Now that Federal Reserve is nearly done buying the worthless mortgage bonds, the banks have shown that they are in fact making money hand over fist and the government is feeling less fearful about toppling the financial system with financial regulation.
Based upon my interview with a highly placed well-informed source who prefers to remain anonymous, it appears as though the playing field and the goal posts have been moved.
The starting point is the sale of worthless mortgage bonds to investors under false pretenses. It isn’t just that the underwriting standards that were to be applied to the mortgages were not followed; the problem is really that the money from the investors was never deposited into an account that was legally or even apparently owned by the investors or the asset pool shares that they thought they were buying.
The banks were claiming the investment shares (mortgage-backed securities) to be their own despite the clear money trail and paper trail showing that at no time were the investors informed that they were lending their money or their right to the mortgage loans to the banks and their co-venturers.
Then the banks claimed losses on those investment shares and collected from insurance, credit default swaps, other hedge products, and the taxpayers.
Then the banks claimed insolvency that threatened the entire financial system despite having received money from investors, part of which was never invested in anything related to mortgages or mortgage bonds. The threat of insolvency and the threat to the entire financial system was taken seriously by people in government that should have known better and perhaps did know better.
Then it was decided that the Federal Reserve would cure the insolvency issue by purchasing the worthless mortgage bonds at full value. They purchased it from the banks who at no time actually owned close bonds nor did the banks own any of the loans that supposedly “backed” the mortgage-backed bonds.
Then it was revealed that the banks were making a lot of money while the rest of the economy went into a nosedive. Any economist who is questioned on this subject will respond that it is very unlikely for intermediaries who act as conduits for transactions to make money when economic activity is on the decline.
If they are reporting profits it is from fictitious transactions. In this case fictitious transactions are “trading profits.” In reality the banks are feeding part of their ill-gotten gains back into the bank, and claiming it as profits. When the chips were down and the banks had to show that they were strong enough to exist at their mega size, they came up with the capital without any problem.
Now that they came up with the capital and the profits, they have demonstrated that the extra restrictions that regulators want to put on the banks will neither damage the bank’s profitability nor threaten the financial system.
But the Banks know that their ability to come up with money all stems from the fact that they lied to everyone and stole trillions of dollars and that it did not come from ordinary banking activities. SO they are currently in a bed they made for themselves: they don’t want the restrictions to be too restrictive because it might have a negative effect on their legal earnings, but they have proven the opposite with their illegal earnings — which is precisely what the regulators were waiting for.
Hence the banks are stuck with whatever regulations are put on banks — especially those who claim ownership over transactions in which they acted only as intermediaries — or they must say that the regulations would be harmful because the truth is they didn’t really make the money that they reported as net income.
This doesn’t come as news to the Federal Reserve who knows that it is purchasing worthless bonds. But the Federal Reserve cannot say that the bonds are worthless because it would then be seen as quantitative easing which is inflationary. The whole reason the money supply was expanded so much without inflation going wild is that the Federal Reserve was merely “buying bonds” and not just giving out money. But the bonds were completely worthless. So the truth is that the Federal Reserve was and still is giving out money in quantitative easing.
This chain of events served to undercut the middle class portion of the economy completely, denuding them of jobs, houses and even prospects, creating blighted neighborhoods, declining tax revenues for municipalities and thus bankruptcies like the City of Detroit. If the law was applied as it is applied to everyone except the big banks, then they would be charged with mortgage fraud, securities fraud (because the exemption does not apply if you don’t follow the rules of issuance of a mortgage bond) and compensatory damages would be due to the following people with percentages of the total money advanced for each $1 of mortgage:
- Investors: 125%
- Insurers: 85%
- Credit default swaps: 400%
- Miscellaneous hedge products: 25%
- Borrowers: 15% (100% of the payments and down payment)
- Taxpayers: 5%
- Federal reserve: 100%
Thus the situation was likened by my source to an old joke about lawyers, the punch line of which is that the dog screws everyone in the room and runs away with the steak.But the real problem is that by participating in this deceptive scheme, the Federal Reserve, put the burden of the loss on homeowners whose mortgages were paid in whole or in part by the financial sector including the Federal Reserve.
It isn’t just that the ownership of the loan has become completely convoluted; the real issue is money, to wit: the credit transaction with borrower has been long since extinguished by these devices used by the banks and the Federal Reserve, and vehicles like the Maiden Lane entities.
The amount of money owed on those mortgages is in reality far less than the the amount demanded by the banks — which means that modification is possible for nearly every loan, whether delinquent or not, because the principal has already been reduced by payment. THIS IS WHY I SAY FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL BEFORE YOU FOLLOW THE PAPER TRAIL. THE PAPER TRAIL IS ONLY RELEVANT IF IT MATCHES THE MONEY TRAIL. OTHERWISE IT IS IRRELEVANT.
In the marketplace where loans are being refinanced and where mortgages are being foreclosed, these facts are carefully kept out of the mainstream conversation. But more and more judges are starting to ask questions because the behavior of the banks is just not consistent with a creditor who wants their money.
They seem to want the foreclosure judgment or sale but they are not so interested in the property. AND THAT is because the foreclosure puts the seal of approval from the state on a bunch of lies that were proffered to the courts and to the recording offices. It is the foreclosure judgment and sale that starts the clock ticking on wrongful foreclosures. Once time has run out on those actions, the banks are home free and the Federal Reserve, the unwitting or witting accomplice goes on their merry way while more than ten million families lose their homes, jobs and prospects.
If the Courts start finding that the mortgages are invalid, that their enforcement is defective or impossible, and that the debt is in doubt because there is no proof of the account receivable and the loss must belong to SOMEBODY, the current plan collapses. As I stated in 2007 based upon my own direct knowledge and the knowledge of industry sources who were active in the bundling, selling and trading activity associated with mortgage loans, the entire crisis would have been averted if the banks were held to account because the accounts due from the borrowers had been reduced without their knowing it just as the account due to the investors had been reduced without them knowing it.
This brings us back to what seems like a quaint solution now. I said we should forget blame and just let bring everyone to the table and share the losses and risks. People get to stay in their homes, the investors get a return on their investment, the banks earn fees, and companies like AIG won’t be in danger of toppling. But then, the catastrophic shift in wealth inequality would also never have happened. And the super rich would have been revealed, if they were bankers, as common thieves with keys to the vault.
Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage | Tagged: account receivable, borrowers, credit default swaps, Federal reserve, foreclosure sale, investors, mortgage bond insurance, mortgage bonds |
LDeanTX
Need some help please. OK again Bank of America Servicer and Recontrust Foreclsoure Department is attempting a foreclosure on August 6, 2013. I am trying to determine who has the right to foreclose and possibly someone on this site can help me determine who is the holder of the note/deed of trust. Goes like this in Harris County TX Clerks office. Leah Dean Grantee, Lender, America’s Wholesale Lender a corporation operating under New York Law with address in Calabasas California, Grantor CTC Real Estate, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. CTC Real Estate is listed as trustee but the DOT goes on to say that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., is nominee and beneficiary of successors and assigns. On document titled Servicing Transfer Disclosure it states Recontrust is the trustee for the loan. I have a lot of trustees so this really confuses me. Written January 23, 2007. Now in the mix is BONY Mellon fka Bank of New York for CWABS 2007-2 Asset Backed Certificates. Bank of New York Mellon has written to me that they are not the owner/holder of the note or the property and have no say in Loan Modifications, or how the property is disposed of by the servicer. However Recontrust is stating on the Notice of Substitute Sale scheduled for August 6, 2013 that Mortgagee is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc and Current Mortgagee is BONY Mellon and that Recontrust is foreclosing on behalf of BONY Mellon. So, in all this confusion, out of America’s Wholesale Lender, CTC Real Estate, Bank of America, Recontrust, BONY Mellon and other listed substitute trustees on the document, who is the note holder? Pool CWABS 2007-2 is where the certificate number 155397447 is found. Closed on property January 23 2007. Pool closed February 28, 2007. MERS calls BONY Mellon the investor. BONY said they are not the investor they are the trustee for investors. I have two copies of the promissory note. One is from November 2011 and the other from May 2012. One has no endorsements, dates of recording, assignments with it. The one from May 2012 came stamped with Michele Sjolander on it which looks as though the signature was stamped on a post it note, stuck on the note, and scanned. It is sideways on the document and reads pay without recourse Countrywide Mortgage/dba America’s Wholesale Lender. My deed of trust reads Lender is America’s Wholesale Lender.
What I am getting out of all of the research that I have done, is that any of these entity’s could be the trustee for the note holder. So, does this mean that Bank of America the Servicer, and Recontrust has the right to foreclose on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. and BONY Mellon even though they are not who is the note holder? Any suggestions as to who I should sue and should I sue for slander of title? or Bankruptcy. Anybody know of any remarkable Case winning attorney’s in Harris County TX? Any help will be greatly appreciated. I have to get moving on this in the morning. Hope to hear from somebody.
tn harry – glad to see you. care to weigh in on my comments under Em Domain post regarding assignments?
stripes, you’re a moron. get lost.
stripes, are you drunk? or did you miss the pickup for the short bus today?
when I said “this isn’t a constitutional republic, it’s a privately owned intellectual property”, I was not referring to real property, I was referring to this website
as for the remainder of your crazy talk, I’d love to hear what you meant by it if you can explain a bit.
this isn’t a constitutional republic, it’s a privately owned intellectual property that you’ve co-opted with nonsensical rants Stripes. it’s the equivalent of you shutting down a business by blocking the public’s access to the door. Neil clearly doesn’t care that you’re making it difficult for anyone to get anything useful out of the site, so I’m not sure why I should either.
Wow – this is the Internet version of the stereotypical guy screaming crazy stuff on the sidewalk.
Elex,
I posted a few days ago an entire interview given by NG to John Wright in which he spoke from both sides of his mouth and admitted that his theories are only that: theories which, so far, haven’t yielded much results other than… modifications, which is exactly what Mandelman, Gardner, Stopa, Barnes and the others get for their own clients.
I don’t know any of them personally, Garfield included. And i am completely dispassionate either way. i simply hate to see people jump on something too shiny to be legitimate… and lose, as many here have, by claiming securitization or lack thereof.
I don’t have any skin in that game: I did what i had to do and I’m waiting for the results of my own court action. But regardless what happens, it will not make me or break me. many here came for help and got seriously misled. Some could have gotten very different results.
Then again… they chose whom to listen to. i’m no one’s babysitter. i will, however, continue to call the attention on what works and what doesn’t.
tnharry,
No. Carie was misled and misguided and she paid a high price for it. The moron of service is somebody profoundly deranged whose mental illness may very well help her make a living, that I don’t know.
Elex,
I am not saying he isn’t correct. Bill Black a few years ago demonstrated the whole charade and the interconnection between banks, insurance companies, lenders, etc. Others did as well : Austin Fitts, Barofsky, people much better positioned than… NG. Didn’t make a dent! Anonymous did too and has been experimenting with it in different courts for… 9 years! Where i continue to have serious misgivings is:
1) Where are the wins thanks to his theories? A simple show of hands would do…
2) NG has, on occasions, dangled in front of naive homeowners potential results, such as a free house, from using not only his theories but… his services as an expert analyst of the loan. Again, where are the wins?
3) I have difficulty with someone who wouldn’t want to debate somebody like… say… Mandelman, who has interviewed some of the biggest players in the field, on both sides of the fence, and who has been quite successful at getting results for people who were asking for his help. Not everyone, for sure. But many, many more than have come here to testify in the past 5 years. Mandelman has gotten loans modified for people.
I can think of a few people who eagerly jumped on that NG wagon and were thoroughly disappointed after having decided flat out that they wouldn’t no modify since no money was due… right? I continue to assert that homeowners got a loan, i.e., they were able to move into a house they didn’t have the money for at the time. I’m one of them. I got a loan. Where from, i don’t have a clue. But i did get a loan, no matter how I slice it. And at some point in time, because of the unresponsiveness of those looking for my money and their inability to prove that I owe it to THEM, I stopped paying and i sued. The American way. The fact of the matter is… whatever cooking of the books happened behind the scene is not my problem. My problem is that some financial entity made my life very, very difficult for 5 years by losing my money and threatening me non-stop and there is a hell of a value into going through that ordeal.
“A quiet title cause of action by the borrower puts the onus of providing the full chain of custody on the note holder”.
Not necessarily! many of us have been there and done that…judges are not having it.
“focus on the purchase and sale of the Note as an account receivable determines capacity”
What happens when it is converted to a bond/debt in your name?
@tnharry – send email to Danielle addressed to NeilFGarfield@hotmail.com to vote stripes and marilyn lane off the site.
@christine – my intuition set off bells when I visited John Wright’s website. By the numbers he is probably correct – if the note holder has evidence of standing and capacity, then homeowners are stuck with modification, without any leverage at all. And the vast numbers of troubled homeowners don’t have the wherewithal to represent themselves or pay for an ineffective attorney.
What I didn’t like, given a very brief scan of the site, is the lack of preliminary factors to look for before caving to his advice to ratify what may be an illegitimate debt. Given the percentage of failures of modifications so far (primarily in the sub-prime loans), it seems bad advice to me to leave money on the table.
what a joke this has become. Neil, police your site and its comments section or give it up. I suspect it’s too late. when the wackos monopolize 80+% of the comments there is no possibility of coherent discussion.
stripes – I would suggest that you are the banker troll you accuse others of. you successfully derail intelligent conversation at every opportunity.
I’ve been gone a long time. does stripes=carie?
@Christine – The reason NG is correct is this. In my loan a ‘note holder’ is a subsequent lender / beneficiary. In a court of equity where you take a wrongful foreclosure, all parties need to prove standing and capacity. Standing for borrower is the Grant Deed and signature on the Note. Lender is signature on the Note and name as beneficiary on the security instrument. Capacity at origination is the (presumption) money was transferred from lender to previous owner in exchange for Grant Deed conveyed to borrower.
After origination, capacity (by making payments) and standing remain unchanged for borrower. A note holder, on the other hand, is (presumed by court) to have paid something for the Note (capacity) and took delivery of the Note from original lender or legitimate (holder in due course) note holder (standing).
NG’s strategy is to attack both the capacity and standing, as both need to exist as a question of law before court can consider equitable relief under terms of foreclosure. If no evidence can be provided that the note was purchased with money, then there is a question of law whether court has jurisdiction to provide equitable relief based on the amount paid for the Note (capacity). If the note holder is not a holder in due course (possession, without knowledge of default when transferred), then it is a question of law whether party has standing as a party to the contract to obtain equitable relief. Either one will make your case as the borrower, so it comes down to the evidence, which is held entirely by the note holder.
Early discovery requesting all documents related to the Subject Loan held by note holder should focus on the purchase and sale of the Note as an account receivable determines capacity. All documents memorializing the receipt and transfer of the physical Note, or documents memorializing change of custody of the Note, for each alleged note holder in the chain of beneficiary interest, determines standing, A quiet title cause of action by the borrower puts the onus of providing the full chain of custody on the note holder.
IANAL, and I believe the court has done something stupid in my case worthy of an appeal.
Let’s hear it from John Wright. I would strongly suggest to anyone seriously fighting foreclosure to read very carefully this entire article.
And ponder why certain former bloggers who have developed -and fought on the basis of- similar theories as those peddled by Garfield are still fighting tooth and nail after 9 years and not making much headway.
http://piggybankblog.com/2013/07/23/livinglies-star-neil-garfield-potentially-threatens-supporter-after-refusing-to-defend-legal-strategies-in-public-debate/
“Therefore — let the record show –that the only one who might be guilty of any character assignation attempt of Neil Garfield – simply might be – Neil Garfield himself.”
IMHO, the government is guaranteeing the bonds, for Fannie and Freddie. If they are in fact “purchasing” legitimately 43 Billion of MBS each month or “promising” to pay for the worthless crap. If Fannie and Freddie cannot guarantee clear title in the open market what do you think that means? It is tied to the past behavior and lack of standing.
One must ask, what investors, REIT trusts, securities, bonds, fractional ownership, etc…this would be all private entities. Personally, we have found very little evidence of legitimate REMIC Trusts, hence the PSA is moot. They have us chasing our tails, purposely.
We have thousands of holding companies all popping up from 2010 to present. I suspect all moving these “worthless” mortgages. The only party with enough money or clout to guarantee this is the government/taxpayers. This behavior is only about the payments, a revenue stream and I just found out the government is paying the difference to the “party” who has a loss when selling these properties at a loss, in foreclosure. And the short sales, penalize the new buyers, they pay the whole freight for the entire length of the loan.
We are picking up the tab at every turn. One thing I can say emphatically: stripes is correct about the taxpayers picking up the tab for 100% of this. We can verify a lot of it!
Let me give you a short example: New Century, pumped and dumped the company, intentionally. You can clearly see from the paperwork, sifting multi-millions off the top, before filing bankruptcy(stock went from $60.00 per share to under $1.00). After filing bk, they requested millions more in salaries, that was approved by Judge Carey in DE, under the supervision of Uhland, reorganization counsel(5 different fraud and ethics complaints against her). 30 Million was missing right off the rip and still unaccounted for. Lines of credit lent to them was not used to fund loans, but corporate shenanigans. Payments and escrows were stolen form borrowers and loans went into default, while borrowers had no idea. Many loans went unfunded, then were seized by non-lenders illegally. Creditors(some the seizing parties) were paid $.90 on a dollar and they moved the notes behind the courts back, illegally again, to get paid on the “revenue stream of payments” and put homes in foreclosure…they too(New Century), are now called TRS Holdings, hello?
They are in Chapter 11, reorganization. Translation: take all the money out of the company(get rich quick), file bk and pay debts for pennies on the dollar, move all assets before we file and move them back after(in bed with other holdings companies), lawyers get filthy rich, keep 2 sets of books to verify losses and come back years later, no debt/clean slate, business as usual!
The thing we keep coming back to, over and over, the revenue stream. This is because they cannot collect on the original note, impossible
given the conversion…and bond debt does not carry with it rights of foreclosure, bond holders cannot sell your home, they have zero rights regarding the DOT. The only way to make this happen it is to feign a REMIC trust, servicer relationship. REIT’s, annuity payments, fractional ownership, bonds, certificates, MBS’ and such carry no rights to foreclose, only legal holders, lenders, legitimate-legal assigned parties have any rights under the DOT. And it is my opinion, even beneficiaries are not entitled to foreclose, only collect the proceeds of such an event! Again, IMHO
Go ahead, chew me up…we cannot find anything legitimizing real sales, indorsements and transfers…to legal entities, entitled to steal your home.
Now that our president and government reps have allowed these ex-US banks to overtake American homes & Homeowners driven by ex-US servicers (like Ocwen which I’ve read makes its foreclosure decisions in India), is it fair to say that these ex US nations OWN these millions of pieces of the US “one home at a time” with millions more foreclosures to come? Or, do they have to come in and actually do more paperwork in order to, for example, own the city of Detroit?
JG,
The case right before, at 10:06, deals with PSA and robo signing. TX district court decided they were non issues.
I say follow the law
Give the people their homestead
Put the banksters in jail & everyone else in the fraud trail (servicers,false credit bidders,loan originators since no creditor existed etcetera)
christine at 10:10 pm – what other court in what other case? thanks
christine at 10:13 – good Lord!
some court from a Christine comment”
“Therefore, Fannie Mae could have established that it was the real party in interest by proving that it had possession of the note.’
No, no, no, say I, take 10. If fnma will suffer no injury by the nonpayment of the note, fnma is not the rpii. FNMA may well be the rpii, but not because it’s in poss of a bearer note.
carie said
“Security investors fund the BANK—not the borrowers—there is no direct relationship between security investors and borrowers.”
I used to think that, too, and believed that NG overlooked in their entireties intervening contracts between the banks and the investors for the use of those funds. Now I’m not so sure…..following the money could find that investor funds went rights from certain accounts to
the closing table and skipped going into the trusts. Actually, don’t know why the banksters would have needed to do that if they can
show up at the fed window and get short term money free or damn near. Or create money by creating debt. What – did they want to replace monopoly money with “real” money? If the banksters had to, in fact, pay much of anything for those short term loans, did they just decide to pay them off with the investors’ funds and trade the paper electronically, you know, sort of skip all the paperwork, pun intended, including things like balances on each note (which change monthly with interest earned changing daily) and just say here is a note for 500, today ABC owns it, tomorrow EFG does, and then XYZ does acc to our electronic entry records, all without regard to the changing-daily-interest-due on the loan and any principle reduction by payment? “And here’s the alleged escrow balance”? If one understands “strike prices”, one can get what I’m trying to say. But, what it’s about is that the value of a note changes all the time and all those changes had to be considered on the loans when determining the buy/sell price.
Unless they didn’t determine that and just did what I said which I believe they did. .
carie I think I misunderstood what you said. You said they canNOT just sell the notes and that to do so would be securities fraud. But from time to time, I think they did just that, if they sold anything. I’m not sophisticated enough in that area to fully understand why they would want to sell asset backed securities but not mortgage backed securities. I sure wish I were.
carie, you have said this repeatedly:
“…Fannie and Freddie—-GSEs—-could not just sell the Note—on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) HAD to be falsely placed in default—and charged-off (after de-regulation, 1999-2000) in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note NO LONGER EXISTS—thus, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note”
Why couldn’t they just sell the note? Why would they want to?
Taking it as true, though, someone like, say, MERS could have solved that problem by being designated the nominee instead of agent in the collateral instrument – willful bifurcation. I tell you, there’s more to that particular designation than we know or have considered.
The NV SC recently ruled that MERS bifurcates the note and dot ( you gotta be kidding me, right? after thousands of homes were snarfed they’re going to admit it now that “MERS” is assigning the dots, so it’s safe to admit bifurcation now?(wretched – just plain wretched)
The NV SC is one of the forums which claims to look at the Restatement 3rd of Mortgages for its prop that a bifurcated note and dot may be unified. Well, actually what the court said is the note
and dot per the 3rd may re “re-unified”, to which I scoff because when there has been initial bifurcation, it may be appropriate to say that note and dot may be unified, but it’s misleading to say “re-unified” when there never was any unification to which “re-unify” would apply. Gotta watch those little details and I’m disgusted to say some people who should don’t. And btw, you nevada attorneys, while the court made ref to the 3rd, the court did NOT cite chapter and verse in support.
No time just now, but beware: imo the NV mediation program is a trap for the unwary.
They call it “elderly abuse”. Rightfully so!
http://www.courant.com/business/real-estate/hc-harney-0721-20130720,0,6894961.story
A Reverse Mortgage Nightmare
… and OneWest, for its part, isn’t talking.
Call it the estate-devouring, nightmare home loan you hope to never encounter: A reverse mortgage with a base interest rate of 9.95 percent, plus a 50 percent share for the lender of increases in value of the house following closing, plus another 2 percent “maturity fee” to sweeten the payout even more. On top of that, there’s a $33,000 mandatory purchase of an annuity by the homeowner that is added to the principal balance and incurs compounding interest while lessening the lender’s future payments to the homeowner.
Is this for real? Do mortgages with terms like this actually exist in this country today? They do.
It is soooo arbitrary! NY decides one way. Texas decides another. The problem is that the TX ruling is in district court…
http://msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdf
In April, another Court held:
Noncompliance with PSA Voids Assignment of Note and Mortgage
In particular, the court found that The assignment of the note and mortgage from Option One [the first assignee] rather than from the Depositor ABFC violates Section 2.01 of the PSA which requires that the Depositor deliver to and deposit the [[[original]]] note, mortgage and assignments to the Trustee. The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore void as in being in contravention of the PSA.
The evidence submitted by Defendant that the note was acquired after the closing date and that assignment was not made by the Depositor, is sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether the Plaintiff owns the note and mortgage, and precludes granting Plaintiff summary judgment.
http://www.msfraud.org/Law/lounge/reinagel-v-deutsche-bank_robosigning-ok_7-13.pdf
5th Circuit (Texas) Rejects Homeowner Attempt To Challenge
Robo-Signed Assignments
Deutsche Bank did not dispute that the assignments violated the PSA, it argued that the Reinagels lacked standing to enforce that agreement. Deutsche Bank argued that ‘robo-signing’ claims are not applicable to assignments,” because “an assignment is a contract, and is distinguishable from an affidavit, which is the document typically challenged in connection with ‘robo-signing’ allegations.”
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2013/7/17/irvington-foreclosure-hearing-breaks-isolation-distressed-homeowner
Irvington foreclosure hearing breaks isolation of
distressed homeowners
Linda E. Fisher of Seton Hall Law School had earlier told the assembly of the “mind-boggling level of fraud” by mortgage bubble lenders. They made loans they knew borrowers could never repay. Brokers falsified applications; falsified documents were submitted in closings: mortgage security trustees cannot verify that they own mortgage notes. Court rulings favorable to homeowners have shown fraud.
Mortgage securities investigator Laura Walsh went even further. She charged that trustees never verified that mortgages allegedly belonging to securities issues were actually held by them. She charged that many mortgage based securities contain no mortgages at all. Many are held by retirement funds. Retirees might think there is $100 million in a mortgage fund for their pensions but there is nothing there. “We want people to be held accountable,” she said, calling for enforcement of securities laws.
Irvington Township Councilman David Lyons replied, “When a banker, a respected member of the community, tells you that you can afford a home you believe him. But he’s no more than a thug. If a thug on the street took your money he’d be in jail.”
Have you become a nation of cowards, Americans?
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=jeYscnFpEyA
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2013/2013-ohio-3071.pdf
REVERSED
FANNIE MAE v. TRAHEY
“Here, Fannie Mae filed two copies of the promissory note, each containing different indorsements. The first note, attached to the original complaint, was indorsed by Sirva to blank. Therefore, Fannie Mae could have established that it was the real party in interest by proving that it had possession of the note.
However, a second copy of the promissory note, attached to the amended complaint, reflects that Sirva indorsed the note to CitiMortgage, and CitiMortgage indorsed the note to blank. Neither copy indicates when the various indorsements were made. The inconsistencies between the indorsements contained in the two copies of the promissory notes raises a genuine issue of material fact. In reviewing the record, we cannot determine what the status of the note was at the time the complaint was filed.”
poppy (think it was said):
“Mortgage backed Securities, john, junk bonds, from the banksters, essentially another bailout and moving the properties foreclosed on into the system slowly, to hide the volume. Fannie and Freddie stuff. IMHO”
Okay. I dont know exactly what is being bought by the govt, but I recall the GSE’s guarantees to investors on alleged MBS’s that went thru the GSE’s. If the govt is forking over huge sums of money, they are or should be dong so pursuant to their imo wholly unconstitutional guarantees. (until their decree’d unconstitutional, those guarantees will stand). I wanted to know because I want to know what exactly is being bought and from whom. I’m actually looking for a distinction
between the bonds and the loans allegedly backing them, for one – i think..
Then I (someone needs to imo) want to determine if any loans are allegedly being enforced against the homeowner and by whom where these “bonds” have been (re?) purchased by the govt. What a mess.
The govt buys (back?) the bonds, the servicers foreclose on the alleged collateral for the bonds, which bonds are now held by the govt, but do so in the trust’s names. Huh? If as I suspect, the investors had security interests in the loans,* then those pass to the govt with the (re?)purchase (repurchase pursuant to guarantee?) of the bonds, right? It’s beyond me to put this together on my own, but we’re making a big mistake imo at not determining exactly what’s going on with those bonds and the government. (no, stripes, please don’t)
Subrogation got me thinking about it fwiw.
*or maybe they had no interest in the loans at all and it was a giant con
and all they ever got, as has been speculated, is the oil production and not the well..
5 years later and we’re still dealing with the same horror shows… Those banks are begging to be sued. What are people waiting for? I know for a fact that if this woman did and demanded a trial jury, she would be awarded mucho dinero.
Athens County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House
Monday July 22, 2013 5:32 PM
UPDATED: Monday July 22, 2013 6:17 PM
MCARTHUR, Ohio – An Athens County woman is looking to get her belongings back after a bank incorrectly broke into her house and took them.
Katie Barnett says that the First National Bank in Wellston foreclosed on her house, even though it was not her bank.
“They repossessed my house on accident, thinking it was the house across the street,” Barnett said.
Barnett, who had been away from the house for about two weeks, said she had to crawl through the window of her own house in order to get in after she used her own key that did not work.
Some of the items in her house had been hauled away, others were sold, given away and trashed.
It turns out the bank sent someone to repossess the house located across the street from Barnett’s house, but by mistake broke into hers instead.
“They told me that the GPS led them to my house,” Barnett said. “My grass hadn’t been mowed and they just assumed.”
She called the McArthur Police about the incident, but weeks later, the chief announced the case was closed.
Barnett said that according to the bank president, this was the first time something like this has happened.
She presented him with an $18,000 estimate to replace the losses, but the president refused to pay.
“He got very firm with me and said, ‘We’re not paying you retail here, that’s just the way it is,’” Barnett said. “I did not tell them to come in my house and make me an offer. They took my stuff and I want it back.”
The shock of having her house broken into and belongings taken by mistake has now turned into anger.
“Now, I’m just angry,” Barnett said. “It wouldn’t be a big deal if they would step up and say ‘I’m sorry, we will replace your stuff.’ Instead, I’m getting attitude from them. They’re sarcastic when they talk to me. They make it sound like I’m trying to rip the bank off. All I want is my stuff back.”
No one from the bank would go on camera with 10TV about the incident. The bank vice president told 10TV News that the bank is trying to come to terms with Barnett.
@charles reed
Absolutely nothing is going to happen to the govt over this. How can u possibly be so naive?
Bob G there has to be a time when the SEC has to deal with the fact that the Notes freely given to Ginnie Mae without the consideration of money. There is a huge class action suit waiting because you have at least 800,000 federal government insured loans that were foreclosed by parties that had no financial interest in.
Carie say it best when talking about the investors not having a contract with the borrowers. Now we got a post contract situation where the Note is handed to the Insurance company for the investors who does not extend any monies to purchase the home loan mortgages. But if your not a lender who is able to originate a loan and is not regulated to originate or buy a loan you cannot be the owner of the debt ans without being owner of the debt, an actual Note cannot exist because a Note needs a debt in order to be a Note, and you cannot collect a debt with out a debt!
Every single government loan that placed into a Ginnie Mae pool is handled the exact same way where the Note is signed in blank and relinquish to Ginnie Mae, which makes the Note forever non-negotiable.
Once you understand the very simple way a Note works, you know that the federal government is in trouble!
Bill,
“And where are our Government “Servants”? Such as Our “President” and “Our Congress”, “Our Representation”? Sickening.”
Stop feeding them. They’ll go away. And by the way, where does it say in the constitution, that we must pay for their retirement and support them until they croak?
Ok, here’s the solution to blocking the crazies:
http://www.hosting.com/support/dedicated/iis/blockip
All that is really needed is for Garfield to get off WordPress and get his own website. Then he can block IP address with a few keystrokes. So simple.
And by the way, this post has a URL in it, so it probably will be seen by the moderator before it makes it to posting.
Where do all those fines go…? in whose pocket? Why is Jamie boy still there? And has anyone noticed that the two states where Chase is accused of having most fixed utility prices are… California and Michigan? With big cities filing for bankruptcy of late?
What more is this going to take?
“Chase, Once Considered “The Good Bank,” Is About to Pay Another Massive Settlement
Well, there’s some more news about the “good bank” – Chase is about to pay yet another ginormous settlement for cheating and stealing from the public. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will fine Chase “close to $1 billion” for manipulating energy prices in Enron-esque fashion in Michigan and California. The story is interesting in itself – and we’ll write more about it later – but for now, it’s just the fact of yet another massive settlement for this bank that’s so interesting.
In the three-year period between 2009-2012, Chase paid out over $16 billion in litigation costs. Noted financial analyst Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher slammed Chase in a report earlier this year, pointing out that these settlements and legal costs represented a staggering 12% of Chase’s net revenue during this time. There couldn’t possibly be a clearer demonstration of the modern banking model, in which companies break rules/laws as a matter of course, and simply pay fines as a cost – a significant cost – of doing business.
For sheer curiosity’s sake, I thought I’d list, in capsule form, some of the capers Chase has been caught up in in recent years:
• They were fined $153 million for the infamous “Magnetar” fund case, another scam in which a bank allowed a hedge fund to create a “born-to-lose” mortgage portfolio to bet against. Very similar to the Abacus case that’s at the heart of the ongoing “Fabulous Fab” trial;
• Chase paid $228 million for its role in the egregious municipal bond bid-rigging case we wrote about in Rolling Stone in 2011;
• Chase paid $297 million to the SEC last November for fraud involving mortgage-backed securities;
• Chase paid $75 million in cash and generously agreed to forego $647 million in fines in the Jefferson County, Alabama mess, in which a small-town pol was bribed into green-lighting a series of deadly swap deals;
• In two separate orders this spring, Chase was reprimanded by the OCC and the Fed for money-laundering behaviors similar to the infamous HSBC case, and also for regulatory failures and fraud in the London Whale episode. There was a separate FBI investigation into the London Whale probe in which they allegedly lied to customers and investors about the loss;
• They’re under investigation for allegedly failing to disclose Bernie Madoff’s trading activities to authorities;
• They were one of 13 banks asked to pay up in this year’s $9.3 billion robosigning settlement;
• They were one of four banks last year to settle for a total of $394 million with the OCC for improper mortgage servicing practices;
• They were ordered by the CFTC to pay $20 million last year for improper segregation of customer funds (this was part of the Lehman investigation). The CFTC also fined Chase $600,000 last year for violating position limits in the cotton markets;
• Last year, Chase paid a $45 million settlement to the federal government for improperly racking up fees for veterans in mortgage refinancings. Hey, if you’re going to steal from everyone, you can’t leave out those veterans overseas!
• In 2010, Chase paid $25 million to the state of Florida for selling unregistered bonds to a state-run municipal money-market fund;
• The bank last year was convicted in Europe along with several other banks for fraudulent sales of derivatives to the city of Milan. A total of about $120 million was seized from Chase and three other banks.
There have been so many settlements with so many agencies around the world (I’m in a hurry and can’t get to Chase’s messes in Britain, Japan and elsewhere) that they’re almost impossible to count. Some papers are reporting that Chase is being investigated by as many as eight different agencies in the U.S. alone.
There are some other civil actions left out, too, like the $110 million class-action settlement for improper charging of overdraft fees, or their part in the gigantic $6 billion settlement completed last year involving Visa, MasterCard and other credit card providers for manipulating card service rates. And states like California have only just begun crawling up Chase’s backside for its role in the lunatic filing of erroneous credit card collection lawsuits, a scam outed by whistleblower Linda Almonte.
Chase is turning into the Zelig of the corruption era. In virtually every corruption scandal, the bank is in the background somewhere. The HSBC money-laundering mess? Chase was reprimanded for similar abuses. The Madoff story? They’re under investigation there. MF Global? As banker to Jon Corzine’s notorious firm, they were part of a $546 million settlement to return money to MF Global’s outraged customers. Jefferson County? That was them. And again, you might have heard of Abacus, but Magnetar was just as bad. Not that anyone’s counting or anything.
Memo to colleagues on the White House pool: could someone please ask the president if Jamie Dimon is still his favorite banker?”
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/chase-once-considered-the-good-bank-is-about-to-pay-another-massive-settlement-20130718#ixzz2ZoazrIMV
Amen to Professor Jeffrey Sachs! This all goes so deep, and involves such huge and extremely rich entities, that for the average Joe there will never be any form of remedy, The kids in their teens to mid-thirties are being screwed, just so these billionaires can keep adding to their egos and pride. A sad state of affairs. And where are our Government “Servants”? Such as Our “President” and “Our Congress”, “Our Representation”? Sickening.
They won’t give you the opportunity to get to the discovery to SHOW the “proof”—how can you prove something if they won’t let you open the books??? It’s impossible.
By not allowing discovery of accounting records and saying they don’t care if the real creditor is named or not, the judges are allowing the debt collectors of unsecured debt to continue with the fraudulent foreclosures, and simply not ALLOWING anyone to show WHY it is all unsecured debt…and complete FRAUD from start to finish.
The judges know it and don’t care, because of their pensions. Period.
“…Fannie and Freddie—-GSEs—-could not just sell the Note—on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) HAD to be falsely placed in default—and charged-off (after de-regulation, 1999-2000) in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note NO LONGER EXISTS—thus, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.
Security investors fund the BANK—not the borrowers—there is no direct relationship between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transaction—it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER the creditor.
Collection rights transfers are not funded by borrower transactions (ie fabricated refinance). Collection rights are transferred by assignment—not NOTES (which is why NOTES are fake, and all the paperwork is fraudulent and fabricated). When some people here talk about Non-Deposit “trust” non-members—they are referring to derivative transactions—that “SWAP” out collection rights—although the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights—they use insurance for the purchase of the rights.
This is why the subprime was so profitable—the bank debt buyers put up no cash for transaction—but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throughs to security investors.. This is also why MBIA (insurance co.) legal action against BOA and others is hugely important.”
@gwen…the 8th Circuit is a tough circuit for homeowners. I can understand your frustration.
@Charles Reed…SEC? forget about it. They’ll go after bit players (firms and guys that could never hire them), but will leave the big boys completely alone; i.e., those who can promise them a great future in the private sector, and who have political juice.
@Neil Garfield…you said:
“But the real problem is that by participating in this deceptive scheme, the Federal Reserve, put the burden of the loss on homeowners whose mortgages were paid in whole or in part by the financial sector including the Federal Reserve.
“It isn’t just that the ownership of the loan has become completely convoluted; the real issue is money, to wit: the credit transaction with borrower has been long since extinguished by these devices used by the banks and the Federal Reserve, and vehicles like the Maiden Lane entities.”
Can you PLEASE provide some evidentiary backup for these conclusory allegations? I can’t go into court and argue these kinds of allegations without some sort of proof in admissible form. If you were my adversary and I made these statements in papers or in open court, you would have no trouble getting me bounced within 30 seconds for lack of proof.
Neil, thank you for sharing this info.
However, there are other perspectives and solutions to this current form of institutional crime.
Rather lengthy to explain, that is why I have a blog, and I share a few alternatives to the current structure of finance by the central banks that are relying on the fractional reserve banking model that continues the predatory meme.
People that were once executives in the system are speaking out, such as:
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs
PhD. Paul Craig Roberts (Asst Secretary Treasury in the Reagan regime)
Catherine Austin Fitts (Wharton MBA, Commissioner HUD – 1st Bush regime)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovPefDfJDao
I certainly am looking at a paradigm shift, the old meme is not acceptable and the “new normal” of criminality with impunity is unsustainable.
We need to speak plainly: People are being left homeless, jobless, and dying in depression and desperation! Fatal consequences from the policies and activities by these institutions.
OK…If I get my $30,000 down payment and $70,000 in payments back, I would be truly satisfied, (Other than having to tell my Wife She had to move, and the ensuing stress of the last 3 years). Will it happen?….Ha! I don’t think so.
I too have been saying for several years now “follow the money” since I started my own QT and DJ action in 2010 against BOA MERS etc. etc. It was removed and the remand denied despite no grounds for removal. That being said, I have been trying to get discovery for two plus years from a judge who believes in NO discovery. NONE. I barely got disclosures out of them let alone discovery of any kind. Not one dep was allowed and I have taken probably over 1500 deps in 30 plus years in fed court in complex cases. So, they file SJ, I file the Rule 56 aff. which is denied and a PO is entered at the def request even tho their SJ are filled with facts and aff on which there has been no dis. So here’s the question Neil, if and when I can get dis (probably after it is remanded from the 8th cir after grant of sj) who would you direct a Rule 36b dep to (citi purporting to own the MLMI trust) and what specific line of questioning would we ask–I have followed numerous blogs and I have yet to see one lawyer get a dep on the “follow the money” line. NO ONE and I have some pretty good national contacts. Who is getting a dep on this line and what questions are they asking???? Ive been in the hospital 8 times since Jan and had to ask for ext of time to answer the sj and the judge barely granted the ext! Even after he said no more ext and I had to go to the hospital again, he refused to dismiss without prej. Talk about denial of due process. O well. Let me know where I can get a dep. I think we would like to know who we should be asking to testify on the “money trail”. Is there a master servicer accountant so to speak. By the way, they asked me to submit modification paperwork on my note of $300,000 (the house is worth 5 to 6) and they want to reduce principal to 177 at 1 percent. Anyone have that happen? I submitted the paperwork, then it was transferred to Nationstar and now they are asking for the paperwork again all over again which I submitted today after giving it to them last month!. Anyone have thoughts? You can reach me at gwencaranchini@sbcglobal.net
Of course the Fed and its QE unlimited are the problem. And yes, the Fed is fully aware of what it is doing, i.e., the Fed is purposely giving the banks free money. And at the same time, they’re also making sure that all of us lose at least our shirts, if not our lives.
Great analysis here from Neil, but the question is, what do we do about it? The courts won’t help. The cops won’t help. We are the ones we have been waiting for to save us. But what do we do?
This what I have been talking about for the last few year with the SEC and its whistle-blower program, that Ginnie Mae is running a Ponzi scheme as it needed to illegally foreclose on properties it had no financial interest in to pay back the Federal Reserve who purchase the phony securities that are sold that have absolutely no underlying collateral.
At some point the SEC going to have to move on these bank (Wells Fargo & BOA) who for starts took advantage of the Washington Mutual Bank government loan and the Countrywide government loans.
It the illegal seizure of a private citizens property by the Federal Government. Can you also say he US Constitution?
sounds like someone owes me $180,000 hard cash !!!!