BOA, Urban Lending Sued in Qui Tam by WHistleblower: They never intended to modify the loans

Just a quick note as follow up to my article this morning. Read this qui tam complaint and see how it corroborates the facts and theories presented on this blog. Note the following quote: ” these mechanisms of fraud were and are interconnected and directly observed by Relator Mackler, who worked with various BOA executives while at Urban Lending Solutions beginning in April 2010. BOA outsources various HAMP obligations to Urban. Upon witnessing the unlawful, fraudulent practices listed above, among others, Mackler brought his concerns to the highest levels of Urban and to executives at Bank of America. Eventually, his objections to these practices led to his termination on March 17, 2011.”

US ATTORNEY GOT THIS DISMISSED BUT ANOTHER ONE IS PENDING IN MASSACHUSETTS UNDER SEAL.

Read, plagiarize This, and use it: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/324428-greg-mackler-complaint.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/08/440628/whistleblower-claims-bofa-blocked-help/?mobile=nc

41 Responses

  1. R u still there, Bob?

  2. Okay, Bob—so you’re saying that people who find out about all the fraud in their foreclosures AFTER they have been kicked out of their homes have absolutely no recourse whatsoever?

  3. Carie

    Every state has a statute of limitations for fraud. In New York it is three years from the date that the fraud could have been discovered. In your case however you would be Collaterally estoppel in the new action from suing for fraud. That is because you could have brought up that issue in the prior litigation.

  4. R u there, Bob? Re. my last question—if you find out after the fact that fraud was involved in the theft of your home—can’t you sue them— because there is no SOL for fraud?

  5. Besides, there was no complaint to appear and answer to.
    The only thing I could have appeared for and answered was the Unlawful Detainer…because it’s a non-judicial state.

  6. -You are correct Bob, failure to appear and answer the court is giving up your right to due process. In 2008 my husband did not appear or answer the court … he was not in default. Anyway, unknown to us CW kept the case open a couple of years and left LP unreleased. When they(BOA.. ut ummm) finally voluntarily dismissed in 2010, apparently the court took CWs word on all those false claims because we did not answer the court and well ….. case closed. Bit them in the Ass!

  7. But there is no SOL for fraud. If you find out after the fact that there was fraudulent misrepresentation—why can’t you sue for damages?

  8. Carie

    If u had shown up and participated u could have proved all this stuff while the case was pending. That’s the problem. U failed to exercise your due process rights. None of your defenses can now be heard. The case is over.

  9. Fraudulent Misrepresentation or Concealment

    The courts hold in numerous cases that a transferee who uses fraud to obtain the transfer of property is a constructive trustee. Such situations might involve an affirmative assertion of the truth of a material fact or concealment of the existence of a material fact when there was a duty to speak. The state of the defendant’s mind is a material fact and might be a basis for a constructive trust—such as when the defendant promises to use the property for certain purposes beneficial to the plaintiff but intends at the time of the transfer to retain it for himself or herself. The defrauded party can also proceed on the theory of setting aside the transfer, which is substantially equivalent to obtaining a constructive trust, or the defrauded party can sue for damages.

    Bob G.—The fact that the servicer never told me the name of the real creditor (which was my right under TILA and FDCPA) and never proved to me that the “loan” was transferred to the trust after repeated attempts to obtain this information—isn’t that:

    “Concealment of the existence of a material fact”

  10. Bob—what about suing the servicer for lies and fraudulent misrepresentation? Treble damages?

  11. As far as appearance and answer—in CA you still get booted. No matter what you do. Have you read Brian Davies’ case?

  12. “A trust can be organized without a transfer of property to the trust. It can only come into existence when property actually is transferred to the trust. The issuance of a certificate does not constitute a transfer of property to the trust. Accordingly, there is no evidence from which a court can infer such a transfer was actually made. The fact that MBST certificates were sold to investors who paid for the certificates does not show that the specific mortgage being foreclosed was ever transferred to the MBST.”

    These “transfers of property” never took place.

    This speaks to the heart of what is going on with “mortgages” and foreclosures, and I wish lawyers could grab it and be able to sue based on this.
    I guess they are not able to because this information—when proven in a precedent-setting situation—would basically cause the collapse of the housing industry?
    What about FOIA? Would it apply here?

  13. Carie,

    Here’s the problem. You never put in an Answer to the Complaint. So that means that you defaulted on appearance and on the Answer. In NY, once you fail to appear and default, the plaintiff does not have to provide you with any other papers that it files with the court. All motions that the plaintiff makes then are ex parte, meaning you don’t get notice.

    As for due process, you got it. Your due process rights under the U.S. Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments state that you cannot be deprived of liberty or property without due process. And due process means that you get notice of the claims/charges against you, and that you have an opportunity to be heard in opposition. You had both. You just didn’t exercise your rights for whatever reason (financial, I guess).

    All the email and snail mail stuff is irrelevant. Courts can only adjudicate matters properly before them. You failed to put any matters into play by properly putting them before the court in papers and documents.

    All this is ditto for the 1099A. If that’s the cancellation of mortgage indebtedness form, you shouldn’t have a federal income tax problem because you can use your $250K per person capital gain exclusion associated with the “sale” of your personal residence to cover the difference between the loan amount and the bank sale amount, which would be a capital gain to you.

    Again, I would encourage folks to get that Jurisdictionary course. Also, get a copy of your state’s civil practice laws, typically from Westlaw, and maybe the civil practice treatise book that the law schools use in your state.

    Carie, I know that you don’t want to hear this, but you are done for in this instance. The game is over for you, because you never showed up. They got a default judgment which is a judgment on the merits.

    I am sorry about your situation, but it is what it is.

  14. Well, I never filed because for one thing courts are brutal in CA, and for another thing we had absolutely no money.
    All the questions I posed, and all the answers I received from the servicer and foreclosure mill were either emails or snail mail—so I have everything in writing…I just never sued to stop the foreclosure because of money issues, and everyone I knew in CA who was attempting to stop their foreclosure were spending a ton of money on lawyers and kept running into brick walls—with no due process. We didn’t file BK either, for a variety of reasons.
    In CA the docs are “Assignment of Deed of Trust” and “Substitution Of Trustee.” I have a recorded ADT that assigned to the MBS Trustee (Deutsche) AFTER closing date of that MBS trust…and Deutsche Trustee is named as beneficiary…yet, as I said before, the servicer (OneWest) is stated as “Lender” on the 1099A tax form…which means they are the entity reporting the loss—correct?
    Yet they told me in writing that; “OneWest doesn’t own your loan, we are servicing it on behalf of the (unidentified, mysterious) ‘investor’ that owns your loan”.

    I laid out all my information and what I thought we deserved as far as damages for the Independent Foreclosure Review, but since we don’t fit neatly into one of their “categories” for compensation, I’m not holding my breath.

  15. carie

    starting from the beginning of the foreclosure action against you, tell me all the papers/dcouments that your filed with the court and served upon your adversary. just show me the list, not the actual docs/papers.

    also, were all the papers that you filed/served, filed/served on time?

  16. @Bob G.—thanks.
    I had asked the servicer repeatedly for proof of conveyance to the trust. I said according to the PSA, there is no Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, and no Mortgage Loan Schedule. I said—“why would I give you any more of my money if you can’t even prove to me that my alleged loan was allegedly transferred to a trust? And you refuse to tell me who the real creditor is?”

    They told me they didn’t have to provide me with that information and then they foreclosed.

  17. Carie

    Can’t really help you as CA is a tough, nonjudicial state, and i don’t known procedural law there.

    However, I would encourage you as well as others to check out a NY case that just came down last month.
    It is Wells Fargo v. Erobobo. You can find it on 4closure fraud, or google it.

    This is an “unreported” case (so far). In NY that means that it can’t be used for precedent, but must be given “respectful consideration.” The great thing about this case is that this is the first time I’ve seen a judge say that if the note wasn’t properly transferred to the trust per the terms of the PSA, then the trustee can’t be the note owner or holder pursuant to such an alleged assignment. The judge also went on to cite NY trust law that states that an act in violation of the trust agreement is void (not voidable). And since virtually all of these trusts were formed under the laws of NY, NY law would apply even in CA.

    My guess is that WF is not going to appeal this case, as it does not want to establish the trial court’s reasoning and holding at the appellate level.

  18. Bob G—I’m in non-judicial CA.

  19. carie: those named parties may be alleged Certificateholders or holders of a beneficial interest. Or they’re just washing the title.

  20. Bob G:sounds like a great plan. Don’t bother trying to explain anything to the stripper. if there is profit in the end, it pays the attorney for fighting these $20G case. We put about thirty hours into a pleading the last two days. What your doing is brilliant.

  21. Carie
    Very strange indeed. What state r u in? Is it a nonjudicial state ?

  22. Not to mention that the “three day notice to quit” received after the trustee’s sale says that the Trustee of the MBS is now the “owner”….

    ___________

    As an add-on to that—the Trustee of that MBS (Deutsche) has PUBLICLY STATED that they have NO OWNERSHIP STAKE in ANY of these “loans”…

    Hmmm…yet they are the stated beneficiary/owner in these foreclosures…

  23. I have another question(s) for you, Bob G, since you are a lawyer in the thick of it—why is a non-lender/non-creditor allowed to sell these homes?

    If someone receives a 1099A tax form after foreclosure that states that the SERVICER is the LENDER—yet when pressed BEFORE the foreclosure sale to identify the “owner” of the “loan”—this same “servicer/lender” states they do NOT own the loan.

    Furthermore, the foreclosure mill stated that the “Trustee” of the MBS (that the “loan” was allegedly pooled into) was the “beneficiary/creditor/lender”…and the servicer (lender?) stated that the MBS was the owner of the loan…

    That same foreclosure mill also stated that MERS was my original creditor/lender…hmmm—guess they think a database is a lender/creditor…

    Not to mention that the “three day notice to quit” received after the trustee’s sale says that the Trustee of the MBS is now the “owner”….
    But wait, there’s more—yet ANOTHER “notice to quit” was received after the sale saying that a real estate investor was now the “owner”…

    How many contradictory things can you count in all that?

  24. Good one.
    What “bank” are you talking about?
    The junk debt buyer/non-creditor/non-lender?

  25. Carie

    95% of foreclosures result in a default judgment. I help people put in an Answer and take the steps that Neil advises. If we win and the note/mortgage goes away, I get compensated. At the very least I can get the bank to put a real settlement offer on the table. If not, then at least the homeowners get to stay in their home for a couple of more years than they otherwise would, rent free.

    If I can’t help and the property ultimately goes to foreclosure, I get nothing for all the time and resources that I’ve expended.

    If you have a problem with that or think what I do is unethical, then you help them. Put your money where your mouth is Carie.

  26. your comment is rather cryptic…could you please clarify?

  27. Bob G you have found a way to game an already gamed system. You must be very proud.

  28. As far as the grand witch hunt goes, the greedy investors at the top of the pyramid scheme caused it. If people don’t want to be bothered to take the time to educate themselves then they are at the mercy of these wolves. That is the problem.

  29. Allow me to make clear every individual action can have a positive reaction in our favor.

  30. Bob G. We all have to do our part. Every individual action can have a positive impact on this plan by our enemies to steal our freedoms. I realize the seriousness of these matters. I understand the reason why the banksters destroyed our Securities and these reasons are nefarious. The destruction of our Securities will have extremely dire consequences for our nation and all of us if we don’t stand up for what is the correct legal remedy. Unless we all want to be slaves to massive bankster fraud for the rest of our lives we need to make a stand. That is the reason why I reject all of their fraud and fixes for fraud. I don’t negotiate with known felons. If you “get it” you know, nothing the banksters/politicians have done or are doing is legal, moral or ethical.

    Everyone can make a difference and make a stand for the better.

  31. Stripes

    I’m not on a grand witch hunt to save the world. I get referred to somebody in foreclosure, and have them deed me over a 50% interest in the property. I then make a motion to intervene. I get into the lawsuit and then I go to work with discovery: Notices to Admit, Interrogatories, Production of Documents. I’m not looking for any global fraud, because that does nothing to help my case. I focus my attention exclusively on the case that I’m involved in…nothing else. I’m in NY, which is a judicial state.

    The key is that the property must be owner occupied, and have negative equity. Negative equity means that I don’t run afoul of NY’s Home Equity Theft Prevention Act. I will create my own equity if I am successful.

  32. Bob G…..Do you mean you are doing your own discovery of the fraud? The bank attorney told me they don’t have any discovery, there is no trust or trustee.

  33. My cases are going extremely well. I’m getting all the discovery that I need. Suggest you guys get the Jurisdictionary course from the lawyer in Florida.

  34. The banks don’t own anything because they don’t pay for anything. WE THE PEOPLE PAY FOR EVERYTHING UP FRONT AT THE ORIGINATION… The FED and their credit lending is a bankster scam and that is what the banksters/politicians are hiding in discovery. The banksters are hiding the fact they don’t pay for anything and invest in everything we pay for. The politicians are invested in this bankster scam to steal our Constitutional Republic.

    As to how it’s going for me with these imposters Bob G., my cases are pending.

  35. Yes, Bob G.—banks own the government—which includes the COURTS and JUDGES—which is why you get no discovery (because it would expose all) and cases are being dismissed with no due process whatsoever.

  36. How’s that working out for you ?

  37. I stopped negotiating with these financial terrorists upon discovery of their fraud. As a result of my discovery of their crimes against me & my family, I demand all of my money back they stole plus damages and clear titles to both my home & business properties.

  38. THE ONLY way out of this is to treat the banksters like Apartheid South Africa. We need to have the cities counties states to divest and stop conducting business with these NAZIS
    NEVER AGAIN

  39. I appreciate this type of honesty. What the banksters really want is a nation of renters out of this fraudclosure scam. They want no private ownership of anything of value for any of us. They want a lifetime revenue flow from everything that involves our Life, Liberty and Property. That is really what the Obama Plan was all about, the complete destruction of our freedom. I am personally pleased I was denied the Obama Plan. It is tyranny and it is oppressive. Same thing goes for OBAMACARE. It is all a totalitarian plan to keep us oppressed and destroy our Constitutional Republic by these imposters.

  40. cross posted to Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog (“The truth at any cost lowers all other costs.”) watching mortgage fraud and corrupt judges with interest — Maryland seems to be the poster child for judicial corruption enabling mortgage corruption.

  41. If this was a complaint filed under seal, why is the complaint being unsealed for the general public by the relative at this time? I think that he just blew his case, And may be subject to sanctions.

    In any event, since the banks own the government, this case and claim is going nowhere.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: