Fraud in the Factum: The Core of the Securitization Myth

Dan Edstrom, our senior securitization analyst who will be one of the presenters in both the San Francisco (Emeryville) seminar and the Anaheim Seminar, ran across some material that should assist many homeowners and attorneys representing homeowners. Remember that part of the seminar is devoted to the business model for making money — a lot of it — in representing homeowners in challenges to the pretender lenders. Call Customer Service 520-405-1688.

The basic fact pattern is that through dual tracking (see the last post), the players in this game were playing a shell game that resulted in repeated windfalls to the players while delivering multiple financial body blows to the only two parties in the transaction that counted: the lender and the borrower.

By inducing the borrower to sign documents that recited transactions that never existed nor were they expected to take place, the borrower finds himself owing a third party to whom an obligation is owed while at the same time having executed papers allowing the securitization players to claim that they were the owners of the loan for trading, insurance and bailouts purposes.

The essence of this is agreement and consent. The fact that an offer has been made does not mean the other party concentrated to the terms presented. And if the terms presented are untrue, the asset is as invalid as if assent had never been given.

These are voidable, not void, transactions. As with all foreclosure litigation, the pleading and proof is tricky. If you deny that the document is true and that the signature on it is true, you are denying that you assented to its terms and that your signature was fraudulently induced. It is also highly probable if not definite that most of the so-called promissory notes were destroyed or “lost”, putting the burden on the the party who wishes to use a copy to tell the story of how it was lost or destroyed and proving that an actual financial transaction took place between the pretender lender and the borrower — a fact that cannot be proved without fabricated documents based upon perjury for its foundation.

Pretender lenders get around this impossible burden of proof by producing “the original” which is anything but the original (see Photoshop) and without proper foundation from a competent witness who can testify as to the foundation and introduce documents proving that the payee on the note, the secured party on the note, were each involved in a financial transaction with the homeowner — and that therefore these documents are accurate depictions or evidence of the terms of the transaction.

The trick was simple: present a note that looks like a note and present a mortgage that looks like a mortgage even if they are not the originals, lift the signature of the homeowner from some other document and affix it to the the documentes in quesstion. 9 out of 10 times the homeowner will concede that those are the the documents presented him at closing, that the signature is his and so it goes through the loan, default etc.

By the time the illicit proffer of evidence is completed by opposing counsel (without a single stitch of evidence introduced into the record) the borrower is seen as admitting the loan, the note, the mortgage, the default etc. and thus trying to find some gimmick to get out of the perfectly “legal” obligation.

The perfectly “legal” obligation took place between the homeowner and the lender (Pension Fund) — but here is the rub: there are no documents to show that except for wire transfer instructions. Hence, the mortgage, note and other closing documents are completely fictitious, even without the obvious elephant in the living room — appraisal fraud.

The position of the pretender lenders is simple: even if the actual transaction was between the homeowner and the actual lender, they still own the note and mortgage to the exclusion of the actual lender, until such time as the loan goes into default, is sold in foreclosure and the homeowner is evicted. While it it might be true that they own the pieces of paper depicted as the note, mortgage and HUD closing statement, they certainly did not comply with the disclosure requirements of TILA and RESPA.

They ignore the elements of the PSA and prospectus that certainly imply that the proceeds of insurance, credit default swaps etc should be paid to or credited to the the actual lenders, but they ignore that, thus maintaining a liability to the actual lender from the pretender lender and creating the holographic image of an obligation from the homeowner created on paper but without any factual foundation where money exchanged hands.

Most of all they ignore the time limits placed on the transaction in which the loan must be transferred to the actual lender — 90 days, according to the PSA and the REMIC provisions of the IRC. And worst of all, they ignore the essential premise of the transaction with the lender to wit: “We promise to give you interest and principal based upon payments from borrowers of interest and principal, guaranteed by the subservicer and Master Servicer, who are insured by Triple A rated insurance companies (AIG) on securities that have also been examined and awarded a Triple A rating. These loans will only be funded after being subject to the stringent requirements of the industry standard underwriting practices.” None of it was true, of course.

But more importantly, they are NOW trying to throw the loss of a bad loan over the fence at the investor where the closeout date was years prior to the “assignment” and the loan is already in default thus preventing the manager of any pool from accepting the defective loan without violating every aspect of his authority to act on behalf of the pool.

In short, the players in the myth of securitization (it never happened, none of it) borrowed the ownership as long as it was convenient to do so in trading and purchasing insurance and other hedge products and borrowed the loss of the actual lenders (Pension Funds) in order to receive TARP and other bailouts amounting to more than $17 trillion (which happens to be 5-6 times the actual defaulted loans and 12 times the actual losses on even the toxic loans) and 130% of ALL loans funded during the mortgage meltdown.

And that is why I say ALL the mortgages have been paid — interest and principal and that anyone paying on a mortgage is probably overpaying the creditor — who has been paid in full directly or indirectly multiple times.

Where’s the law on this, is the common question. Here it is, backed up by hundreds of years of common law and case decisions:

Fraud In the Factum

32 Responses

  1. Yup, I have wiring instructions from DB Trust, RBS on the HUD, New Century on the deed (lender?), US Bank as the trustee (notes never went into the trust, trustee of what?), Credit Suisse seized the note, Ocwen as servicer with zero balance on ledger, SPS as the other servicer, lines of credit with no designation of property from New Century – which they defaulted on, MERS as the beneficiary, Poore Substitute Trustee as the seller for whom, I cannot figure out, with amended repurchase agreements never filed with the SEC, while cheating the real lenders, investors and borrowers…it goes on and on! Abby is correct, New Century will be back in business in no time, all with the approval of the bankruptcy court in Delaware.

    And carie, yes pension funds are investors, not lenders, who got cheated too.



  3. @ Matha + others re few convicted California Robo-signers: UPDATE, according to US-DOJ:

    Donna Demello was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison – to be followed by three years of supervised release – and ordered to pay $7,436,417.83 in restitution

    Raymond Davoudi was sentenced to one year and one day in prison – to be followed by three years of supervised release – and ordered to pay $565,028.83 in restitution (joint and several).

    Bahareh Shamlou was sentenced to one year and one day in prison – to be followed by three years of supervised release – and ordered to pay $565,028.83 in restitution (joint and several).

    The case against Araks Davoudi is ongoing.

  4. @UKG,

    You’re right. We appear to be fucked…

    The following comes from Matt Weidner, via the UK Press. Note that no one here has mentioned it. As I keep saying, if you want info, check other countries’ press.

    The Most Important Lawsuit in The History of Our Nation (completely ignored by all press)
    August 14th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 gives the President of the United States of America the power to arrest, detain and try American citizens in secret tribunals with no access to an attorney and with no regard for fundamental American rights that form the very foundation of our nation.

    A federal judge found this law UnConstitutional, this judge had apparently read the United States Constitution. The current President of the United States, allegedly a Constitutional scholar objects to this judge’s interpretation of that little thing called the Constitution and has appealed her.

    The decision will mark a dramatic moment in US history.

    And Mainstream media is ignoring the issue entirely.

    Why do I have to rely upon foreign news sources to get information about what’s happening here in this land? From UK Guardian:

    I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

    In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

    In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.


  5. @DW,

    I know we are. We haven’t yet found whom but we are going to come up with something and someone.

    In the meantime,


    I keep harping on the need to close your bank accounts. I also admit to reading fringe sites. A lot of good info comes out and once you ponder on it for a while and double check the sources, you can either discard it or integrate it in your understanding of what is going on no one tells you about.

    There is increasing evidence that bank accounts will be shortly frozen. Gov. has no money. Banks have no money. This country is on the verge of collapse. The word out is that, on a Friday afternoon (exact date unknown), banks will announce a nationwide virus affecting the financial sector as a whole. Apparently, it already has a name because it already exists: Gauss. Banks will declare that they must shut down to get rid of the virus. At that point, the entire financial system will be paralyzed. Credit cards will not work. Checks will not be paid and/or cashed and wages will not be deposited. According to the reports, for 72 hours, people will have no access to money whatsoever. No getting food, gas or anything else. On the following Monday, every single account will have been emptied, without any protection whatsoever from the FDIC which has been insolvent since 2010.

    I don’t know to which extent it is true. In the light of the recent movements of DHS and military convoys, I can’t exclude it as fallacy and I believe in the proverbial ounce of prevention.

    Here is the text of what is spreading like wildfire:

    Subject: An Informational Warning Letter Arrived Today. This article may be helpful but I do not yet know of Ms Barnhardt’s reliability. Take it as an “advisement” for now perhaps.

    Warning: Get Your Money Out: “All Legal Bank Deposit Protections Are Now Officially Gone”

    August 13, 2012

    Ann Barnhardt, who in November of 2011 made the decision to cease operations of her brokerage firm and return funds to her customers citing “systemic” problems within the entire financial industry, has issued a new warning about the stability of US banks and the safety of individual deposit accounts.

    The warning, stemming from a recent federal appeals court ruling
    surrounding customer funds lost during the 2007 collapse of Chicago futures broker Sentinel, indicates that individuals who lose deposited funds because a financial institution improperly manages that money, even if those funds are supposed to be “segregated” from other operations of the firm, are essentially left with no recourse if the firm goes belly-up. According to the court, a misallocation of those customer funds, “is not, on its own, sufficient to rule as a matter of law that Sentinel acted ‘with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud’ its customers.”

    The implications of the ruling, according to Barnhardt, will affect
    the monies of all private individuals who have seen their deposit
    accounts wiped out in the collapse of firms like John Corzine’s MF
    Global and put all deposit account holders in the country at risk
    should their bank be faced with a financial windstorm:

    The NFA in collusion with the banksters, government and judiciary have achieved their goal. The entire concept of “customer segregated funds” is officially, completely, legally dead.

    The federal appeals court ruled yesterday that not only does BNYM stay at the front of the line, but that using customer segregated funds as collateral is NOT a crime, and that co-mingling customer segregated funds with proprietary funds is NOT fraud.
    What this means is that even if Jon Corzine is somehow dragged into court by private citizens, because you know damn good and well that the Justice Department will never, ever touch him, Corzine now has a legal precedent, likely from a bribed or otherwise coerced Federal Appeals Court, explicitly stating that an FCM can use customer deposits to pay its debts, and that the customers themselves are subjugated and have basically no legal right to their own monies, no matter what the law says, or what legal assurances, claims or guarantees are made to that customer about their funds held with an FCM or any other brokerage or depository institution. The “secured” party at the front of the line will always be the mega-bank who made the fraudulent loan using the stolen customer funds as collateral.

    In other words, all customer funds in the United States are now the
    legal property of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BNYM, or whichever
    megabank is the counterparty on the loans the FCM or depository
    institution takes out in order to fund its mega-levered proprietary
    in-house trading desks.

    The ruling is specifically designed to protect large financial
    institutions that have (purposefully) mismanaged customer funds and used the hard-earned life savings of Americans to gamble on equities, commodities and bond markets. If those firms happen to make the wrong bet, as MF Global, Sentinel and a handful of others have recently done, depositors who have placed funds with the banks under the belief that their bank account is securely protected from trading liabilities are now completely exposed and liable for the incompetence and negligence of those who engage in market trading.

    This latest ruling combined with recent actions by the Federal Reserve and other government regulators suggests a massive fraud has taken place and the financial system itself is under extreme strain with the potential to make the financial collapse of 2007/2008 look like just a training exercise.

    In recent days, for example, it’s come to light that the government
    has secretly called on the country’s five major banks to prepare
    themselves for collapse by creating stress recovery plans to be used in the event of worst case scenarios.

    A few weeks ago, the Federal Reserve also implemented a new policy for money market funds held by financial institutions. Per the new policy, money market funds, which account for some $2.7 trillion in deposits across the United States, can be frozen in the event of an emergency or financial panic. This means that if and when the system does go into a tailspin, at exactly the time people will want to pull their money out of their bank account, they will be restricted from doing so.

    These latest actions by government regulators, judges and financial institutions point to one thing: that we have an unprecedented financial collapse in the making. If such a financial crisis comes to pass it is clear that the policies and procedures now in place will transfer the legally owned deposits and money market savings of individual Americans into the hands of the banks at which those funds are kept.

    Get Your Money Out.

  6. enraged i keep seeing that illustration you posted -of the dots- you know , gov, a few dots, banks , a few dots, the irs, a few dots the people lota dots we are not f##$$% we are going to think of something you know like along the lines of Ghandi, may take a bit

  7. ToLLe,

    I don’t agree. Vote, by all means but… vote Blank. Not voting is abdicating a right we could end up losing if we don’t exercise it.

  8. During the last Presidential electoral charade, both candidates paused their rhetorical jousting when it came time to stump for the bank bailouts. Shoulder to shoulder they stood, Obama, McCain and Bush, like three stooges of big business, to funnel trillions to the too-big-to-fail banksters.


    So will we be idiots, yet again, this November? Or will we respect ourselves by calling out these sneering imposters who have hijacked our country? Let’s collectively expose and discredit them.

    Don’t vote, don’t fight, go on strike! It’s time.

  9. Guest,

    The British Crown didn’t invent anything. Read the Old Testament or any story in the mythology. Human nature is human nature, in any location, language, culture, race, sex and country. The minute you have 2 people together, you have the potential for a screwer and a screwee. The crux of the problem is not “who” but “what”. Otherwise, we perpetuate the blaming game and dissension forever and ever.

    Of course, that doesn’t apply to Jamie boy, the Stumpf and all the others named below, none of whom is British, but it becomes a moot point anyway as soon as they’ve lost their hands, their tongue and their head. And by the way, I forgot to include Cheney and Paulson in that list.

    Pall bearers will have an easy job…

    Forgiveness doesn’t come easy to me.

  10. @ enrage: Australia & UK both founded by British Royals, the master pirates & thieves of high-seas since 400 years ago, and originators of all modern organized crimes.

  11. Guest,

    Well… I don’t think Australia or the UK had founding fathers. And yet, they jumped on that bandwagon in a heart beat. They even perfected it. Nah. Scams have existed since money was first created. In fact, scams don’t even require money; ask the natives!

    Time to go back to the Tallion law: steal once, lose a hand. Steal again, lose the other one. Third time, lose your head. Lie once, lose your tongue. Makes sense. Radical but i bet it works!

    And I have just the right people to test it on: Jamie boy, the Stumpf, Robotman Romney, half of Congress, Bernanke, Summers, Geithner, who else? That will make for unequivocal conclusions we could then… take to the bank! (HaHaHa! Too funny!)

  12. ALL these scams began by the crooked FOUNDING FATHERS:

  13. As they say, “We’re all born equal. And then, it’s up to us!” Can’t seem to become equal by using the proper and honest methods, can’t seem to get there either by using their methods. What’s left? Oh, I know: close your bank accounts, default on all your loans, grow your own food, get a couple of goats and a few rabbits and to hell with all of them! Can’t wait forever until everything collapses. We’ve got to make it happen faster!

    Saturday, Aug. 04, 2012
    Jail time in Stanislaus real estate fraud

    A judge has sentenced a woman to a year in Stanislaus County Jail for filing false documents in an attempt to delay foreclosure on her parents’ home.

    On June 5, Monica Whitten was convicted of two felony counts of offering to record or recording false documents, the district attorney’s office reported Friday.

    Deputy District Attorney Brad Nix prosecuted the case. In 2009, Whitten filed the false documents related to her parents’ mortgage to delay a pending foreclosure, prosecutors said.

    Whitten’s case was delayed when she left the country. She was arrested when she flew into Atlanta on her return to the United States.

    Prosecutors said Whitten’s case is an example of a common real estate fraud scheme in which defendants pay money for forms they believe will slow down or stop a foreclosure sale and file them at the county clerk-recorder’s office.

    The real estate industry is now familiar with these fraudulent documents and is on the lookout for them.

    The prosecutors encourage the public to avoid becoming involved in these schemes.

    Along with the jail sentence, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Nancy Ashley sentenced Whitten to three years of probation and ordered her to pay restitution.

    Prosecutors ask anyone who learns of a potential real estate fraud scheme to call the district attorney’s office at (209) 525-5550 and ask for a complaint form. The form can be found on the district attorney’s Web site at

    Read more here:

  14. The entire article is on the previous page. I believe ToLLe posted it.

    Australia’s Sub Prime Mortgage Scandal Grows

    Australia’s largest banks are being forced to forgive mortgage debts of borrowers granted loans based on falsified or fraudulent information supplied by mortgage brokers.

    (In lawless America, where law enforcement has the backbone of a squid – they give money, equity and FREE houses to the people who create falsified and fraudulent information.)

    Australian lenders are refusing to provide low-doc borrowers with copies of their applications, while other lenders have told borrowers that such documents have been destroyed – to cover-up the crime.

  15. Damnit! Which each headway, more obstacles! The sunamabitches!

    Frustrated Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to end foreclosure study
    By Jason Hoppin – Santa Cruz Sentinel
    Posted: 08/13/2012 04:49:56 PM PDT
    Updated: 08/13/2012 04:52:18 PM PDT

    SANTA CRUZ – The county Board of Supervisors, frustrated by state and federal rules that seem to prevent them from writing any significant legislation, is dropping efforts to regulate local foreclosures.

    The move comes after several months of studying the issue, which was first raised by Supervisor Ellen Pirie but who recently wrote off the effort as futile. Numerous community groups sought action, but the board is likely to officially close the books on the effort Tuesday.

    “We got a couple of what I thought were good ideas, but ended up for a variety of reasons not panning out,” Pirie said. “The biggest issue is this is a state-designed system. It’s created in a way that it’s designed not to allow counties to do anything.”

    Throughout the process, board members bemoaned state and federal regulations as insufficient to protect homeowners. Local governments across the county have grappled with similar issues.

    Some have even deployed novel strategies to fight foreclosures, from suing banks over the blight caused by foreclosed properties to San Bernardino County and Sacramento recently floating the idea of seizing mortgages through eminent domain.

    While the county’s examination of foreclosures did not result in substantive steps, it did lead county lawyers to write a proposed state law. Based on Nevada legislation, it addresses reports of improper foreclosures by requiring banks to provide homeowners with certain documentation, including each assignment of the deed.

    In essence, that requires piecing together ownership of a mortgage. Since Wall Street began lumping mortgages together and selling slices of those packages as securities, ownership of many mortgages has been disbursed among investors.

    “You can’t go look at county records and know who owns the mortgage anymore,” Pirie said.

    The so-called verification law could delay California’s fast-track foreclosure process by months, giving homeowners valuable time to weigh their alternatives as the banks ensure foreclosures include required documentation.

    “Right now there’s no obligation for them to even check,” said Supervisor Mark Stone, a state Assembly candidate who could take up the bill if voters send him to Sacramento.

    “I am interested in it. Obviously, a lot depends on the state of politics and what can and can’t work,” Stone said.

    Since the county began studying the issue, the state also passed the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, a package of changes that does everything from requiring a single point of contact for homeowners to prohibiting dual-tracking, where banks negotiate reworked mortgages while simultaneously pursuing foreclosure.

    When the county took up the issue earlier this year, that bill looked dead. Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law last month.

    Democratic members of California’s Congressional delegation also are pressuring the Obama administration to cram-down balances on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would aid underwater homeowners.

    Board Chairman John Leopold was frustrated to find the county seemingly pre-empted at every turn. He said there is more work to do, both in analyzing the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights and in making sure homeowners understand their rights.

    “This has been an ongoing theme. The power’s been taken away from local governments who are seeing most of the pain, while the state government has been slow to respond” to the foreclosure crisis, Leopold said.

  16. Obama continues the cover up.

    Testifying recently before a Senate panel, the U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner hailed progress in “repairing and reforming” the financial sector since the passage of the Wall Street reform act two years ago. Geithner’s sunny take sits awkwardly with the recent news that large international banks conspired to “fix” the LIBOR, the interbank loan rate, and that a leading American bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, lost almost $6 billion of dollars on botched trades – revelations that, as former Sen. Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank fame) wrote last month, “makes the strongest case … for strong oversight of Wall Street.”

    But why, four years after large banks brought our economy to the brink of disaster, are we still reading about fraud, deceit, and reckless gambling by leading banks? The answer is partly that Wall Street has done everything in its considerable power to shred financial reform. But another big reason is that the Department of Justice has failed, inexplicably, to tap into the intelligence that financial whistleblowers like myself have tried to offer them.

    As a Countrywide Home Loans executive in 2007, I supervised fraud investigators and reported to federal regulators and the company’s Board of Directors. That year, our investigations showed that commission-hungry Countrywide loan officers routinely forged borrowers’ signatures and doctored income and asset statements.

    We opened many of these investigations on whistleblowers’ tips. Later I learned that many of those reporting or challenging fraudulent practices were transferred, demoted, harassed or fired in reprisal. To suppress whistleblowers and their concerns, Countrywide directed them to report their allegations to the suspect officials’ managers. It was a trap, and the system was rigged. Instead of taking action, the managers would then share the information with the suspects themselves, who would then hit back at the whistleblowers.

    As the year wore on, I found various levels of management working to circumvent fraud detection and disguise document doctoring by high-producing loan officers. After assembling overwhelming evidence of fraud and retaliation against whistleblowers, I reported to Countrywide’s internal auditors. But they must have been already working to conceal suspect lending from Bank of America (BofA), then in the process of buying out Countrywide.

    At that point I became a target. Countrywide managers went after my job and reputation, intimidating witnesses and altering statements to produce derogatory – and entirely phony – “findings,” which they passed on to BofA.

    After acquiring Countrywide, in July 2008, BofA had its own motives for silencing me. It too had run afoul of regulators for failing to report fraud. As a senior executive at the former Countrywide, I was called to an interview with Treasury officials, which would only compound BofA’s problems since I would divulge that Countrywide had been intentionally underreporting fraud. BofA headed off that danger by terminating me in September 2008 claiming, on absolutely no evidence, that I was “unsuitable” for a management position.

    Since then, I’ve found there were scores of whistleblowers inside Countrywide and then BofA. Trumped-up investigations were widely used to discredit us. The inner circle at both corporations operated like the mob: company staff, including attorneys, often worked to silence employees, using weapons like blacklisting, hush money and confidentiality agreements. The upper echelons at BofA attempted to buy my silence with more than $200,000; I refused. Instead I chose what could become a decade-long battle to see the guilty held accountable.

    I filed a whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration challenging the legality of my firing. In September 2011, OSHA ruled in my favor, ordering BofA to reinstate me and pay $930,000 in damages. (The decision is under appeal.)

    I’m one of the few whistleblowers who survived somewhat intact. I’ve enjoyed the support of the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization; was awarded the Nation Institute’s 2012 Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling; and have received solid media coverage. Others haven’t been so lucky. One was former Countrywide executive and whistleblower Michael Winston, who was terminated for, among other things, refusing orders to misrepresent the company practices to Moody’s, the rating agency. He won a wrongful-dismissal and retaliation case against Countrywide/BofA in 2011, but has been in personal and professional limbo as BofA appeals the decision in an attempt to escape accountability.

    The federal government, meanwhile, has done little or nothing to protect whistleblowers.

    Over the last 10 years, the Department of Labor has found merit in less than 2% of over 1200 whistleblowers cases brought under the Sarbanes Oxley Act. The vast majority having been dismissed on legal technicalities without any investigation into the potential crimes being reported. Claims that should be resolved in 60 days are taking 2-4 years. The Obama administration plans to add thousands of investigators to enforce the health care reform law, but has added just 25 positions to investigate whistleblower claims.

    Years after the onset of the financial crisis, caused in large part by deceptive lending, not one executive has been charged ­and imprisoned – either for fraud or obstruction of justice. For comparison, consider that prosecutors cleaning up the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s sent more than 800 bank officials to jail.

    In 2010, I was interviewed by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) and offered evidence of systemic fraud. Other whistleblowers have done the same. The Commission’s report concluded that fraudulent actions were systemic in certain financial institutions, and referred these practices to federal authorities. Not a single successful criminal prosecution has resulted.

    President Obama’s DOJ claims that prosecutors can’t indict and convict financial executives just because they behaved badly; greed, they say, is not a crime. Together with other FCIC witnesses, however, I alleged fraud, not greed, and that is a crime. The DOJ needs to investigate our allegations, and prosecutors could start by contacting whistleblowers like me. We have a lot to say, but many of us are gagged by our former employers unless subpoenaed.

    Today, millions of Americans are paying more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, and millions more are facing foreclosure. Meanwhile, those who cashed in while ordinary Americans lost their homes and their jobs remain at large, continuing both the crimes and the cover-up. Whistleblowers like me know who they are because we were there. We’re willing to talk. Why won’t the government listen?

    Eileen Foster exposed systemic fraud at the nation’s largest mortgage provider, Countrywide Financial. She now works at a credit union in California

    Read more:

  17. From Rolling Stone:

    In 2010, I was interviewed by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) and offered evidence of systemic fraud. Other whistleblowers have done the same. The Commission’s report concluded that fraudulent actions were systemic in certain financial institutions, and referred these practices to federal authorities. Not a single successful criminal prosecution has resulted.

    President Obama’s DOJ claims that prosecutors can’t indict and convict financial executives just because they behaved badly; greed, they say, is not a crime. Together with other FCIC witnesses, however, I alleged fraud, not greed, and that is a crime. The DOJ needs to investigate our allegations, and prosecutors could start by contacting whistleblowers like me. We have a lot to say, but many of us are gagged by our former employers unless subpoenaed.

    Today, millions of Americans are paying more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, and millions more are facing foreclosure. Meanwhile, those who cashed in while ordinary Americans lost their homes and their jobs remain at large, continuing both the crimes and the cover-up. Whistleblowers like me know who they are because we were there. We’re willing to talk. Why won’t the government listen?

    Read more:

  18. Guest,

    According to whom? The status? The law? The PSA? The judges? The bank? Can you narrow that down a bit? ‘Cuz whatever it is, they blew it. And it’s starting to really show..

  19. What is the time limit after closing for transferring notes to Fannie Mae?

  20. This is absolutely hilarious. They won’t quit until everyone on this earth starts throwing up at the mention of the word “bank”! Did you notice that they replace middle-ages sharks with alzheimerish guys that are so old and disconnected, they’re almost liquid!

    Come on people, whether here or there, do all pf us a big favor and close your damn accounts! That’s the only way.

    Read more:

    We should charge for current accounts, says new Barclays chief just days after taking over

    By Kirsty Walker

    PUBLISHED: 19:53 EST, 13 August 2012 | UPDATED: 03:46 EST, 14 August 2012

    Blunder: Sir David Walker has been accused of making an error by saying customers should be charged for current accounts just days after taking up his role as Barclays chief

    Blunder: Sir David Walker has been accused of making an error by saying customers should be charged for current accounts just days after taking up his role as Barclays chief

    The new boss of Barclays has angered MPs and consumer groups after revealing that he agreed ‘in principle’ with charging for current accounts.

    Sir David Walker was accused of making a ‘major blunder’, only days after he took over at the beleaguered bank.

    He said recent mis-selling scandals, such as payment protection insurance, were a ‘consequence’ of free banking.

    His remarks will do little to help repair the bank’s reputation, which was badly damaged in the wake of the Libor scandal.

    The previous chairman, Marcus Agius, quit along with former chief executive Bob Diamond after the bank was fined for trying to manipulate inter-bank lending rates.

    Sir David was appointed as Barclays chairman on Thursday. In an interview at the weekend, he said he favoured the idea of charging for bank accounts and services.

    Barclays recently announced a radical shake-up of its personal bank accounts.

    It axed its packaged accounts – fee-paying accounts with extra services – and replaced them with ‘bolt-ons’. This is where you pay fees to add on a chunk of various services, such as travel insurance and breakdown cover.

    The cheapest package is £6 a month.

    Referring to mis-selling, he added: ‘Because banks are not charging, it drives them inexorably into this sort of position.’

    Sir David is the latest senior banking figure to raise the prospect of fees for current accounts.

    Last month the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Lord Turner, said free accounts should become a thing of the past.

    Read more:

  21. Kona Tina- spoken like a women scorned “hell hath no fury” – maybe close to the truth the us gov foreclosed on its citizens for “stiiffing” customers- yes and then they went to the fed window remember deutsche, credit suisse, your post made me laugh. i can still do that thank god- but its so not funny just the word “stiffed”

  22. @ JenninGA,
    Yes, I’m familiar with the Hawaii case, and while Fremont General filed for bankrupcy its wholly owned subsidiary, Fremont Investment and Loan, did not file for bankrupcy; it was sold though to another company.

  23. @ Frank – I think I read a case in (Hawaii maybe) where the issue was the Security Deed was assigned by MERS from Fremont to a trust – but this happened after Fremont filed CH 11 (in 2008) and if in BK the BK trustee for Fremont would have needed to be involved…but was not … MAYBE some one here knows the case – I think I saw it mentioned here but don’t remember…good luck!

  24. @ Frank – have you read the complaint filed by Gregory Johnson v HSBC?

  25. Tina, I would think so but get a lawyer to make sure or pay for a loan audit and they will be able point such opportunities out to you. Neil did my audit back in 2009 and I honestly was blown away at what came back. And that was way back then. I can only imagine how his stuff has improved.

  26. OK, I have a question about the above post by Neil, and I ask this because I am in litigation with US Bank: there was a recording of an “assignment” from Fremont Investment and Loan, the supposed originator of my loan, to US Bank one day before my hearing and
    well after I was in “default”. In the essay above Neil said: “Most of all they ignore the time limits placed on the transaction in which the loan
    must be transferred to the actual lender — 90 days, according to the PSA and the REMIC provisions of the IRC.” I took out the “loan” in 2006; I haven’t paid since 2010; the “assignment” occurred on June 29, 2012. This violated the PSA and hence is a voidable act, is it not?

  27. 25 Billion or 26 Billion, who cares? They are buying off the government. Makes them all look like they are doing something to appease the public. Banks/Government what’s the difference? Notice how the legal system doens’t prosecute any one of these people, just collect a little money? It’s all “thin air” money. They don’t care. They’re taking your property and equity instead.

  28. “In February, five big banks agreed to pay $26 billion to settle the matter…” Jeez, I had left it at $25 billions a month or so ago.

    Was the settlement reevaluated based on the new Libor rates? Or… is it subject to the kind of interest rate only banks can get…? They can’t even get their figures straight!


    “Our concerns center on the fact that debt collection lawsuits are a pure volume business,” said Tom Pahl, assistant director for the F.T.C.’s division of financial practices. “The documentation is very bare bones.”

    The lenders disputed the suggestion that they file lawsuits that include flawed or inaccurate documentation.

    “We look at account records in our system to individually verify the accuracy of information before affidavits are filed and testimony is given,” said Ms. Conway, the American Express spokeswoman, who declined to comment on specific borrowers.

    The industry has faced similar criticism over practices stemming from the housing crisis. Amid a surge in foreclosures, state attorneys general accused the banks of using faulty documents without reviewing them and improperly seizing homes. In February, five big banks agreed to pay $26 billion to settle the matter…

    What did they actually “settle”? Anything?

  30. Actual Fraud?? NO KIDDING?? where’v you been??

  31. It’s sickening that there are so many folks attempting to make money off of the already duped American public by attempting to explain what happened.

    You all know what is happening, what happened and that it’s useless to fight.

    Seminars, books, expert witness, securitization audits. All of your shenanigans are bull kaka.

    You are no better than the Wall Street securitizers, bankers, mortgage schemers and accountants that dreamed up the complicated mess.

    When the cow poops, the worms come out to eat it.

    Why not just tell folks exactly what this is?

    Why keep it a secret?

    The government is seizing our homes.

    The government took the title to your home and put it in trust for bonds which were invested in by the WORLD.

    Why did Obama quietly sign that martial law act on Friday night, March 16, 2012?

    To keep the foreigners from taking our land! because we’ve stiffed them out of their money.

    Better our government seize it than foreigners.

    Roll over America.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: