Federal Reserve Vs. Treasury Dept. Fight Over Shaming the Banks

STANDARD CHARTERED accused of conducting secret money laundering transactions with Iran.
“Mr Lawsky has accused the bank, which employs nearly 90,000 people worldwide, of breaking money-laundering rules and processing $250bn of transactions on behalf of Iranian clients. The regulator has given the bank until next week to “demonstrate why [the bank’s] license to operate in the state of New York should not be revoked”.
Apparently some public officials are expressing their outrage and going off the reservation. In this case of money laundering the official went around the Federal Reserve and used his position to issue a report about the illegal activities — laundering money for terrorists — about $160 billion worth, which is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to HSBC and other banks who reportedly engaged in the same activities on behalf of drug cartels. It was Benjamin Lawsky, head of the recently created New York State Department of Financial Services
The Federal Reserve is issued off because they were in “delicate negotiations” with the offender, following a policy of limiting the “shaming” of Banks that violate laws and public policy and in this case, potentially treason.
The official in this case decided that shaming and exposing Bank practices to the light of day was exactly what was needed and I agree with him. Hopefully more regulators will issue such reports regarding the massive mortgage fraud perpetrated upon the world economies. This official was obviously not feeling bound by the veil of secrecy that served as policy.
Millions of homeowners have been foreclosed, their lives ruined, and their neighbors lived ruined by unemployment and the blight of rows upon rows of vacant homes. Many of these homes homes were promptly abandoned by the Banks after foreclosure. Banks are creatures of the societies that charter them and allow them to exist. When Banks go errant acting against the interests of the society that allows them to exist they must be held with their feet to the fire.
More than 6 million homes foreclosed and it looks like another 10 million will follow unless we stop this charade. This was a direct strike against the entire society the government. It created world chaos and nearly destroyed our ability to recover and certainly delayed a recovery for decades.
 This was accomplished by fraud. Investor-lenders and homeowners were fooled into signing papers that served only as vehicles for the Banks to act as though they were principals in a transaction that never existed — while at the same time acting as intermediaries in the real transaction, leaving the borrower and lender high and dry.
While the illegal, wrongful and perhaps treasonous behavior of the Banks is allowed to continue, in order to maintain public confidence in a corrupt system, countless lives have been lost to suicide and depression. Maybe more officials will be encouraged to beat a new path to the criminals who ran these Banks and their societies into the ground.
Don’t talk to me about “delicate negotiations” when the is being used to create loss of life and mayhem across the world. I don’t want to hear about public confidence relating to the housing market and Foreclosures when practically none of the Foreclosures were ever legal, proper or moral. The fact that ordinary people cannot decipher the real fraud is no excuse for keeping them in the dark and failing to act on such behavior with law enforcement, regulation and legislation.
These banks have turned into wild beasts defeating every step we take domestically and in foreign policy. They must be stopped — and this report is a good place to start. Creditors should be paid once on each obligation. Allowing intermediaries who are supposed to facilitate transfers of  money to become “temporary principals” is a dangerous precedent. It invites moral hazard and plays on the unfortunate view that business people can reorganize their debt and other obligations while individuals are forced through hoops and ladders.
While the investor lenders thought they were covered by proper behavior in handling the vast quantities of money they handed over to the banks, their agreements were routinely ignored as the money was subjected to fast talking titans of Wall Street who took some of that money for themselves. While the investors thought they were properly protected by the documentation of loans, insurance and credit default swaps, the Banks left them buck naked with no documentation to support their ownership of specific loans and no proceeds distributed from insurance, credit defaults swaps and federal bailout.
The Banks committed the further fraud of “borrowing” the loss of the investor lenders and using it as an excuse for the bailout — a fact now corroborated in public reports.
So where is your outrage? When will you step up t the allot box, march in the streets and write a dozen letters to law enforcement and legislators to put the pressure, the accountability and the light of day on a sector that we let become half of our reported gross domestic product trading paper on on existent transactions. All I ask is the truth. What about you?

The Fed And The Treasury Are Furious That A No-Name NY Regulator Went Around Them And Attacked Standard Chartered

51 Responses

  1. 138278 323611I really got into this article. I found it to be interesting and loaded with unique points of interest. I like to read material that makes me think. Thank you for writing this great content. 29171

  2. Re: The Prosecution of US Bank and SN Servicing’s Owners and Board of Directors. Ok People our petition to the FBI, The Attorney General and the Mortgage Task Force is is now gaining real speed and sure to go public exposing the Board of Directors. Join our list of other victims, if you also have real proof of forged or photo shopped deeds or mortgage documents please call me. Its time to bring the current owners, services and Board of directors to justice for forgery and fraud on our state and federal courts. They all knew or should have known that these crimes have been committed for some time now but they did nothing. They hide behind the attorneys who have been claiming that they didn’t know they were forged, but don’t believe it they all knew. Some attorneys have been backing out and asking to be removed from these cases because they are honorable but do they come forward? Hell no. Their silence is only keeping this destructive train chugging along destroying families and clouding titles forever. Making payments to these guys or paying off your mortgage will come back to haunt you when the real owners show up and make their demands. The crooks will be long gone and you may lose in the end anyway because lawyers cost big bucks.

    Join us with your real proof and we will get justice. Call me Ray Shelton at 352-274-8467

  3. WA Supreme Court Decision on MERS Standing!

    entered AUG 16, 2012


  4. Beg 9/11 Nuksters to vaporize Wall St. next 9/11: http://www.henrymakow.com/911_-_nukes_caused_this_devast.html

  5. y Shelton, on August 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm said:

    Ok People, Re: A very brilliant Attorney, Jeff Barnes. Like the guy above I was duped by other attorneys too. They bragged about how many clients they had just to get us to sign up but once signed they just avoided us like we had a death wish. Just try to get one of your past attorneys to send your file to a new attorney, that’s impossible. Our Florida bar will go after them but will they slap the hand that feeds them? Yea right, good luck with that complaint. Then one day as I started to give up hope I found a fighting Pit Bull needed to do battle against the big boys, and he is wining Federal Cases all across our great country. It took some time to get this man on board because he doesn’t want long winded stories or clients who truly have no case. He is also very tough on the money issues. After 6 months of saving and borrowing every penny to hire him, I headed out from Florida to meet him in person in Beverly Hills, California. Turns out that I was very lucky to meet him because he spends most of his time at 40.000 feet traveling to his next case or conducting seminars for other attorneys on how to win their foreclosure cases . I called as soon as I arrived, he said come over. I entered a plain office on the corner of Wilsher Blvd and Rodeo Dr and I found Jeff to be a very warm and personalble man. He was not all lawyer talk but he did have a clear understanding of the law and how Americans have been raped by the banksters and servicers. He did give me a mouth full of all the technical and legal issues that pertained to our case and for the first time I really believe that we were going to win this battle. Now after several months of him being on board I have come to really appreciate who I have as a defense team. I do think Jeff Barnes including his nationwide defense team are going to be a hero to many families who have been victimized by the banks. I also feel that they are going to make a big different in all the courts across this land, Just read about his wins on the Internet.
    We always believed that the banksters had no standing, because of the securitization issues, the mortgage companies and servicers bankruptcy’s, but at this point I can only have faith in Jeff and my own case because we are just now realizing that all the documents that were submitted by Golson’s firm were possibly fake and forged by some very complex machinery that forged our names. We are going to find out who did this. But we have the proof now and Jeff has presented it to the court, will our Judge rule on the truth now?
    If not Jeff will appeal imidiatlely. My biggest consern now is that some judges still dont get it and many peoplel feel that some judges are acting like collectors for the big banks.
    If we are right about the fraud on the court then when will these people go to jail? I believe that the board of directors of US Bank and SN Servicing may be Criminals involved in Racketeering and Corruption at its highest level but are they being shielded by the system to prevent the truth from coming out and the collapse of their profits?
    US Bank and SN Servicing has hired new attorneys now, then they too dropped out, begging the court to let them out of any liability ( we said no way and won that motion ) Did they probably realized that the doc’s were fraud on the court and wanted no part of it? Now a new law firm has been hired but guess what? These guys have a background in Criminal Defense. Is this to provide legal advice to keep the banksters and servicers out of jail as they continue to try and foreclose on us with possibly forged documents? Who really knows for sure. Soooo If you can, hire Jeff Barnes do it no matter what it takes because he is the best you are going to find when it comes to fighting the banksters. He trains other attornies on how to fight with the right tools in court and now many of them are winning too. Good Luck People and May God Bless You, Yours and Jeff Barnes.
    Thanks, Ray Shelton

  6. The Plot Thickens;
    does the following mean that in simpler terms: StanChart –the money-lauderer for Iran’s nuclear program, is really a “front” for JPmorgan and Bank of New York Mellon?

    anybody have a comment on the intricacies of the following bank-speak? why would these so-called custodial banks suffer from their “sub-custodial” bank stanChart’s bad activities?

    “Hintz said British-based Standard Chartered is an important agent bank for US custody banks such as Bank of New York Mellon Corp, JPMorgan Chase Co Inc and State Street Corp. Standard Chartered provides the banks important access to central securities depositories in mainland Asia and Africa.

    Hintz, in a research note, said the US custody banks relyon extensive sub-custodian networks to pass on economies of scale and scope to big institutional clients.

    “If a sub-custodian were to be found guilty of an internal conspiracy to hide prohibited transactions from US regulators, US global custodial banks exposed to that sub-custodian may fall under increased scrutiny from their fiduciary clients,” Hintz said in his note.

    “Among the more severe consequences, exposure to Standard Chartered could result in reputational damage and potentially negatively impact the ability of a US global custodian to win new mandates from public funds and other fiduciary clients.”


    The same thing was raised in the Friday 8/10/2012 Financial Times.

    it sure sounds as if the money actually came to rest in the JPM and BNY–which is a sweet deal—if thats the way it worked—but could these pair actually claim complete innocence since StanChart was already charged with this same moneylaundering in 2004———–and agreed to stop in 2006————but just kept right on going. What is the fear for JPM and BNY eyc being expressed–that they might have to process these nasty deals directly in future if the “front” is taken out—–is this whole investigation and all the bitching out of the UK really because the true culprits are these big US custododian banks? Eg BNY is trustee for most US minicipal bond investors—could that mean that the Iranian laundered money was actually directed into investments in ultra-safe muni bonds by BNY etc?

    It sure would be nice if US investigators were really on duty–at least the non-New York state ones—but looks like main thing they are interested in is that their payroll checks clear every other friday—

  7. U should enjoy having such honest system: http://www.almartinraw.com/book.html

  8. oh yes–its a radical anti-business operation that stated the unsigned justice dept was “unusual”——-maybre its got to do with whoever ordered the action doesnt want his mother to know he did it


  9. @ALL
    We can all rest easier tonite knowing justice was done.

    Neither Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS: 103.60, +1.10, +1.07%) nor its employees will face U.S. criminal charges related to trades they made during the financial crisis that were highlighted in a 2011 U.S. Senate report, the Justice Department said on Thursday.

    The unusual announcement not to prosecute criminally came in an unsigned statement attributed to the department.

    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/08/09/us-will-not-press-criminal-charges-against-goldman/#ixzz236WOxAMo

  10. @dcb – That’s quite an interesting capsulization, and thanking you son of God for the English, I agree with you except no. 4 is not quite right regarding the first payment at closing (that’s the part I readily get). But it’s very minor, so so what. The acts of the banksters against the borrowers in the manner you describe with those unintelligible teaser rates is one of the big reasons I don’t care fwiw if borrowers used their homes for atm’s or not. You can take the equity from your home if you want, and people will when they believe they can swing the payments. But first of all, allowing people to do this especially to such a high loan to value on inflated values and trumped up income led to a false economy from unrealistic spending. Many Moms and pops saw the spending and spent their own life savings, for instance, on business ventures doomed to fail. Next, you are so right about those teaser rates. They should not exist and WS can you know about free commerce.
    There is no way borrowers understood what they were getting into
    with those loans. It makes me sick. Getting an attorney for closing probably wouldn’t have helped much (maybe it would have – I don’t know) as those are complicated formulas, not the terrain of people outside the industry. And even they don’t get a lot of it. The figures the borrowers were given on disclosures are generated by a computer program I believe was unreliable. “Garbage in, garbage out”. I hope to work on my own little program to expose the falcity of the numbers disclosed, in short, which may provide some relief.
    And I think your analysis of their analysis / prediction of failure is right on. What a thing to do to your neighbor.

  11. If you wanted to get technical, and I think we have to for certain reasons, in the scenario whereby A assigned the dot to B in error, let’s say, could B actually assign it back? If B is not the proper party for an assgt from A for lack of a right to the dot, no interest in the note,
    I’m not sure an assignment would be the vehicle because despite the assgt, B really has nothing to re-assign.* Hmmm…the assignment IS generally binding between them, but B had no right to the assignment (if error for this example). Maybe a quitclaim from B back to A would be the ticket, because an assignments suggests interest in B. This can’t be new…it must have happend in all these years, so there should be case law on it. But I think one thing remains: A cannot assign to C without resolution of the assgt from A to B. And B, having no right to the assgt, can’t assign to anyone else. Right?
    *Complicating things is that since B has no right to the assignment for lack of interest in the note, the note and dot are bifurcated by A’s act of assigning the dot to B. Is it fatal? I don’t know nor am I sure how they would undo such a mess. But like I said, it must have happend in good faith (or even bad) before this MERS business.
    I am bringing this up because I know it has happened – the A to B and then A to C on its heels.
    All I really wanted to do was talk about the necessity for Notice!

  12. I was trying to give Martha some kind of lead on her issue, and it reminded me of “Notice”, the same one MERS recognized in its 2000 propaganda, which I linked. If a creditor gets a judgment, but does not record it, there’s no Notice, right? and it won’t be first in time
    relevant to priority of liens because it’s not a lien at all; unrecorded, it’s just a judgment. The judgment may be good between the judgment creditor and the debtor, (will not attach to real property, tho) but that’s it, just like an unrecorded asst of a dot. If that debtor buys real estate and the judgment is not recorded, for lack of notice, it will not attach to the property he buys. If he sells a property, for lack of notice, it will not attach to the property. In other words, the judgment creditor got the judgment, but no one else knows it since it has not been noticed. As relating to these dot assignments, to believe that the Notice provision, i.e., recordation, is necessary, you have to first believe something else: that an assgt had to have been executed and delivered in the first place, even if not recorded concurrently because MERS retained nominal status in public record for its members.
    Those unrecorded assignments (which should have been done pursuant to the statute of frauds because the interests created involve real property) DO bind the assignor and assignee as between them. Only. That’s why certain bk debtors and trustees may avoid unrecorded interests. They have the status of bonafide purchasers for value withOUT notice as a matter of law.
    Sometimes you’ll see multiple assignments from A to B and then
    A to C and others out of whack. They can’t do that, of course. Once A has assigned it’s interest, it’s gone. It’s binding on A and A’s original assignee (B), recorded or not. “A” may not renounce its assgt to B, saying mol psyche! and execute a diff one to someone else. A is toast. B would have to assign the interest back to A, and then and only then could A assign its interest to someone else. And this assumes A had the right to assign the dot in the first place, since it may only be assigned TO the party holding the legally transferred note BY the party who last held the legally transferred note.

    Take out securitization for a minute. A legitimate transferee of a note
    has a right to an assgt of the coll instrument. If A negotiated the note to B but didn’t assign the dot to B, B has a right to get it from A as a matter of law and B would usually say fork it over at some point. Until B gets that assgt, he has an unsecured note (despite Carpenter, which I’m not getting into again just now, iffin you don’t mind but long and short was a mortgage, a lien, not a dot).
    In the old days, pre-MERS, these things were done concurrenlty, with a few stragglers. If the title commitment, reflecting public record, still showed “A” as the ben on the dot, but the title co. was paying off “B”, the title co. would call for an assignment from “A”. It would be sent to the title co. usually and the title co. would record it ahead of the new loan. In fact, the title commitment would call for the assignment from A to B.
    But with securitization, now put back in the deal, they can’t do that, ‘that’ being waiting til the cows come home to execute and deliver the assgt, because of the strict compliance with cut-off dates imposed by trust law. In this scenario from the old days, “B” could not exercise any rights under the dot until it got the assignment from “A” and it was noticed by recordation.
    Lay opinions, not legal advice.

    @enraged – I’d like to see thousands of those billboards accross the country – maybe tone down the hanging guy as not to distract drivers.
    But it got notice, that’s for sure.

  13. DCB- thank you for that. you know those involved in this crime are in hell. ill try to research what you wrote as waking hours allow me i wonder what on earth will really become of it all, what happens in the next 30 years when they figure a new more exciting way to have even more money, wealth being shifted not made- ive said this befor, “they” have an intiatiable appetite for money and power, like Heroin addiction, without fear of doing time behind bars without protection from outside agencies that SHOULD protect the public, and our courts of law, they will continue to destroy lives en masse, the world of these control freaks not so beautiful.
    E Tolle ,like your post. Dont mean to sound like a conspiracy nutter. by the way – i am without country ive decided, but i still think Winston was a cool dude, to date anyway- though NOTHING is what it seems these days.

  14. JG,

    A picture is, indeed, worth a thousand words… I love it!!!

  15. Beware of short title legislation. Time is running out and your home was lost at the conception of the loans origation. The evidence is in your possession.

    You must file a claim that encompasses your rights to own fee simple title. I believe the American Bar Association knows this and either has informed attorneys stay clear or was mandated to warn attorneys they cannot win.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief. This provision applies to debt forgiven in calendar years 2007 through 2012. Up to $2 million of forgiven debt is eligible for this exclusion ($1 million if married filing separately). The exclusion applies to a discharge due directly to a decline in the home’s value.

    This is a lawful siezure of real property in America. File the approriate claim – And stay clear of the experts who are really doning nothing more than guessing.

    The experts have spoken by now. So dont let them shift gears on you now. Novemeber 2012 — your right to file claims is over!


  16. @DW
    “Im thinking that taking our homes has a ulterior motive in de stabalising society, ”

    The legal trail starts with a fellow from UK visiting a Canadian investment bank. There they devise a scheme like this.

    They set up a spreadsheet–typical investment banker tool. The sheet basicall assumes several groups of loans Group 1, to be filled with made to fail loans. Group 2 etc filled with conventional loans. They described each group in spreadsheet terms——a stream of cash flows redived from each group of performing loans—-

    To simplify assume that there are only 2 groups of loans—high risk group 1 and low risk group 2. They then said ok we need to be able to predict with a high degree of cetainty when the high risk loans will fail.

    So they design a set of “loan terms” to achieve the desired result:
    1) teaser rate that looks like it will last for 12 months-header 12 MTA-but in fine print buried deep in the long note-make the teaser terminate immeduiately after closing

    2) ARM based on complex reference point LIBOR plus 5-7 % —basically people cant tell what it is—-see only the teaser @ 1%-1.25%

    3) 4 options –pay less than interest due–exact interest due—-interest plus principal on 30 yr amortization and interest plus 15 yr amort—but this is not described in the note with care

    4) the loan closing is to be made by handing out payment coupons with the page one payment [prominently set out] based on the teaser

    5) the homeowner has no choice but to mail in te coupon amt—the amt calced based on the teaser 1.25 % rate—however unbeknownst to the borrower, the teaser rate disappeared as soon as they closed and the 1st pmt was held out of closing money–consequence being the homeowner’s very 1st coupon pmt is the 1st option –less than the interest due which is 5-6%

    6) this last is a critical step—-via the illusory teaser rate the homeowner starts to underpay the loan in effect–which like never before actually allows underpayment for a time—the difference in the amt of pmt between the 1.25% illusory teaser and the actual 6% complicated predatory rate is added to principal owed–so the homeowner slides under water immediately and becomes subprime –unable to refi–insurance rates also jump–only later will the homeowner figure out why

    7) THE PAYMENT CLIFF: now the note also provides that in 3 years the loan must be paid under either the 3rd or the 4th option–15-30 year amortization, the interest rate also rsets to a much higher level—–and the borrower must also amortize all the unpaid interest that accrued by his pmt of the 1st option amounts–less than interestr due–even though he paid a year or more using coupons that gave him no other choice and appeared to be paying all interest due —where interest is calculated using the illusory teaser rate

    Now the spreadsheet has what it needs to predict the cash-flows on the Group 1 loans——a fixed interest rate ———with a cliff at the end of 3 years that means these loans are virtually guaranteed to default—-en masse

    So the group 1 loans are then kept under wraps—-no investor would want to buy any part of these

    This is where the rest of the spreadsheet comes into play

    there are Group2 loans–conventional 30 year loans with no gimmicks—-except the loose lending standards applied to the group 1 borrowers has had the effect of indicing the ignorant buyers to overpay on their houses–which sit next door to the 30 yr conventional borrowers house

    The group 1 artifially priced loans push up the prices the group2 borrowers must pay—and appraisals made in house help

    the group 2 loans look like they are plain vanilla safe credit–low risk–the investment banker knows he can resell these loans at a nice 15% markup using securitization to the most conservative investors–pension fund managers etc

    But he also knows he cant sell the Group 1 loans which are crapp.

    So the spreadsheet has a trigger IF/THEN statement—-that if the payout to buyers of the group 1 mortgages falls short–then the shortfall starts to flow from the group 2 loans ——-

    the investment banker now knows hes got a perfect tool to confuse the investors in both groups of loans

    as the 3 yr cliff approaches—the banker knows that the group 1 loans are going to go belly up–and the payments to the investors in the group 2 loans will start to shrink–panic will set in—

    for the 1st time the group 2 loan investors look at the group 1 loans and realize they are crap and eventually all the group 2 money will disappear in a waterfall to group 1 investors

    similarly the group 1 investors hear the noise from the group 2 guys and start to look at the loans that originally supported them–they are crap—then they begin to wonder about the group2 loans—will they continue to pay a waterfall?

    who knows but the investment bankers that set it up?

    so both groups collapse —just how the investment banker spreadsheet predicts——

    now the Net present value of the group 1 and 2 loans as predicted by the spreadsheet becomes paramount—–because the investment banker viultures are now in a buying mood in the midst of panic

    they know how much of the group 2 loans will pay over time–and alone can predict how long the payments will kee coming

    and they know that the group2 borrowers now will be unable to refi–or change the cash flows—very predictable

    they know that if a lot of other securitizations are done the exact same way–that the panic will be bigger–the group 1 investment CLASSES that benefit from waterfalls will be able to be bought at a bigger discount—–as it turned out 5-15cents on the dollar on the worst private labels where no loan lists were filed–where no public records were available to verify what kinds of loans were in the groups

    The mass collapse was orchestrated by that guy who visited that canadian bank in 2002——-so he could buy dirt cheap MBS 3-5 years later

    Thus he encouraged the canadian bank to bring in the guys to make a mass distribution program–Galopagos –or a variation thereon

    instead of keeping it an in house copyright as would be normal–he encouraged the Galopagos -like software maker to spread the poison—

    the trigger man attended distressed asset and debt seminars in 2004-5 and primed the pump—-

    the rest is history–the question is what are the names of the canadian designers an d their inspirer?

  17. Oh my gosh! Look at this billboard directed at Wall Street!


    I like it, but flying flags at half mast is cheaper.

  18. Still struggling with Korman’s deal, but have to say this: a court may not adjudicate the rights of an absent party, that is, any party showing up later claiming rights under the note. A court might be able to, however, order the existing claimant to indemnify the borrower against a future claim. Courts most likely aren’t going to do that though, because it flies in the face of their decisions to grant relief to the existing claimant. The court in Nosek did sanction Norwest, was it?,
    a non-party for the acts of parties claiming under Norwest’s note (although the court felt even Norwest’s claim would be subject to NW’s own likely sec’n of the note in question) on the grounds that Norwest had an obligation to know what was going on with its note. Huge sanctions to all which the jerkie appeals court tampered down majorly. In Nozek (MA), though, before that sanction was imposed, Norwest’s interest in the note became known. Nosek might provide some rationale for not being able to switch the claimant. Plus doing so is subject to some rules of procedure.
    No one seems to take seriously the mandatory “certificate of interested parties” required in these (probably all) court cases. Failure to submit this certification, or if they did but left out X, might be grounds to say no, you’re not switching plaintiffs here.

  19. @martha – lay opinion here. Never heard of the blanket lien per se as the way you described it, although recorded judgments act as blanket liens on all property. When a judgment lien is recorded, it attaches to any property one owns in that county at the time. If it’s an IRS lien, it can take priority over existing consensual liens. If a person with the lien purchases real estate in that county after the recordation, I can’t recall if the judgment lien has priority over any new consensual lien or not. Seems like it would. Yeah, it must because if you sell a property encumbered by such a lien, it stays with the property and the new owner’s title is subject to that lien. It should be shown as an exception (meaning title will not insure this lien against title) on the title commitment of the buyer in the event the person liened sells a property. A title company would call for its release (generally by payoff). Bottom line, I think: if you bought a property with a “blanket” judgment lien on it against the seller, if it weren’t paid off, it’s alive against the property and likely as priority over a new loan. Ask a title company. If the lien were listed on the title commitment page as an exception but not on the requirement page to be released, whether or not you have a cause of action against the title co. is a question for an attorney who practices in that area. If the lien were public record at the time of sale, and not on the title commitment at all, doesn’t look good for the title co and again something to take up with a good attorney. An attorney who represents other title companies, not the one involved, may be helpful. She would know the law. No lender in its right mind would make a loan on a property with such a lien against it, but if one did, I don’t know where that leaves the buyer, except that the lien against the seller is in fact alive against the property.


    ChartWest is front page Financial Times threatening legal action gainst New York State regulators for damage to reputation. This should chill already reluctant regulators –enforcement types.

    This spells doom for enforcement —-it is a trick mafia used on govt auditors–if an auditor would give a bad assessment the culprit would file trumped up charges that the auditor released sensitive or confidential info that besmirched the family’s good name—of course its necessary to verify invoices etc–no way to do an audit [properly] without that step—–eg what the Peregrine guy was doing–making up bank statements—so if you cant go directly to the bank and say–i need to see peregrines statements—how can you tell if the ones peregrine gave you are not forged.

    Maybe why peregrine got away with it so long

    govt low level auditors are afraid of the crooks for this reason—it may sound funny —but the bit that was posted yesterday about the servicer claiming silence because of secrecy laws—they also use this ploy on govt regulators—-and sue them personally–if you are a govt auditor and the culprit charges you with breach of secrecy–no matter how trumped up——you the auditor must hire your own atty out of your own pocket–no reimbursement even if you are found innocent

    bank officers get totally indemnified with lehgal liability insurance——this new counterattack will destroy enforcement——what there was

    it will be interesting to see if treasury and fed reserve jump in and file amici briefs on the side of the banks—bank of england already suggesting possibility.

    this is the worst twist iv seen on all this crooked behavior in 5 years

  21. Mini history of Britain’s Richest Banks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7RNhUIZ9ds

  22. Here’s a good explanation of what’s going on here. Write your AG and demand that they answer you. Contrary to popular belief, and along the lines of what Neil Garfield has been writing about for years, this is a bigger crime than LIBOR. The longer we allow these crimes to go on, the more damage is done. These criminals must be stopped.

    Reparations are in order. Debt jubilee is the only way, along with massive incarcerations. When you read the last bit here, ask yourself why Jamie Dimon shouldn’t have that smirk smacked off of his face and both hands cuffed behind his back…..

    Loan or Investment Contract, By John Korman

    May 16, 2012

    Loan or Investment Contract

    By John Korman

    Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan

    The point, as we have stated here before, is that there were no loans because the money advanced by the investors was subject to a set of documents supporting a bond in which the homeowner was not the payor and where the homeowner never signed. The homeowner was subjected to a set of documents that failed to disclose the real party or the real terms of the entire transaction — a black letter requirement of the truth in lending laws. (TILA)
    The purpose of the transaction was for the investment banks to get money from the investors and to get a signature from the homeowner without connecting the two. The real purpose of the transaction was an investment scheme wherein the intermediaries took everything — the money, the property and the gains from credit default swaps, insurance and government bailouts.

    Thus the intent of the investor to lend money for residential mortgages, and the intent of the homeowner, to get a loan for his home, was never accomplished and was effectively thwarted by the attempt to cover tracks by refusing to document the trail of the money. The actual documents offered in foreclosures document a fictitious trail — one in which no money ever changed hands.
    The homeowner, without consent or knowledge, was converted from a borrower to a securities issuer and the investor was converted from being a part owner in a valid REMIC pool to being the alleged buyer of the security issued by the homeowner. Hence the right of rescission and damages arises not only from TILA but from the SEC rules and regulations. And the time for filing doesn’t start to run until the parties had enough information to either know or where they should have known of the fraud.

    My name is John Korman. I, as a paralegal who lives in Florida investigated Mortgage Loans for an Attorney who defends clients against foreclosure. The job I did was research the Corporate / Trust Documents [law of the case] filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in reference to the target loan and create an Affidavit based on my finding. Almost every Mortgage loan investigated which was produced by a major Banking Institution between the years 2000 – 2008 was securitized. Securitization is the act of producing an investment vehicle of Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”) using the Borrower’s Mortgage NOTE as the under-lying corpus, as collateral.

    In each and every securitized loan produced by these Banking Institutions, file with the Securities and Exchange Commission certain documents which are mandated, include but is not limited to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Prospectus, Indenture, 10-K [yearly report], 10-Q [quarterly report], 8-K [current report] Form 15-D and the Servicing Agreements] (herein after referred to as “Documents”), agreed to by the Party’s.
    Reading these Documents, in each investigation to date, the common mandated procedure is as follows; first we have the Lender. Shortly after the Mortgage
    2 of 9

    NOTE documents have been executed [or before the NOTE is executed] the Lender sells [or has already sold] its right, title and interest in this Mortgage NOTE to a third party, an arms length transaction [true sale] to a party known as the Seller. Within thirty [30] days or less the Seller will sell its right title and interest to this Mortgage NOTE to another party known as the Purchaser, also identified as the Depositor. The Depositor agrees to “trade” with a named Trust-Entity, it’s Mortgage NOTE for a predetermined amount of Mortgage-Backed Securities [less commission], these Certificates are then sold to investors.

    Now a really interesting thing happens once the Mortgage NOTE is acquired by this named Trust Entity, witnessed through the use of specialty licensed software which permits investors [or licensed users] access to any “named Trust-Entity”. I can see each Mortgage Loan held by this named Trust-Entity, and I can see its currant status. I can see if the named Trust-Entity is in possession of the Mortgage NOTE documents. I can see if a Mortgage NOTE is thirty (30) days late, sixty (60) days late, ninety (90) days late, or if it is in foreclosure. I can also see how many “tranches” have been created within this named Trust-Entity.

    The analogy to describe what a tranche is [in my minds eye] would be similar to, you giving me one apple, I return this one apple to you as apple juice [different form], and however I manage to create from this one apple, ten additional artificial apples out of thin air and transform them into apple juice. Now this named Trust-Entity has the authority and ability to sell [juice from ten artificial apples] Mortgage-Backed securities in multiples of the underlying collateral by creating multiple tranches within the said named Trust Entity. Within these multiple tranches I find the same Mortgage NOTE to exist, at full face value.

    The last investigation which I just completed within this past week the named Trust Entity held twenty one tranches and the target Mortgage NOTE appeared in each one of those tranches. This one Mortgage NOTE now has the potential of generating twenty one times its face value of this Mortgage NOTE, in Mortgage-Backed Securities sold to investors. Based on the foregoing if a Trust sells these Mortgage-Backed Securities to investors and receives only ten times the face value of the original under-lying Mortgage NOTE [Security] has the named Trust Entity been damaged by the Mortgagor not making the promised monthly payments under the Mortgage NOTE agreement? In other words, if Sam goes to the Bank and borrows a sum of money but Sally pays off the debt can the Bank still claim to be a damaged party because Sam did not make the payments as promised?
    3 of 9

    In the event whereby the Lender knows fore-hand this loan [Mortgage NOTE] will be sold out-right, securitized once executed, the Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan, per-say. In the not so distant past and throughout our history, prior to securitization, the Maker of the Mortgage NOTE Holds a possessory right to said Mortgage NOTE. Once the debt was discharged the Bank which held this Mortgage NOTE as a “Special Deposit” returned it to the Borrower. Today, with the advent of securitization these so-called loans [Special Deposits] are truly investment contracts [Mortgage NOTE sold out-right to generate profit] and the Borrower is an undisclosed investor with possessory rights to the profits generated from said Mortgage NOTE.

    Because this undisclosed investor [Borrower] is unaware of the moneys due it abandons the right to receive said funds when Borrower / Maker fail to make a claim to said funds within three years. To prove my point the Attorney General needs to request the Servicer, or the Trustee to produce a copy of the 1099-OID Form which was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the 1099-A including the 1099-B. These three Forms are filed with the Internal Revenue Service by either the Servicer or the Trustee and will prove the aforementioned allegation, that it is the Borrower that created, and is entitled to the “O”riginal “F’ssue “Discount, but the Borrower has abandoned these funds [1099-A] which is now claimed by the Servicer, or the Trustee [1099-B]. In other words, these aforementioned Forms will identify the Bank as the Debtor. The profit made from the invested Mortgage NOTE belongs to the Maker. We live in a wonderful place, if it wasn’t for the deceit.
    Many of today’s so-called Lenders only lent their name to the Mortgage loan transaction. In other words, the Lender did not lend you their money, an undisclosed third party provided the funds for the Borrower making it appear like the Lender / Bank / Broker provided the funds. A group of investors, or a single investor creates what is commonly known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPY”) wired the money to the Lender just prior to Closing.
    The Lender / Bank now acting in the capacity of a Nominal Lender used this SPY money to transact the Closing. Once the Closing was completed the Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission, then the Nominal Lender put its name on the Mortgage NOTE. Within twenty-four (24) hours from Closing the Nominal Lender was required to physically conveyed the Mortgage NOTE to the true Lender / Investor. Thereafter this Nominal Lender takes on a new role as the Servicer of the debt, or it may employ a subServicer. The Borrower makes the monthly payments to the Servicer who s/he believes is the Lender, who forwards the payment [less its fee] to the true Lender / Investor[s]. The Homeowner was
    4 of 9

    tricked into thinking he was a Borrower of a Loan, when in fact was a Seller of a Mortgage NOTE into an Investment Trust [SPV]. This Investment Trust has no right to a Mortgage which is used to facilitate the purchase a NOTE, fraudulently procured under the guise of a “Loan”, when in fact it was not a Loan but rather the “Purchase / Sale of a Mortgage Note” facilitating the foundation of these Mortgage-Backed Securities; the true nature of this Transaction was not disclosed to the Borrower either before or at Closing; and this Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission for loan it did not fund.
    Question; can a Nominal Lender that did not fund the transaction [Loan], putting its name on a Mortgage NOTE pretending to be the True-Lender, tricking a Homeowner into signing over a Mortgage NOTE in order to secure an Investment Security, thereafter assign a Beneficial Right to a third party, a right which it never Held from the beginning?

    A reading of the Corporate / Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two constants are apparent; the Original Lender after selling its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE becomes the Servicer of this debt; and the “conveyance” of the Mortgage NOTE, Documents [law of the case] mandate the delivery of the Original Mortgage NOTE, endorsed in blank … without recourse … with ALL prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing to the Trustee. In every investigation that I have personally conducted find there are four parties to the initial transaction, if we exclude the Borrower.
    The “Originator / Lender,” who sells its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE to the “Seller,” the Seller sells its rights, title and interest to the “Purchaser / Depositor,” who sells to the “Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate-Holder[s].” Although the named Trust Entity Documentation [law of this case] mandates this “chain of endorsements” I have yet to witness these endorsements on any Mortgage NOTE.
    Rather I witness an “Assignment” of the Mortgage that purports to convey the NOTE directly to the named Plaintiff. My understanding is a NOTE can not be assigned; it is endorsed from the present Holder / Owner of said NOTE and conveyed to the new Holder / Owner. Instead I am witnessing the Servicer [who was once the Lender] claiming to be the Plaintiff with all the rights title and interest as an Owner / Holder of a Mortgage NOTE, after selling its right title and interest to that same Mortgage NOTE to a third party, at an arms length transaction, viewed as a true sale. The Documents [law of this case] mandate it to be a true sale.
    5 of 9

    I witness assignments [and or endorsements] being filed with the Courts assigning [endorsing] the right title and interest of the Originator / Lender directly to the Plaintiff, passing-over the Seller, Purchaser and the Trustee, when the Plaintiff is a named Banking Institution. The named Banking Institution would need to acquire this said Mortgage NOTE from the Trustee in order to foreclose, [not from the Lender] thus the Trustee’s endorsement would be expected on the NOTE, from it to the named Plaintiff, in a proper chain of endorsement. Instead I witness over and over again where an assignment of the Mortgage will go directly from the source [Lender] to the Plaintiff, as there are no prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing the NOTE to the Trustee.
    If the Trustee is the named Plaintiff acting for a named Trust-Entity would still require the endorsement from the Depositor / Purchaser to the named Trustee in trust for the Certificate-Holder. In my opinion, [non-attorney] this is why there was a rash of “Lost NOTE” claims in the past; the endorsements are missing, however re-establishing a NOTE cures that problem; however re-establishing a NOTE you never Owned, Held or possessed is a criminal act, in my opinion. Not only do I believe this act is a Fraud upon the Court but it is also using the legal system to facilitate a counterfeited financial instrument. The Homeowner who loses their home to foreclosure [95% are uncontested] with the use of a re-established NOTE faces the added threat that the true Owner / Holder may appear at some future date requiring the Homeowner to pay this same NOTE a second time, unless the Order from the Court provides the Defendant protection against such an occurrence.
    However when a Homeowner does not defend their case, lack of funds, or whatever, this protection [should the Real-Party-In-Interest appear at some future date and demand payment for the Original Mortgage NOTE] against paying twice, is often missing from the Final Order for Foreclosure, because the Homeowner lacked the legal capacity to request this protection be included in the Order from the Court, and the Plaintiff will not do the right thing, voluntarily, by including this protection, exparte.

    In the event the Plaintiff does possess and produces the Original NOTE bearing the once wet ink signatures of the Borrower[s], it [NOTE] must contain the endorsements of all the aforementioned parties, otherwise there is a clear break in the Chain of Title. The Chain of Title in every securitized document I have personally reviewed requires an endorsement from the Originator / Lender to the Seller, from Seller to Purchaser and from the Purchaser to the Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate Holder [s], this is in accord with each one
    6 of 9

    of the documents I have reviewed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    These investigations that I have personally conducted disclose that most Trustees over-see dormant, dissolved or unregistered named Trust-Entities. Every named Trust Entity that I personally have investigated filed a Form 15-D with the Securities and Exchange Commission, notifying all parties of its Termination of Registration and suspension of its Duty to File Reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77a et seq., 78a et seq.).

    The Trustee foreclosing on a Homeowner [after filing a Form 15-D] is doing so on behalf of a named Trust-Entity contrary to the INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, see Section 7, under TRANSACTIONS BY UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
    What is really transpiring with these Mortgage loans is [in my minds eye] the Lender is selling the Borrower an automobile that the Lender knows has faulty brakes, and then said Lender takes out an insurance policy on that automobile. Once the automobile is totaled in a crash, the Lender collects on the insurance and still holds the borrower liable to pay the out-standing balance due on the automobile. Look no further than the foreclosure rates here in Florida or your home State, and then look at the record profits being generated by the Banks. How do you think this feat is being accomplished? Are foreclosures a negative force on the economy, because it does not seem to be negatively impacting the major banking institutions.
    Brings me to my final observation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), which acts as the purported Mortgagee of record [which we know is not true; as MERS did not loan any money and the Borrowers] do not owe any money to MERS]. MERS usually acts in the capacity as nominee for the Mortgage NOTE Owner / Holder; however, according to the procedural manual produced by MERS, it may only act in such a capacity [nominee] for and on behalf of another MERS’ Member. To the best of my knowledge none of these securitized named Trust Entities are MERS Members, thus bifurcating the Mortgage and NOTE, destroying the security and rendering the Mortgage a nullity.

    When you get right down to it I think we would all agree, the bottom line is, the Creditor is the party with the skin in the game, they are the Certificate Holder[s], they are true investors], Hard-Money-Lender[s]. All Certificate Holders are customers of Cede & Co., being the nominee of the Depository
    7 of 9

    Trust Company (“DTC”), a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. The Entities that purchase these Trust Certificates must purchase them from Cede & Co., or from one of its authorized agents. Seems to imitate the MERS model in so far as Cede & Co. appears to be the central recordation hub were investors trade positions by electronic registration. These named Trust Entity’s Certificates are almost always Held in the “street name” of Cede & Co.
    Within the past month I was engaged to conduct research / investigation into a Mortgage Note foreclosure, Plaintiff is JPMorgan Chase, the Original Lender was Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”). Within this Complaint JPMorgan Chase avers it is the Mortgage NOTE Owner and Holder by virtue of a Purchase and Assumption Agreement facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) after it seized WaMu. Within this Complaint filed by JPMorgan Chase is attached as prima fascia evidence this aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC which read, [paraphrasing] JPMorgan Chase purchased all of the assets of WaMu, as such is the Owner / Holder of the Mortgage NOTE being foreclosed on [presumptively giving JPMorgan Chase Standing]. However, reading the Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission WaMu sold this Mortgage NOTE out right to a third party [true sale] long before its seizure by the FDIC.

    The only nexus held by WaMu in reference to this Mortgage NOTE in question were its right to Service this debt. In the case styled UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, case number 09-CV-01656-RMC, Document 55, styled DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for the Trusts listed in Exhibits 1-A and 1-B, Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association; and WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendants; JPMorgan Chase herein pleads, on page 33. of 39;
    “Under the plain terms of that agreement, JPMC did not become WMB’s successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WMB. While JPMC purchased all of the assets of WMB, it assumed only specified liabilities: those that had been reduced to a dollar amount on WMB’s ‘general ledger and subsidiary ledgers and supporting schedules which support the general ledger balances.’”
    8 of 9

    I only know of this one case in particular whereby JPMorgan Chase is foreclosing on a property in which it holds no right title nor interest aside from its Servicing right[s] acquired under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement, still to be executed between it and the FDIC. However JPMorgan Chase is telling a Judge in New Jersey it Owns and Holds this particular Mortgage Note by virtue of the aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement acquired from the FDIC. Then in this case, [as sited above] in order to avoid / evade liability now pleads it”… did not become WMB.’s successor in interest.” You’ all know the difference between “avoid” and “evade,” [twenty years]!

    It is my sincere hope the Attorney General of Florida along with the Attorney General in the other forty-nine States investigate JPMorgan Chase’s claim as successor in interest to WaMu, wherein JPMorgan Chase claims to be a Plaintiff, as its foundation points to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Equity would call for an Estoppel of all foreclosure Actions in which JPMorgan Chase claims to be WaMu’s successor in interest.

    In closing, these named Trust Entities by-and-large are missing a mountain of Mortgage NOTEs. I have not had the time to do a mean average [as some named Trust Entities hold literally a thousand Mortgage Loans and the calculations must be done manually] however the field marked “Doc” [abbreviation for Documents] either reads “Unknown” or “Limited” in over 50% of these Mortgage Loans [by observation] conservatively. The named Trustee of the named Trust Entity clearly did not do even a reasonable job in receiving the Mortgage NOTEs as mandated under these named Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    /s/ John Korman

    From: http://fightthefraud.com/?p=874

  23. Im thinking that taking our homes has a ulterior motive in de stabalising society, make citizens feel insecure and fearful- control. they made so much obscene amounts of money in the derivative scheme our good names being the platform, then they were bailed or sold to one west or who ever, then they pay their expensive lawyers to risk their licenses,( in legal thoery) then they tell us about Libor, they did not need to take the roofs over our families heads, real property- once the only security we had, apart from a job, are an uncumberance to anyone who is underwater, the market was DRIVEN into the ground, this process has been exercised over decades. it seems it was so easy to make regulators look the other way, guess they were fearful for their livelihood, just like the appraisers, too many yes men in this world i guess. Its all about personal responsibility, and the mind body spirit thing- the guilty know, their spirit knows, humans choose a good path or a evil path, theres no halfway, i believe, i believe man has both in him and amidst him both qualities, so its an empasse spiritually, so its choice, if man is inherintly good, and i believe man is created in gods likeness, an individualised expression of god, if he chooses then inherintly, the evil doers know, and so to live in this way is an empasse, a paradox a unlived life, i realise they really do not get out of jail free. pity those who live this way for the love of money and power over others to get more money, someone i know said to me after a triple bypass, “theres no pockets in them shrouds” she lives life well, and eats what she wants and takes very few meds-

  24. @JG,

    I beg to defer… Steve Baum, Stern and the likes didn’t become billionaires on $200.00/hr. In fact, there isn’t an attorney worthy of that name that charges $200.00. Even mine charges more than that and when we go for legal expenses, it is his true expenses we are going after, nit just the amount he bills me on the account of our contract.

    If anything, I thought Housingwire figures were a tad low. Think about it: any case in Fed Court will fetch $700 to $1,200/hr. Why? It’s procedurally more complicated than state court. Further, the issues are usually more complex, you need to know a lot more case law and it is, all around, a different caliber of players, including the judges. Remember: from the very beginning, I’ve said that when all was said and done, my servicer would have smoked my house from roof to basement. He went out and got the biggest, baddest and most expensive law firm in Ohio. When I was hiring those guys at work, the minimum any junior partner made was $500/hr. They don’t use juniors in fed court.

  25. Does anyone on here know anything about priority of liens, in the sense that if a “STATE Government Blanket Lien” which I suppose is the same as a “Judgement” is recorded against YOUR NAME, and not property, and then you acquire a property, lets day on July 13th, and then the !st mortgage is recorded after this conveyance to you.
    Does that state “blanket property lien” have priority over the 1st?

  26. Riddle: How can you tell when your government has become THE CARTEL?

    Answer: When it suspends the RULE of LAW and abides Treason so as not to “EMABARRASS the CARTEL.” (!@#!?) By all means, let’s not arrest the men in the planes flying into buildings. It might embarrass them.

    In the words of American Hero Todd Beamer: “Mr. Laswky, ‘Let’s ROLL!’

  27. Endorsements on notes aren’t dated, but assignments of DOTs are.
    They can pretend an endorsement was done on a date when it wasn’t, but not so with the dot assignments. Why do you suppose they want the dot to follow the note? IF a note made it to a trust, but there were no assignment of the dot, recorded or not, to the trust, those are not mortgage backed anythings – they are at best unsecured notes.

  28. For your entertainment, MERS propaganda from 2000:


    Note is says (as I am always saying):

    “In many states, recording each assignment is a condition precedent to releasing the mortgage lien upon satisfaction and to commencing foreclosure in the event of default.”

    They know it, of course they know it, but how many times have they pretended otherwise? Having a nominal beneficiary changes nothing in regard to these laws. It’s that they’re terminally, fatally messed for not having done or gotten the requisite assignments along the way.
    (If NG is right, then MERS isn’t even a nominal ben, because that
    status would be derived from the true ben which, if there is one, is not the party identified as the lender on the deed of trust = no right to
    designate nominal beneficiary)
    I just came accross the uniform assignment form for assgts to FNMA.
    I thought including the note in the assgts of dot’s was some mallarkey
    created by MERS, but lo and behold, there it is as an “along with the note” in the assgt to FNMA (a form created by and for FNMA). Couldn’t upload at scribd, but yahoo search will probably get it.
    What is going on here? Have these guys been trying to or actually transferring notes in this fashion? I’m reminded of the cases I’ve seen where banksters say these notes are governed by 9, not 3. I’m also reminded of the PHH case wherein the bankster says the assgt of the note in the dot is merely “surplusage” (which is NOT what it is, esp when there is an intent of reliance on that statememt.) But now bearer notes under art 3 are so much handier? What the heck? (never minding that MERS can’t assign a note, let alone a dot.)
    Clearly such assgt of the note (as the dot) at this stage of the game to a 2004 trust is baloney, but still what the heck?

  29. 26,000 in fees for a dismissal? I don’t believe it. I was in a courtroom one day when an bankster att was compelled to disclose his hourly rate – it was 200. That’s 130 hours. Bull. That is probably a contract rate for network attorneys. Muck attorneys get more, I’m sure, but still, I’d like to see them substantiate those figures. I think their fiction. Well, the 130 hours put in is. They may sock that amt to the rubes.

  30. http://www.scribd.com/doc/102423199/Investment-Advisors-Act-of-l940-Amended

    Let the Investment advisor beware – amended Janaury 2012
    Still looking for the pre amendment version.

  31. Benjamin Lawsky: “…We sanction Iran for only one reason…we are Israel’s bitch” http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=38606

  32. they fight with other peoples money–theyll defend to the last cent of the mini pension fund—-reform must start by limiting ability to chatge fees against trust receipts–somehow

  33. Why everyone should do his darn best to get his case before a jury:

    Mortgage lenders cringe at substantial litigation costs under QM
    By Jon Prior
    • July 10, 2012 • 4:54pm

    Mortgage bankers cringed at the latest litigation cost estimates they could face should the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau craft the Qualified Mortgage rule without a safe harbor.

    According to a memo from financial law firm Ballard Spahr to the Mortgage Bankers Association, more challenges would make it to trial under the alternative rebuttal presumption clause.

    Based on 76 cases in which the firm represented lenders in similar situations, the average attorney fee for when a case is dismissed totaled $26,000. This goes up to $84,000 under a summary judgment. If it goes to a trial, fees can climb as high as $155,000, Ballard Spahr said.

    “The difference in litigation costs between the three stages is substantial, and is rendered more stark by the fact that in most cases the lender had to incur substantial costs to prevail,” Richard Andreano and Martin Bryce of the law firm wrote in the memo.

    The QM rule will standardize how lenders determine a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage. The CFPB delayed the rule in May and reopened it to comments until July 9 in order to get more input from trade groups and homeowner advocates.

    One of the specific questions the CFPB asked in the delay was how much higher attorneys fees would be if it finalized a rebuttable presumption clause under QM.

    The clause, according to the latest MBA, would open up lenders to a slew of lawsuits from homeowners challenging the ability-to-repay determination. A safe harbor provision, instead, would give lenders clear standards that if met would be grounds to dismiss any frivolous lawsuit early on.

    A rebuttable presumption allows the homeowner to introduce evidence challenging whether the lender met the standard.

    Both the MBA and homeowner groups such as the Center for Responsible Lending commented in the latest round in support of broad and “bright line” standards lenders can rely on in order to ease credit from tightened restrictions applied since the crisis.

    When lenders venture outside of the QM space, the CRL asked the CFPB to keep the consequences dire against any missteps.

    “Non-QM loans should be limited to niche products, with lenders taking full responsibility for the underwriting of these loans,” the CRL said in its latest comment letter.

    According to the Dodd-Frank Act, damages awarded to a borrower if it is found QM was violated could equal the down payment, statutory damages of up to $4,000, all fees and finance charges on the loan (which for $200,000 mortgage at 4.5% interest could equal $25,000) and the court costs and attorney fees the borrower incurs.

    Dodd-Frank also extends how far out from origination the borrower can still sue to three years from one. Borrowers can use also use QM violations as a defense in foreclosure cases filed against them.

    Andreano floated out the idea of compromise between the two provisions.

    “If, however, a rebuttable presumption were narrowly constructed to limit the issues that may be raised, and thus operate more in the nature of a safe harbor, the rebuttable presumption would enable a more efficient resolution of claims than a typical rebuttable presumption,” he wrote.


  34. @CARIE

    Spread the link–it is the answer to how the designed to fail trusts and loans came to be—note when he started 2003—there were no CDOs then–hes referring to MBS pre-2007—then came CDOs based on bets on the MBS he created

  35. @dcb

    Yes, the link opened for me.

    This sentence was particularly telling:

    “Galapagos exploited any weaknesses…”


    Seems to be the motto for the sociopathic ‘rulers’ of today…that’s what happens when there’s no consequences—they are emboldened…

  36. Just discovered this site full of very pertinent articles. Might help someone see the picture much more clearly.


    Use Foreclosure Law!
    Never−Ever−“Walk-Away,” or “Strategically Default”
    Use Legal Leverage to Obtain a Forced Debt Reorganization
    Magazine-Style Education Blog: Do Your Homework!!!

  37. @ER
    answer not PC

  38. Who’s telling the truth? Is DeMarco Obama’s willing scapegoat, as Yves Smith implied? Is he flat out stupid? Is utter bad faith a prerequisite for the job he holds? Since 2008, Fannie’s officials have claimed that modifications and principal reductions were the way to go.


    Internal Documents Show Fannie Mae Believed Principal Reduction Would Save Taxpayers Money

    August 3, 2012

    Cummings and Tierney Question DeMarco’s Statements to Congress; Request Direct Interviews with Fannie Officials

    Washington, DC (May 1, 2012) – Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Committee Member John F. Tierney sent a letterto Edward DeMarco, the Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), regarding internal documents showing that Fannie Mae officials concluded as far back as 2009 that reducing principal on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae could save U.S. taxpayers money by avoiding foreclosures, directly contradicting DeMarco’s testimony to Congress in November 2011.

    “Contrary to your testimony, we have now obtained a wide range of internal documents demonstrating that Fannie Mae officials conducted detailed, substantive analyses and concluded years ago that principal reduction programs have enormous potential to save U.S. taxpayers significant amounts of money by reducing overall losses from foreclosures following default,” Cummings and Tierney wrote.

    The Congressmen obtained documents from a former Fannie official labeled “confidential,” “proprietary,” and “internal” that DeMarco apparently has been withholding from Congress. They also obtained additional documents from DeMarco in response to a request they first made last November.

    Together, the internal documents describe nearly a year of work by Fannie Mae and Citibank to develop a “shared equity” pilot program to prevent foreclosures, avoid losses to U.S. taxpayers, help the overall housing market, and mitigate the risk of “moral hazard” by requiring homeowners to share part of any future appreciation with the government. The program was mysteriously terminated in July 2010 due to unspecified “operational” challenges.

    “Based on the documents we have obtained, it appears that the shared equity principal reduction pilot program should have been implemented years ago, and the failure to do so may have resulted in unnecessary losses to U.S. taxpayers,” they added. “This was not merely a missed opportunity, but a conscious choice that appears to have been based on ideology rather than Fannie Mae’s own data and analyses.”

    Among the documents described in their letter is a November 2009 presentation to Fannie Mae’s Risk Subcommittee which concluded that “[t]he business case for shared equity is strong” and that “underwater borrowers will perform better on a modification that reestablishes equity.”

    In December 2009, a Business Case for the program concluded that “there are high negative impacts to not implementing” the program, and that it “will have some positive impact on the industry.” It estimated that implementing the program would cost about $1.7 million, while the benefits could total more than $410 million.

    A series of internal e-mails show how the program was approved internally after many months of study and analysis. In response to a request for approval, Fannie Mae’s Risk Officer for the Credit Portfolio responded: “I approve.” When the program was canceled, however, Citibank officials were taken aback and demanded to know what changed at the “11th hour.”

    “Despite the clear conclusion reached by Fannie Mae officials that principal reduction would reduce losses to the taxpayer, this pilot program was prevented from ever getting off the ground,” Cummings and Tierney wrote. “It remains unclear why you failed to mention this in your testimony and why you failed to disclose this principal reduction program.”

    8/3/12 Internal Documents Show Fannie Mae Believed Principal Reduction Would Save Taxpayers Money.

    A former Fannie Mae employee informed Cummings and Tierney that the principal reduction pilot program could have been the model for a much larger program that would have saved taxpayers even more. He stated: “I believe that we could be saving tens of billions of dollars while also helping stabilize housing prices and stimulating economic growth.”

    On November 16, 2011, DeMarco testified before the Oversight Committee that he had examined data and analyses from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and concluded that principal reduction “is not going to be the least cost approach for the taxpayer.”

    Since then, Cummings and Tierney have been seeking the documents pertaining to DeMarco’s decision to forbid Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from reducing principle of loans they back, as requested in letters to FHFA on November 30, 2011, and February 8, 2012. Their letter today requests direct interviews with Fannie Mae officials whose names appear in the documents, as well as all drafts of DeMarco’s previous responses to Congress.


    August 7, 2012

    Per our recent posts, assignments are becoming the subject of more intense court scrutiny lately. This week, a Hawaii Court found genuine issues of material fact in connection with an assignment made by MERS as the “nominee” of a bankrupt lender, which assignment was made without permission of the bankruptcy court. We were retained on a case today where MERS attempted an assignment in 2012 as to a lender which was shut down by court order in 2008 without any evidence of authority from the court which shut the lender down. As our readers also know, MERS repeatedly attempts to “assign” mortgage loans into securitized mortgage loan trusts years after the Closing Date of the Trust and without any authority to do so within the Trust documents.

    As we also posted, on July 18, 2012, the Oregon Court of Appeals, in a 27-page decision which traced the history of the Oregon Trust Deed Act and MERS, came to the conclusion that the “creature of more modern vintage: MERS” is not the “beneficiary” under the Oregon Trust Deed Act. A Federal Court in Michigan has also issued two recent opinions which permit challenges to foreclosures by advertisement based on a flawed assignment.

    We thus suspect that more and more courts are going to be taking a closer look at MERS assignments, and that more and more courts will ultimately hold that the assignments are either a legal nullity, not based in fact or law, or are patently fraudulent. High time: MERS has been getting away with this for over 10 years with impunity to the detriment of literally millions of homeowners.

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

  40. @CARIE
    Sorry heres link–i would like to know if it opens for you?

  41. @CARIE

    Can you read the attached linked article?

  42. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/eda831a4-db70-11e1-be74-00144feab49a.html#axzz22oljnO00

    Probably still using the Galopagos software to design the MBS and back in to the notes–and as this Mabbitt states—let the buyer beware

    Now one difference from before–the only one–is that any investment managers that buy junk again are now on clear notice that they are targeted for deceit and if they are “negligent” again–not only will their pension fund beneficiaries be able to easily prove it—but criminal investigatorrs and IRS will be searching for kickbacks—fool me once… etc

  43. Nice work Neil. Thanks for the constant anchoring.

    Yves Smith gives another great telling of the Barofsky v. Geithner story over at Naked Capitalism. I’d spend my last dollar on a pay-per-view of these two slugging it out. I don’t think Geithner’s good for anything save knob-kneeling in front of the .01%.

    Barofsky’s most damning evidence, and he recounts this long-form in his must-read book Bailout, is that the Administration never cared if the mortgage modification program HAMP worked, if you think that “worked” means “saved homeowners from foreclosure.” Geithner said it was simply to help spread foreclosures out over time, or “foam the runway”. I’m left with the image of a bank as an overloaded B52 with smoke coming out of one engine and its landing gear refusing to lower landing belly flat on a runway “foamed” with homeowners lying down, side by side, and crushed into bloody pulp as the aircraft hits the ground. That is, after all, pretty much what happened.

    Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/barofsky-v-geithner-and-administration-mouthpieces-yglesias-edition.html#9uc3yzF4SpKOJUSx.99

  44. gov has to be cleansed, a kinda metaphorical draino. then the federal courts. if you are not rich and you do not carry the card for get outta jail free, then no, you should not sleep. i bet everyone who bloggs here worries in their actual sleep, my dreams are ridiculous these days, white snakes coming out of a white sac (i can only think thats the pig in the poke that turned out to be the cat in the bag) and one lil green frog- guess that represents me. guys chin up, its gotta come, the truth.

  45. @DCB

    “How can these people go on vacation–and sleep at night–when I cant?”

    I think it’s called “having a conscience”. Maybe we should start wondering where our parents went wrong…?

  46. Ballot Box

    It depends on who’s running. Romney is on the side of the banks and speeding up foreclosures. Obama is ineffective.
    Doing nothing to remedy the situation speaks volumes.
    If these two are the choices, then there is no choice.
    Bye bye ballot box for me.

    The vampire banks and their bat politicians obviously have a strategy in place, even if that strategy is to just maintain status quo by resisting the light of day.

    Furthermore, these banks that scam our homes and buildings with their dark ways should not be allowed at this juncture to continue to repeat their blood-sucking over and over. E.g.: Bundling up the REOs and flipping them again to unsuspecting homeowners, investors, and Fannie Mae (or whomever) who think they are getting a good deal…and they are…for a short time…but it’s adding insult to injury to the previous owners and the economy and digging a deeper trench of vermin stench in which no amount of RoundUp will defeat.

    The way to wipe the place clean has to be complete debt forgiveness AND payment of damages to victims. They can’t just steal everything in the world and pretend like it didn’t happen and people will forget about it.

    Because this is all these banks are doing is flipping paper and homes.
    (asset-backed paper)

    The henchmen bankers have mortgaged our persons for years.
    But their clock has run out of time.

  47. Looks like they didn’t pay their VIG to Chuck Schumer !

  48. We are living in the time of the greatest global catastrophe in mankind’s recorded history…caused by sociopathic egomaniacal materialists with absolutely no ethics, morals, or compassion…I’ve realized being depressed about it will not help—only a vigilant search for truth and steadfast faith that eventually justice will prevail is our task at hand…if we let depression and anger take over our lives then “they” have won.

  49. How can these people go on vacation–and sleep at night–when I cant?

  50. In the past 3 weeks or so three UK bigbanks have been charged with huge criminal activities—Barclays’ ringleader LIBOR fixing—–HSBC mexican cartel moneylaundering—-[yeah your lanlord might be a mexican drug cartel thanks to HSBC] and now this Standard Charter bank [5th largest] moneylaundering IRAN money used to but nuclear weapon making material–etc

    The charter IRAN moneylaundering was carried out thru its NYC branch in violation of US and UN sanctions—if this one gets by —-then iran may as well just buy nukes directly from the DoD—why bother with middlemen

    Why are the Feds desirous of keeping this under wraps?–probably a couple more scandals coming in next couple weeks——and the Germans are supposed to be deciding whether to bail out Spain and Italy by paying of the bondholders whose debts are coming due—–to wit the very same london banks—not good PR for the germans to make a decision to go on the hook ultimately for a couple trillion —-

    all this is so we dont get all upset with our lackluster govt before reelecting the incumbents? big price to pay for germans and US citizens to keep these thieves on their perches

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: