11 Responses

  1. I am pretty darn sure that is why my husbands attorney says we have to be patient and put up with their stalling til its over. I say Bull Hocky!! Under legal terms I would like someone to define how to measure patience …. is it 1yr? 2yr? 3yr? 5yr? How long does it take to get a contract enforced and completed is almost like asking Mr Owl how may lick does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

  2. MS… True or False Statements
    1. MERS lien was recorded in favor of the Investers
    2. Investers abandond their right to the lien because they did not get the notes under PSAs. (need both to enforce contract)
    3. Investers and the Banksters are sueing or hashing out settlements because neither can prove standing to enforce the contracts either against or for the borrowers.
    4. Borrowers are left with an unsecured debt of an unknown balance.
    5. In some cases only little is owed and in some cases nothing.
    6. This does not apply to all cases.

    Thank You in Advance for your Help!

  3. RE: bankruptcy proceedings. In In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Case No. 09-4266 (Mar 22, 2010), the court ruled that the debtor could conduct a sale of its assets under a plan of reorganization without allowing secured lenders to credit bid
    ———————————————————————————–

    We tried something similer outside BK (only debt), …. i.e. My husband tried to sell the house to me. ( I was not on the loan and apparently they forgot to put me on title with my husband). We ran into a problem with the title and the title insurance in many ways. BAC/BOAna neither would cooperate with us, so we brought our attorney in and its been another two years of stonewalling. No lawsuit. You would think a reasonable person would sit down and work this out.

  4. What I am saying is QT will remove CWs fraud lis pendens and all the other bs (fraudulent docs) that follwed like the the transfer of the note and mortgage via mers that was backdated 3yrs and the CW lis pendens release that followed later. It does not remove the origional MERS lien filed by the broker. That leaves the note up for grabs again to recogntize with the title. (they have never produced the note with endorsements) I would be silly to spend all that money on a QT … that would be doing them a favor. And as a small invester for the past 30 yrs with a nickle here and a dime there …. I agree we need to update the legislation to protect the small investers. Bull Hocky the Richest Get Bailed Out by the taxpayers and the Little Guys get Stomped with losses! Yes we are in the CW invester suit… on both sides of it!!

  5. Backdating makes all that follows moot, and prevents standing for all, it makes them all Principals by agency conspiring.. but it still leads back to MERS on the deed. How do you fix MERS? I need a satisfaction of mortgage and the note stamped PAID by the note holder.

  6. Thank You MS! I follow you!

  7. GUEST

    There are the cases you need to look back on -I mean really look back on and examine the day leading to this crisis –

    For example – Philadelphia Newspapers – the court ruled that the debtor could conduct a sale of its assets . . . without allowing secured lenders to credit bid. Third Circuit Decision in In re Philadelphia Newspapers Has Ramifications for Secured Creditors’ Credit Bid Rights

    A recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has significant ramifications for relationships between borrowers and lenders that extend beyond the boundaries of bankruptcy proceedings. In In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Case No. 09-4266 (Mar 22, 2010), the court ruled that the debtor could conduct a sale of its assets under a plan of reorganization without allowing secured lenders to credit bid.

    This development may alter the recovery expectations of lenders to distressed borrowers and is likely to affect the respective strategies of debtors and lenders in approaching bankruptcy proceedings and lending behavior at large.

    NEXT :

    A jury convicted Merrill bankers in 2004 of helping Enron in 1999 engineer a sham sale of the barges to help the energy trader meet analysts’ fourth-quarter earnings forecasts.

    Prosecutors said Enron disguised a $7 million loan as sale proceeds, while secretly promising it would within six months buy back the barges, located off Nigeria’s coast.

    Brown served one year in prison before being released. The 5th Circuit previously overturned his conviction on fraud and conspiracy charges.

    In his appeal of the obstruction and perjury counts, Brown said the government should have produced evidence, including FBI notes from an interview with former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow, and Senate investigators’ notes from an interview with former Treasurer Jeffrey McMahon.

    But the 5th Circuit said some of the evidence in fact helped the government’s case, while other evidence would have had little impact.

    “The favorable evidence that Brown points to is not, even cumulatively, sufficient to give us a definite and firm conviction that it establishes a substantial probability of a different outcome,” Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote for the court. “There was considerable evidence of Brown’s guilt.” Enron filed for bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001.

    a Houston jury has convicted Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling on almost all charges relating to their roles in the most important corporate scandal ever recorded in U.S. history.

    On counts including conspiracy, securities fraud, making false statements and wire fraud, Lay and Skilling were found guilty. Skilling was even convicted on one of the insider trading counts. This means the pair will spend the better part of the rest of their lives in a federal prison.

    The Enron trial was a marathon, lasting 16 weeks and providing a unique opportunity for the public to glimpse the inner workings of the swashbuckling and everything-in-excess 1990s corporate culture. For their diligence and fortitude, we are grateful to both the 15-member jury (let’s not forget the three alternates) and Judge Sim Lake, who will unfortunately be remembered for presiding over this trial, instead of his service on the bench before and after Enron.

    The message this jury has sent echoing through boardrooms is that the line has been drawn in the sand; no one is too smart to disregard the rules and escape justice. Judge Lake should reinforce this message by throwing the book at Lay and Skilling. The severity of their crimes, the impact of their actions on shareholders and employees and pervasiveness of the fraud certainly warrants a stiff sentence.

    The historically pro-prosecution Fifth Circuit, which will no doubt have to rule on Lay and Skilling’s appeal, should likewise issue expeditious and severe judgments. Closing this chapter in such fashion allows the thousands of hard working Americans whose retirements were destroyed by Enron’s collapse to finally achieve some peace of mind.

    But this doesn’t mean that market regulators should kick back and celebrate along with the Enron Task Force. On the contrary, securities industry regulators should be wakened from their slumber and humbled by U.S. Attorney Sean Berkowitz, Asst. U.S. Attorney John Hueston and their 35-attorney team. The case brought against Lay and Skilling was not a settlement shakedown for publicity’s sake, rather a methodically researched presentation of evidence proving the defendants’ guilt. Simply put, while U.S. Attorneys doggedly pursue major league cases, Elliot Spitzer’s office relegates itself to the minors, rarely seeing the inside of a courtroom.

    The first issue in need of immediate reform is fixing a broken securities arbitration system. If small investors must wave their rights to a trial when engaging a brokerage firm, they should at least receive an impartial arbitration hearing by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD).

    The system currently mandates that one member of the arbitration panel deciding a victimized investor’s fate be someone from the actual securities industry. This is like having a member of an opposing baseball team pitch to his own batters.

    To even the playing field, the Securities Industry Association, the NASD and NYSE, which oversee these hearings, should eliminate the industry arbitrator to ensure the panel’s impartiality, as recently recommended by the North American Securities Administrators Association.

    Secondly, revisiting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) so that smaller publicly traded companies aren’t financially burdened by the filing requirements is misguided. This movement, being pushed through Washington largely by fat cat corporate executives and their lobbying minions, tramples upon small investors seeking transparency, internal controls and corporate governance among small-cap firms. Further, there is no objective research that states smaller public companies are less likely to practice Enron-esque accounting procedures. In fact, fraud is likely more prevalent among these firms, as 80% of all public companies are small-cap firms. Given their sheer number, they should not receive special consideration.

    Another freshly minted strategy corporations are using to bilk shareholders is back dating stock options.

    Simply the latest incarnation of corporate thievery, it appears that this practice is once again particularly widespread in the high-tech sector. It’s hard to believe that this issue even warrants debate. If a small investor cannot choose the price of a stock before he or she buys, why should a corporate executive be allowed to? The bottom line is that backdating stock options is stealing and those who have done so should be prosecuted, whether or not they conveniently forgot about exercising their option when it was offered.

    Finally, regulators should revisit the recovery limits of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).

    This not-for-profit agency was congressionally mandated in the 1970s to provide investors with “insurance” from securities fraud, estimated to plague the little guy to the tune of $10 billion to $40 billion each year. Originally, the amount investors could recover was limited to $100,000 of their original investment and $500,000 of stock losses, a fair amount in those days. The problem is that these limits have not changed since they were instituted over 30 years ago. Inflation alone warrants an increase of the limits, which says nothing of the incomparable amount of retirement and savings invested in today’s markets as compared to 30 years ago. Raising the SIPC limits would provide smaller investors with added confidence in the markets; something even Wall Street lobbyists could get behind.

    The sad reality, however, is that regulators probably won’t heed the Enron wake-up call. Instead, they’ll focus attention on political aspirations a la Eliot Spitzer or European merger prospects a la John Thain. This means that the Securities Exchange Commission, NASD and Congress must take a leadership role to protect the small investors from the greed that took down Enron.

    If regulators choose to ignore their duties, then they too should be held accountable as Lay and Skilling were for their “conscious avoidance.”

    The Courts are getting way to involved …especially with Energy , A big time Newspaper and of course ….the Banks

    MS

  8. Always Happy to hear from you MS, you have not posted in awhile. Your input is always informative. Thank You! Questions? Would April be a good month to start a storm of QT lawsuits or should we be patient awhile longer? I am losing patience …MERS slandered our title further in 2011 and BOAna will not respond with the figures and accounting of what we owe them. MERS officer will not respond to requests for proof of note ownership or if acting in the capicaty of agent by endorsing and assigning the lien on the deed, …. they need to disclose its principal to us. They wont budge ……. Isnt that illegal? Why will they not tell us? We just want to enforce the contract and bring it to a completion. But Noooo ….. Why Not?

  9. usedkarguy- I’d get on it, but I’m busier than a one-armed paperhanger with the crabs. Also, overwhelmed, like you. When I woke up this morning, I thought I was confused, but after reading the above post, I’m not sure. Keep plugging.

  10. RECENT PRESS RELEASE

    What you don’t know can hurt you – consider these statistics:

    40% of misrepresentations were undisclosed liabilities (according to Fannie Mae).
    22% of all undisclosed debt happens in the last 10 days prior to closing.
    20% of applicants who obtained new credit for cars, boats and other high-priced items have immediate installment obligations due.
    3% or more increase in borrower debt-to-income (DTI) ratios can result in expensive loan repurchase demands by the secondary market or penalties by regulators.

    THE TRUTH

    40% of misrepresentations were undisclosed liabilities (according to Fannie Mae). NOT TRUE – THESE LOANS WERE PREPAID OUT TEN YEARS
    22% of all undisclosed debt happens in the last 10 days prior to closing. WTF
    20% of applicants who obtained new credit for cars, boats and other high-priced items have immediate installment obligations due.
    AGAIN WTF – THE NEW BANKRUPTCY LAWS MADE THESE MORTGAGES AVAILABLE TO EQUITY FOR CREDITORS TO GET PAID
    3% or more increase in borrower debt-to-income (DTI) ratios can result in expensive loan repurchase demands by the secondary market or penalties by regulators.
    NOT TRUE THE LOANS WERE PREPAID

    MS Good things are happening ….

  11. Freddie Mac Sues Multiple Banks Over Libor Manipulation
    I’m busy
    somebody get on it….

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: