha,
    do you have enough to show hindering (blocking) your due process plus a possible conflict of interest to recuse that judge ? not legal advice just research it, i think you couldnt do worse right. keep kickin that door down.

  48. On July 12th, 2007 I was told to go tot first american title company to sign the deeds of trust on a lot my husband (not me) was buying from Hovnanian. I get there and DONNA DEMELLO is the agent, and she tells me she flew in from San Jose (this is where she and the rest of the MCCONVILLE gang were headquartered)

    DEMELLO tells me the lot number was changed by the builder to LOT 256, and because I was not on the grant deed my husband first had to sign two deeds of trust as sole and separate property.

    I saw the grant deed that day, for LOT 256.

    Then she had us sign a “final set” and the loans were for INDYMAC and COUNTYRWIDE I was told. and then we left.

    Dyas later a woman asked us to come back and “SWEAR” that we had signed on the 12th, and she made us hold up our hand and swear an oath, then we had to sign the SHARED office notary journal, and we left.

    they had secretly conveyed us lot 107 the 13th, and then used the oath/notary journal entry to support forgeries they created on lo 107, that were dated the 16th, and they took off the loan numbers of INDYMAC and COUNTRYWIDE, and put the loan numbers on these that were for the first set he signed alone.

    I have ALL FOUR MIN numbers, from MERS data base, and two show INDYMAC and COUNTRYWIDE ad two show HOVANANIAN and JPMORGAN.

    The court is losing my proof of services and declarations I file, telling me they are missing in hearings, yet they reappear in the file later, then they are denying me a right to a jury trial,

    PARTIES altered my Complaint to state 100% opposite of what I have said for two years, and they REMOVED 4 pages of the complaint that were the COA for FRAUD. and the judge refuses to let me AMEND to add in “officially” the pages the parties removed, even though I filed a errata.

    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMANY used us in a STRAW MAN PURPOSE, and the BANKS are litigating theses actions all over the country , all with the hidden unrecorded deeds of trust, all with LOANS that defaulted after two months, yet the system still denies me a right to and the judges TWIN BROTHER is affiliated in a business relationship with FIRST AMERICAN TITLE.

  49. @Carie,

    Can’t believe in government. Can’t believe in human justice and… can’t believe in God’s justice either (so far, he likes people with a lot of money better, especially if it’s been stolen).

    I’ve decided to believe in the little green guys. ‘Till they disappoint me.

  50. @enraged

    “New Swirled Order”—funny!!

  51. Believe or don’t believe. Something is definitely up. And it’s all good.


    …One of the $25 billion settlement’s architects, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, boasted about holding banks accountable during a Netroots speech on Thursday, but DECLINED an invitation to participate in the foreclosure fraud panel, according to Dayen, the panel’s moderator.
    White-collar crime lawyer Szymoniak and Chu, the Massachusetts activist, both bemoaned Obama’s frequent invocation of “responsible” borrowers, arguing that this subjective focus on the moral integrity of borrowers ignores the RAMPANT wrongdoing committed by the banking system both before and after the financial collapse. Chu emphasized that much of the legal architecture surrounding the mortgage system is rigged against middle-class and low-income homeowners, while providing breaks for wealthier borrowers.
    “We live in an economic system where if you own two houses or a yacht, you can declare bankruptcy and save those with principal reduction. But if you’ve only got one house, you can’t,” Chu said. “So people find themselves in foreclosure through a whole set of factors beyond their own personal decisions.”
    The panelists generally appeared heartened by the media attention foreclosure fraud has received over the past two years. Nevertheless, Barofsky has little faith that Republican or Democratic politicians will do anything substantive to curb foreclosure abuses.
    “We will be here in two years again, talking about this program, unless something radical changes. And I don’t see how it’s going to happen,” Barofsky said. “So many people make so much goddamn money off of it, and that is what controls things in Washington.”

  53. For a split second there, I almost felt bad. Really! Can’t dislearn compassion. Then I remembered who they were talking about…

    Study: 14 percent of bankers got no bonus last year

    By HUGH SON Bloomberg News

    Publication: The Day

    Published 06/07/2012 12:00 AMUpdated 06/06/2012 11:42 PM0
    COMMENTS (0)
    New York – The proportion of investment bankers who got no bonuses last year more than doubled to about 14 percent, a poll by executive-search firm Options Group shows.

    The percentage of employees who weren’t given an annual award rose from 6 percent in 2010, a report yesterday from the New York-based company said. Getting no bonus, or being “blanked” by your employer, isn’t the smear it once was because base salaries increased after the 2008 financial crisis, said Michael Karp, managing partner of Options Group.

    “People aren’t complaining about it as much as they would have if this were 2007,” Karp said in a telephone interview. “As compensation shifted, the mentality of people has become more limber. Also, these are times you can’t just quit and expect two offers right away.”

    Wall Street firms are cutting costs and vowing to claw back some payments as they succumb to revenue and regulatory pressures. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America trimmed pay and reduced positions this year. More cuts may come as the European debt crisis dims the industry’s prospects, Karp said.

    Financial firms in Britain have also been under pressure from regulators and governments to cut pay due to public anger about taxpayer assistance to banks, including Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Lloyds Banking Group.

    RBS Chief Executive Officer Stephen Hester this year waived his 963,000-pound ($1.49 million) bonus after the opposition Labour Party said it would ask Parliament to vote on the award.

  54. Well, let’s face it: can’t accuse Bernanke of being double-minded. For-the-bank he was, for-the-banks he is and for-the-bank he shall be. It’s becoming boring…

    Today’s Paper

    Bernanke: Fed Stands Ready If Banks Feel European Shocks

    In testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, Fed chairman also highlights lawmakers’ role in strengthening U.S. economy

  55. Just as i like them: cornered.

    Breakingviews: Bankers can’t always hide behind bad legal advice
    6/8/2012 COMMENTS (0)

    NEW YORK, June 8 (Reuters Breakingviews) – Bankers can’t always hide behind bad legal advice. A former Deutsche Bank broker convicted in a tax-shelter scheme won’t get a new trial because of blunders by his counsel. And yet ex-Bank of America Chief Executive Ken Lewis is blaming lawyers for seemingly insufficient disclosure before shareholders voted on the 2008 merger with Merrill Lynch. It’s enough to give attorneys whiplash.

    The Deutsche case is a lawyer’s worst nightmare. A quick Google search by defense counsel discovered that a juror at David Parse’s trial may not have been the housewife she professed to be. But the attorneys refused to believe she had lied during jury selection. Only after the verdict did they ascertain for sure that she was a suspended lawyer deeply prejudiced against their client.

    But rather than grant Parse a new trial, the judge excoriated his attorneys for hiding their suspicions until after his conviction. The court ruled that Parse had waived the constitutional right to an impartial jury and would therefore take the fall for the mistakes of his lawyers.

    The concept seems alien to BofA’s Lewis. In court papers filed this week, he says the bank’s chief financial officer and lawyers, allegedly including Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, assured him that disclosing Merrill’s mounting losses was unnecessary, and so he isn’t liable for misleading investors about the $50 billion acquisition. In legal terms, so the argument goes, he lacked the necessary intent to break the law, because he relied on expert advice, however mistaken.

    Something doesn’t add up. There’s no evidence that Parse, who pleaded not guilty, knew anything about the juror’s lies, but he still faces substantial prison time after an unfair trial because his lawyers erred. Meanwhile, Lewis, no stranger to the demands of financial disclosure, agreed with a decision not to publicly reveal information that very well might have quashed his big deal. And yet he seeks protection by making counsel the scapegoats.

    There is at least a reasonable chance that Parse’s conviction will be overturned on appeal. And despite years of scrutiny, regulators and prosecutors have yet to pin fault on Lewis for the Merrill misadventure. Disgruntled shareholders may eventually fare better. Passing the buck is a Wall Street pastime, but can also be a risky game to play in court.


    – U.S. District Judge William Pauley in New York on June 4 upheld the conviction of former Deutsche Bank broker David Parse on tax evasion charges, despite finding that a juror’s lies had tainted the verdict. The judge ruled that Parse waived his right to a new trial because his lawyers knew, but failed to tell the court, that the juror had given false answers during jury selection. Pauley granted three of Parse’s co-defendants new trials because of the juror’s misconduct.

    – Meanwhile, former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis asked a judge on June 3 to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging that he misled shareholders by failing to disclose mounting losses at Merrill Lynch before BofA acquired the investment bank in 2008. Lewis argued that BofA’s lawyers and chief financial officer had told him that disclosure wasn’t necessary.

    Reynolds Holding is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

    (Reporting by Reynolds Holding)

    Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook

  56. @Diane,

    Always wondered about that “From time to time” crap. So, on Mondays and Tuesdays, I’ll appoint a trustee. The rest of the week, I’ll pretend there is one but, in fact, there won’t be any. Something like that, right?

  57. Carie,

    Isn’t this right about the time when Tnharry goes to Floriduh on vacation? You know, something we haven’t heard of for so long, we were wondering if they still made them. Va-ca-tions. Sounds obscene. Sinful even. Especially from Columbus-by-the-Sea.

  58. The last, or almost last page of your Deed of Trust says ” from time to time the “lender” may appoint a substitute trustee.

    Almost all substitute trustees are appointed illegally. Bank of America poses as my note holder, although I’ve received many letters from them saying they are not the creditor, they are not the note holder, Fannie Mae is … Bank of America (not the lender) substitutes the trustee. Challenge everything !!!!!!


    Schneiderman and the Obama administration tout the $25 billion settlement as an example of their willingness to get tough on big banks that are accused of widespread fraud in the foreclosure process. But several experts, including Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, say the fine print on the deal makes it look more like a subsidy for Wall Street than any kind of punishment.

  60. “Our entire housing system is built on a foundation of fraud,” said Barofsky, who served as special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program from 2008 into 2011.

    Both she and Barofsky argued that the magnitude of the documentation problem — and the fact that any concerted effort to solve it would hit the bottom lines of Wall Street banks — has discouraged Washington from taking action.


    John Gallagher, a Deutsche Bank spokesman in New York, said the Frankfurt, Germany-based Deutsche Bank would not comment in detail on the ruling involving its trust arm, which had depended on a separate servicer to litigate the foreclosures.
    “The function of the trustee is largely an administrative one; the trust company has no ownership stake or beneficial interest in the underlying loans of a securitization, nor is it responsible for foreclosures or selling foreclosed property,” Gallagher told The Associated Press in an e-mail.


  62. Deutsche is a TRUSTEE ONLY—yet they routinely steal homes in their name as OWNER:

    “A nonjudicial foreclosure sale is accompanied by a common law
    presumption that it ‘was conducted regularly and fairly.’ This
    presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence of prejudicial
    procedural irregularity. . .”

    Okay, tnharry or whomever—is this considered “evidence of prejudicial procedural irregularity”—

    …that their own damn spokesman—John Gallagher—has said on more than one occasion—publicly:

    Deutsche has “no beneficial ownership stake or interest in the underlying mortgage loans…”

    Please—Neil—someone—anyone—tell me—with this public admission by their OWN SPOKESPERSON—how the heck are they STILL getting away with foreclosing as an owner??? Am I the only one asking this question???

  63. People, we must vote Obama. He’s the only candidate running for any office who’s talking about the problems, like here:

    “Regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market,” Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, said in the letter. “We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly. Please don’t let this opportunity pass us by.”

    And Fed Chairman Bernanke’s all over this problem as well:

    ”…. Bernanke told lawmakers then that while the problems in the subprime mortgage industry have caused “severe financial problems for many individuals and families,” it was highly unlikely that it would affect the overall economy.

    Now please vote for Oba….oh wait..WTF!…Sorry…that’s all from 2007, my bad!

  64. @tnharry

    I promise I’ll be nice if you answer that question…

  65. Can someone please answer this question:

    If we ask our “servicer”: WHO owns my loan?…and the ONLY answer they give is: “Your loan has been securitized.” …and you present that answer to the judge or in a lawsuit as the ONLY answer given after REPEATED asking—how does that fly with a judge? Can I use that in my lawsuit somehow? I have that in writing—from the servicer—the only answer they ever gave me to that question…

  66. The bottom line is “NON LOAN OWNERS” are selling/stealing these homes…why is that so frickin’ hard to prove? All this courtroom BS—isn’t all that matters is—show me the proof that you OWN THE LOAN? Sorry—but do the judges care about that? Sorry if this has been answered already…

  67. Alabama Appeals Court Reverses Decision on Chain of Title Case, Ruling Hinges on Question of Bogus Allonges

    In a unanimous decision, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed a lower court decision on a foreclosure case, U.S. Bank v. Congress and remanded the case to trial court.

    We’d flagged this case as important because to our knowledge, it was the first to argue what we call the New York trust theory, namely, that the election to use New York law in the overwhelming majority of mortgage securitizations meant that the parties to the securitization could operate only as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement that created that particular deal. Over 100 years of precedents in New York have produced well settled case law that deems actions outside what the trustee is specifically authorized to do as “void acts” having no legal force. The rigidity of New York trust has serious implications for mortgage securitizations. The PSAs required that the notes (the borrower IOUs) be transferred to the trust in a very specific fashion (endorsed with wet ink signatures through a particular set of parties) before a cut-off date, which typically was no later than 90 days after the trust closing. The problem is, as we’ve described in numerous posts, that there appears to have been massive disregard in the securitization for complying with the contractual requirements that they established and appear to have complied with, at least in the early years of the securitization industry. It’s difficult to know when the breakdown occurred, but it appears that well before 2004-2005, many subprime originators quit bothering with the nerdy task of endorsing notes and completing assignments as the PSAs required; they seemed to take the position they could do that right before foreclosure. Indeed, that’s kosher if the note has not been securitized, but as indicated above, it is a no-go with a New York trust. There is no legal way to remedy the problem after the fact.

    The solution in the Congress case appears to have been a practice that has since become troublingly become common: a fabricated allonge. An allonge is an attachment to a note that is so firmly affixed that it can’t travel separately. The fact that a note was submitted to the court in the Congress case and an allonge that fixed all the problems appeared magically, on the eve of trial, looked highly sus. The allonge also contained signatures that looked less than legitimate: they were digitized (remember, signatures as supposed to be wet ink) and some were shrunk to fit signature lines. These issues were raised at trial by Congress’s attorneys, but the fact that the magic allonge appeared the Thursday evening before Memorial Day weekend 2011 when the trial was set for Tuesday morning meant, among other things, that defense counsel was put on the back foot (for instance, how do you find and engage a signature expert on such short notice? Answer, you can’t).

    The case was ruled in favor of the US Bank, in a narrow and strained opinion (which was touted as significant by reliable securitization industry booster Paul Jackson). It argued that the case was an ejectment action (the final step to get the borrower out after the foreclosure was final) so that, per securitization expert, Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin,

    ..the question of ownership of the note was not an issue of standing, but an affirmative defense for which the homeowner had the burden of proof…Crazy or not, however, this meant that the homeowner wasn’t actually challenging the trust’s standing. From there it was a small step for the court to say that the homeowner couldn’t invoke the terms of the PSA because she wasn’t a party to it…..

    The case has been remanded back to trial court, and the judges put the issue of the allonge front and center.

    Alabama Appeals Court Ruling U.S. Bank v. Congress June 8, 2011

  68. Shocking figures show one U.S. soldier commits suicide EVERY DAY
    By Daily Mail Reporter
    PUBLISHED: 20:44 EST, 7 June 2012 | UPDATED: 21:35 EST, 7 June 2012

    Suicides are surging among America’s troops, averaging nearly one a day this year – the fastest pace in the nation’s decade of war.

    The 154 suicides for active-duty troops in the first 155 days of the year far outdistance the U.S. forces killed in action in Afghanistan – about 50 per cent more – according to Pentagon statistics obtained by The Associated Press.

    The numbers reflect a military burdened with wartime demands from Iraq and Afghanistan that have taken a greater toll than foreseen a decade ago. The military also is struggling with increased sexual assaults, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other misbehavior.

    Read more:

  69. “Given how much is on the line for everyday Americans, why in the world would we hand over the White House to the same people that left our country in a much worse place than they found it?”

    The man is either completely clueless or it is just a rhetorical question, something he asked to appear interesting and hear his own voice. I’m there with you, Westcoast. Bill Black would mean that he is sincere in his desire to redress the wrongs. but that would imply going after thanbks, right? Naw… he can’t do that! Not with Geithner nearby. What really irks me is that, had we had McCain, we probably would already have had our revolution and we’d be on our way back up. Or, at least, we’d know where we stand. Obama has done just enough to keep people hopeful, hence quiet but not enough to make headways.

    in my book, a lightweight. A dangerous one at that.

  70. I agree with westcoastliberal – the Mortgage Fraud Unit is just the latest ploy to lull his supporters into thinking something is being done to address the fraud.

    Holder’s job has to run the clock on the statute of limitations – and by all counts, he’s done a fabulous job.

    NY State has the most generous statutes – 6 years – and the window is closing on that opportunity too. By the end of the calendar year, vast majority of Institutional Investors defrauded to the tune of $13 trillion will not be able to sue the guilty parties.

    Mission accomplished for Obama and his cronies.

  71. DON’T hold your breath. Everything the Obama admin has done this far is pure PR with zero substance. If he hires Bill Black to sort things out it will get my attention.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: