JPMorgan to Pay $13 BILLION in Mortgage Settlement: Which Homes are Affected?

The banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in settlements with Federal and State agencies and law enforcement. Where did the money go? But more importantly the real question arises out of the investigation and the question Elizabeth Warren keeps asking — which homes were found to have defective notes and mortgages as alleged by investors in their lawsuits against the investment banks? Which homes did the agency investigation find were foreclosed by parties who were strangers to the transaction. I agree with Sen. Warren who thinks that nothing could be more important to answer as required public informations hand the finding already made by investigators and admitted by the banks to be illegal Foreclosures on defective mortgage liens based on enforceable notes.

Practitioners should be filing requests for public information disclosures and issuing subpoenas to the investigators and agencies to find out what was revealed in the investigation. As Warren has already revealed, the number might be as high as 95%. Nobody wants to reveal the details because they all reveal what I have said all along — none, or nearly none of the the mortgages were actually securitized, none of those mortgages were ever valid liens on the property, none of the notes were enforceable, no money was due from the borrower to the banks trying to collect, none of the Foreclosures were legal, which means that legally all of the foreclosed homeowners still legally own their homes because the Foreclosures were void, not voidable.

52 Responses

  1. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  2. iwantmynpv. What is the one sentence that will win.

  3. iwantmynpv. I am asking. Please show me how to win. What is the one sentence.

  4. usedkarguy – johngault764 @ yahoo

  5. gault, how about your email? can’t find it.

  6. Java and JG,

    You both are right to want to look at every angle and i will never fault you for it. BUT (and there is an enormous but) you need to play the game with the weapons that are in use… today! Because the battle is being fought today.

    DC’s weapons might be very good but completely irrelevant today. That’s pretty much what Cox is saying. NG has incredibly pertinent theories but they have been, thus far, not efficient. Anonymous has all the goods. She’s pegged the entire charade for a very long time. And she’s been fighting for NINE FRIGGIN’ YEARS! And she’s still fighting.

    That’s why I make it such a point to bring people back to today’s reality. For Pete’s sake, yes, Sherman antitrust act is a piece of the puzzle… but it’s still completely irrelevant today. Bo judge will look at it… today!!!

    What Max Gardner said 4 years ago is not what he says today: the landscape has changed. Hence the need for everyone to separate theory from reality. Stopa has changed his tune. So has Barnes. It’s a day-by-day, case-by-case battle.

    I’m in it like everyone else. And learning along the way. Don’t get stuck on what doesn’t work. Case law allows to see what works… today!

  7. I listened to NG and used his argument as best I could ….. I have no complaints as his logic made/makes perfect sense to me and I went with it…..can’t control if judges are stupid and/or refuse to follow property laws…….still would have been nice to win or see someone else win !!!!!!!

  8. from the article from attorney Cox at MM ( which does not dispute that paper notes may not be traded electronically btw):

    “1. Enforcement of paper notes that are negotiable is controlled exclusively by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code.”

    jg: My understnding is that the UCC is default law. Is this to say if Steve and I executed a contract regarding a note wherein I sold it to him, acknowledge receipt of sufficient funds, and handed over the note to Steve – as also acknowledged in our contact – he cannot present our executed contract and the note (not endorsed ever) to evidence his right to enforce the note? Obviously, there is no endorsement, but Steve has a valid contract evidencing a purchase and sale and physical transfer. Why must he turn to default law for his right to enforce?
    That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s sincere and deserves an answer. Anyone? Btw, a distinction was being made in the article by the stmt above (Cox) a: paper notes = UCC III and e-notes = UETA generally. jg: article III = jury not in.
    Default law (my words) is that law which is turned to in determining rights of parties generally in the absence of a contract.

    “In my five and one half years of representing homeowners in Maine, I have never seen a foreclosure involving an electronic note.”

    jg: technically true – we didn’t sign e-notes. However, Lord knows how many paper copies of electronically stored and / or transmitted notes have made their way thru our courts and foreclosure procedures in the guise of original notes. (Doubting Thomases, take a look at these endorsements on an alleged original note, for example – start at P.16 for endorsements):

    No one, not even DC, posited that these notes were created as e-notes. DC posited, if anything, they were traded as if they had been created as e-notes.

    Cox quoting DC (with which he takes major issue):

    “Devious planning by the banks schmoozed legislators into passing a law allowing your signature on any document (with very few exceptions) to be transferred electronically.”

    jg: I think DC just accidentally inverted some words of her opinion. Think what was meant is “Devious planning………allowing **any document with your signature** to be transferred electronically. DC apparently is not a proponent of e-notes or any other document being transferred electronically.

    Cox quoting DC:
    “While online agreements cover a good deal of Internet activity; promissory notes, however are viewed bit differently. Even if it was downloaded from the Internet – UETA still mandates that an explicit agreement be made at the time of issuance…”

    jg: when I read this, as I recall, more material at DC addressed this further, with the conclusion being that notemaker had to agree the e-note could be transferred electroncially and thus, to me, attorney Cox’s scathing attack doesn’t address what DC actually said, which IF i got it right, appears factual: a borrower must agree an e-note may be transferred electronically. IS this a fact? It appeared so from other material I read.

    All in all, the second biggest blunder was to say only e-notes could be securitized if that’s not true and got me, though Cox makes a persuasive case. The first may have been suggesting notes aren’t enforceable for a lack of meeting of the minds **for the reasons for that failure posited therein.**. But if there were a fatal failure of the meeting of the minds as to these notes, I’d say Cox is correct in his statement that it wasn’t cited by DC, whom I’d have to concede as written bases this partly on the intention of the lender to do x,y,z..

    Because DC appears to be a firm believer these notes were traded, if at all, electronically, she may have the last laugh even though by this particular article, which admittedly doesn’t represent the quality of most of her work imo, one couldn’t predict it. MERS, MERSCorp, that gang, has in fact created an e-registry and they didn’t do it yesterday. Did they use it to try to electronically trade notes as e-notes which weren’t e-notes, which is at least part of what I think DC really believes? Jury’s still out.
    Mandelman must have been pretty annoyed to invite this public critique instead of emailing this hard-fighting author and suggest she straighten it out. Though I have great respect for Mr. Cox, this was blistering and even if this were misinformation, I don’t believe she deserved to get severely skewered publicly. We’ll see how she takes it.
    MM said he didn’t want to take on the UCC (and that’s a systemic problem on our side – none of us do – the UCC sucks, in a word), so I guess this was easier. Boo

  9. JG,

    I didn’t accuse you of anything. I just thought it was important for people to get more than one opinion on the subject and I have a lot of difficulty with statements made off the cuff by people who happen to… not win cases.

    For all i know, Garfield may be right in theory but, so far, theory has drowned more homeowners than hard and true case law. And Cox just happened to win 3 free houses for his clients in the past couple of weeks.

    As far as i know, we’re still waiting for Garfield to win one… and pro se listening to him haven’t fared particularly well either.

  10. But before I read the article, I’ll say this: if our non-e-notes were traded electronicallyas e-notes , it’s my belief that is NO trade (an issue having nothing to do with securitization). I’ll be back to eat crow as necessary.

  11. Christine – I’m going to read that Cox article because I have a great deal of respect for the man. However, I (me, I) didn’t say in order for notes to be securitized they had to be e-notes. In fact when I read DC’s post, I didn’t take that particular assertion as factual, had questions about that myself which I left unasked since it’s not generally my pursuit, other info I read didn’t address that aspect, and I wasn’t interested in doing what it might take ME to see if that were true. (not to be a fathead and gets pounced on by, say, elex, but MM isn’t the only one who gets tired) What I said is that our notes aren’t e-notes and can’t be traded electronically. Is THAT wrong? I believe not, but like i said, I’m going to read the article, primarily because of its source. Either way, if the assertion that only e-notes may be sec’d was errant, good to get it straightened out. The likely author of the DC article doesn’t willfully post bs, so if it’s wrong, it was an honest albeit unfortunate error.

  12. UKG, Can you send me the link to the Rescap/Allly lawsuit. They usually give away great ways to go after them while they are trying to cover their as%&.

  13. iwantmynpv, I am very interested in your post that you have language that can win a case. I have to go back before the Judge in November. You can reach me at 864-551-3930. Thanks,

  14. When NPV brushes his teeth, they sparkle brilliantly in the mirror.

    He then puts his hands together, knuckle to knuckle, and says admiringly to his reflection, “I heart you!”

  15. I’m not surprised by anything Buffet says any more….not after he scored heavily on the rescap/Ally deal, getting that loan portfolio for 2.5b (ish and unencumbered) and I will eat my hat in Time’s Square if that 2.5b weren’t pennies on the dollar with debt forgiveness for none other. Imo a man who truly believes that financial derivatives are demons from hell (“weapons of mass destruction”) doesn’t turn around and pick up Rosemary’s baby. And I got news for him – there ARE people in this world you could follow for 500 miles without them deserving a speeding ticket. Everybody screws up here and there?
    What a characterization of systemic fraud. If not for the rescap/ally deal, I’d be hard pressed to believe he actually said such a thing. He must’ve started believing he was a god. For me, a hero fell.

  16. no, usedkarguy, don’t think you did send it to me. Like to read it and that deal you ref’d in, also.

  17. gault, you mention lending claims above. did I ever send you my fraud suit? still pending? you should read it.
    and the best current cause of action is the fraudulent foreclosure leading to void judgments.
    Just reviewed a 28 page brief in the ResCap/ALLY BK. They’re trying to sweep it all away.

  18. The banks just needed your signature on a loan to sell it to investors. The problem is they sold it to numerous investors, and got the serviing fees, etc. It was intentional not to document what they had sold to investors, due to tax liabilities. The business model was fraud and scam everybody and get the governtment to pay for defulting loans. They should all go to prison, not get to pay settlements that just go into funds that still does not clear up titles issues on million of homes all over the world. I think they should take the money and use to prosecute them.

  19. It does not matter whether you qualified or did not, subprime loans that were securitized have clouded titles, they can release the mortgage but not the lien. Titles do not exist, only judge can fix this problem.

  20. Wouldn’t that screw the courts in Quiet Title Actions. On another note I was looking at the substitution of trustee in my foreclosure and did some research the recorded substitution references 1 page but there are 2, The beneficiary on the notary page does not exist, the notary from Connecticut, Fairfield according to the Connecticut secretary of state, the notary does not exist and their has never been a notary with that name in the state ever.what do you recomend.

  21. And, as usual, David E. Martin spells it exactly like it is… Not pretty and quite terminal for this country.

    Sunday, October 20, 2013
    Selling Souls for $13 Billion

    Word on the street is that the price of justice has just been auctioned at $13 billion. Reportedly this past Friday afternoon, JPMorgan Chase Chairman, President, and CEO (can anyone say too many titles?) Jamie Dimon connected with the indulgences-minting Attorney General Eric Holder to see what the going rate for crime is these days. There’s no question that JPMorgan defrauded investors. There’s no question that they were not acting in isolation. There’s no question that the actions they initiated were in violation of numerous laws designed to protect investors and the general public from misdeeds that triggered the Great Depression. And there’s no question that the U.S. government has sold integrity before and has every intention of selling it again. The part of the about-to-be-settled complaint that I find priceless is claim 686 on page 260 where the government alleges that, “GSEs justifiably relied on false representations and misleading omissions of J.P. Morgan Acquisition,” (et al) and Claim 687 on the following page, “would not have purchased the GSE certificates,” had they been exposed to the true facts.

    Now grab your box of tissues because, according to the civil and criminal complaint, the “immediate victims” were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – two dignified, upstanding government sponsored entities whose mission is to provide “affordable housing to millions of Americans.” The SHAME! These poor, helpless co-conspirators (oops, how did that get in there?) were too dull minded to know that they were being duped and they – not the ignorant public – were the victims. The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) September 2, 2011 complaint identifies over $30 billion in securitizations that were subject to the alleged frauds enumerated in the over 260 pages of Quinn Emanuel billable hours. Over 50 persons and corporations listed as defendants created over 100 “investments” that turned out to be gross misrepresentations of Americans’ ability to live within their means. Uh oh! Who is the victim now? Oh, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (not named as a co-defendant) reviewed the Prospectus for each of the securities and no one there is culpable? Seriously?

    Just when you thought the criminality of the system couldn’t get more outlandish, Warren Buffett dismissed crimes against investors with the pandering statement that, “If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket.” Well Oracle of Omaha, thank you for punctuating the indictment on the market and any sense of propriety. “You can’t be active in a big business without making some mistakes, and sometimes they may be big ones,” he clarified.

    Mistakes? Getting a ticket? Warren, get a grip, man! These are not misdemeanors and accidental oversights. These are crimes perpetrated against millions of people for billions of dollars of damage. And when the public is told to just look the other way courtesy of $100 million here and $13 billion there, the contempt for justice and the rule of law actually goes up.

    In his testimony in January 2010, Jamie Dimon blamed most of his firm’s troubles on “some unscrupulous mortgage salesmen and mortgage brokers.” He also stated that, “you know, that home prices don’t go up forever and that it’s not sufficient to have stated income in home [loans].”

    Now before you go off and conclude that I find Jamie and the JPMorgan gang unique in their behavior, think again. The one place where I agree with Warren Buffett is in his observation that everybody is doing it. And there’s no question that when the government was trying to staunch the bleeding in the ’08 meltdown, Jamie was asked to pull a whale of a task in swallowing the toxic Jonahs – WaMu and Bear Sterns – and refer to both as ‘strategic business combination transactions’. So, while we’re throwing criminals under the bus, let’s think about who was in the White House, the Treasury and the Fed and add them to our perp walk. He played ball with the cover-up of government endorsed fraud and, in a warped moral contortion, could actually blame the government for a chunk of his problems. Oh, that’s right, he has!

    If the U.S. wants to gain a modicum of credibility for the rule of law, Attorney General Eric Holder and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman should walk away from the $13 billion and actually take the real list of defendants to court. But that would actually demonstrate that the victims weren’t; that the public harm was actually the public’s economic indiscretion orgy coming back to bite all of us; and, that the system hasn’t gotten one bit better since 2008. There will be no justice in this case because there cannot be any. In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulates that people determine their perception of justice behind a “veil of ignorance.” Worse still is a public where justice is ignored in cold, sterile contempt for the rule of law. Our recent debt drama in Washington, our neglect for our own accountability, and the collective cataracts that blind us to what is being done in our name for our own ‘benefit’ are all symptoms of our incapacity to apprehend morality. We have, in fact, sold our souls.
    – See more at:

  22. @iwantmynpv

    Okay, I’ll ask, how did you win?

  23. Gimme that sentence NPV

  24. JG
    the ones qualifying people knew, the pretender lender/broker knew, the underwriters knew since the “conventional” loan was supposed to conform to fannie/Freddie/ginnie guidelines, further they had cause to know that the person being qualified could not sustain and continue to pay if they could not refinance out of it once the terms changed or in my situation- my savings were exhausted . they have access to your credit report and they can see everything you owe, they have your W2 your pay stubs (in my case as in many, im not talking about ninjas here) they can easily see how they can collect on default swaps and probably PRCISELY when the “homeowner” will be asset stripped with no where to go for refi, bubbles burst, they knew, thats why no appraiser got work unless they stretched and stretched during the bubble years.

  25. Nobody ever asks me… and I can show anyone who was lucky enough to avoid a credit union how to win their foreclosure case.

    Just ask, one sentence will win every time, and yes, I won my case pro se..

  26. “OUR notes are not e-notes and can’t be traded as such.” Attorney Tom Cox and Mandelman addressed this Deadly Clear post.

    “Deadly Clear Blog is Dead Wrong on UETA, E-Sign & Foreclosure… A Guest Post by Attorney Tom Cox”

    Just because something appears on certain sites doesn’t make it true. Tom Cox wins cases and it is public knowledge. Deadly Clear and LL (and I’m still waiting to hear of cases won by Garfield in court) simply post each others’ prose. In that instance, I’d do some serious research before repeating that “OUR notes are not e-notes and can’t be traded as such” sentence.

    From Mandelman, prior to asking Cox for his take on Deadly Clear article:

    “So, now I find Deadly Clear’s post, which says that one can claim a promissory note unenforceable based on the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (“UETA”), which has to do with electronic notes. And one sentence from Deadly’s post caught my eye immediately: “The hard core fact here is that in order to securitize the loan documents – they need to be electronically transferable.”

    Nope, there was no chance that sentence was true. Securitization has been around a lot longer than UETA (1999) and the E-Sign Act (2000), so there’s no way that in order to securitize loans, anything had to be electronically anything.”

    From Tom Cox:

    “This article so far off base, and twisted in its fallacious reasoning, that it is difficult to know where to begin to pull it apart. Lets talk about some basic concepts first.”

  27. Re johngualt, I know you were not blaming me, I am just frustrated by all the inequalities that have happened over these last few years. I for one only wrote the truth on my loan, because that is how I do things, problem was others don’t play by the same rules. Thank you and sorry if I sounded as though you didn’t understand. I think most of us on this sight all understand.

  28. 4closed30kids – no one, not me anyway, is blaming you at all. You maybe shouldn’t have gotten that loan, but you weren’t the one legally charged with seeing to it that you didn’t get it if you didn’t qualify. As I said, home lenders are not loan sharks statutorily. Not only was the lender legally charged with ascertaining that you qualified, that your loan was not predatory, the lender and its buds had unprecedented motivation to either not give a damn or to make you a loan that would fail. But lender motivations aside, what we care about imo is that many of these loans were in fact illegal predatory loans and what we can do about it today. Imo, courts don’t get to say “tough, you took the money”, as that is not the bar about predatory lending laws. The bar isn’t whether or not one got the benefit of the alleged bargain. The bar / point is those loans were illegal to make and those who made them and broke the law doing so should not benefit. The banksters showing up in courts saying “look at this contract” should be met with “look at the laws broken (and any
    false inducement) they made by entering this contract and getting me to, as well as showing up with our lawful remedies for those bad acts. There ARE laws on the books against borrower-fraud in getting mtg loans and I believe this has scared some homeowners who put down 25k per month for income on a loan application because that’s what they were told to do by the lender (“It doesn’t matter, anyway. It just can’t be blank for this program.”) Or because they could. A borrower shouldn’t have done it, but that doesn’t absolve a lender from knowing it isn’t true, not verifying it, and so on. I mean, if you showed 25k in income and 4k in existing monthly debt, your home is your only real asset, and no savings / reserves, any idiot could see there’s an issue here. That idiot was charged with not taking the ‘what’s wrong’ with this equation (25k mo. income) as factual.
    I’m not clear on whether or not no (stated) income / no (stated) asset loans were just plain predatory. I don’t know how they couldn’t be. When no income and assets are stated, I give, how is qualification determined? On the basis of a credit score on existing debt, which debt is probably going up 20, 30, 40% or worse with the new loan if it’s cash out or a teaser rate piece of crud?

  29. Meanwhile BoA is still at it in Ohio and Washington, calling the cops on innocent protesters. Well okay someone did chalk their walkway. You’ll see:

    Saturday, October 19, 2013

    KingCast/Mortgage Movies: BoA McCarthy Coverup in Ohio + BoA Calls Cops, Refuses Loan Mod for Injured Jane Mair in Seattle.


  31. let me try that again


  32. indeed im with louise
    commodum ex imjuria sua habere ( a wrongsdoer should not be enabled by law to take any advantage from his actions (yep got me a latin dictionary Ha )
    fraud is fraud is fraud and from fraud nothing can follow
    if no meaningful investigation and a BS from JD as in “yes we were stupid” so lets settle and I will continue to wear my presidential cuff links and everything will be business as usual- is what irks me the “business as usual, all who are harmed and our descendents will continue to be harmed if this is not put right the cover up did not work and its right in our face, I say time to let the heads roll, criminal prosecutions top down. otherwise may as well let Madoff off the hook, its hypocritical.

  33. DeadlyClear makes an issue of etrading, and not to misquote DC,
    it does appear “MERS” set up an e-registry for registering and electronically trading e-notes. OUR notes are not e-notes and can’t be traded as such. That said, a guy in response to a blog elsewhere posited that the banksters didn’t even do that – they didn’t even attempt e-trading thru the MERS registry and they didn’t register loans or their ownership changes in MERS’ system because to do so, they have to pay MERSCorp money (no, not that!) for each such registration and alleged transfer of notes. That might help explain what’s going on with MERS’ 7 year contract with Genpact – trying to create a record SOMEwhere of events that didn’t take place at all and or were not “memorialized” anywhere. No wonder the contract workers are in India – what American would want to be a participant in newly created records? Well, maybe some because banksters manage to find employees here who will do any number of atrocities for pay. How many Americans would keep quiet about “late entries”? This would also explain why the “MERS” assignment of the dot includes an assgt of the note to a trust: there’s no record anywhere of these alleged transfers.
    As to the assgt of the note in the assgt of the dot, the banksters must be thinking better late than never to have a record when they want to foreclose. Glaski is messing that up, either as to the note or dot or both – I forget of course – and as we’ve seen, the banksters don’t like it at all.
    Not only can a trust not take a post-cut-off transfer, why would a trust take a note in default? Because it already accepted pass-thru payments? Do we believe that’s a trust’s (or more importantly the investors) only course of action if a note paid for weren’t previously delivered? “Don’t rock the boat”? I don’t believe it.

    About those note transfers by “MERS”, this cracks me up: In PHH v Anderson, NV 10-31903-lbr, the borrower asserted MERS has no authority to assign the note. Here is what PHH said in response:

    “Though MERS never held the Note, it could by virtue of its nominee status, transfer the DOT on behalf of the Note Holder. Although the Assignment contains language purporting to assign both the Note and Mortgage, MERS lacked the assignable interest in the Note. While this
    surplusage evidences poor drafting, it does not affect the validity of MERS’s assignment of the Deed of Trust.”

    This “surplusage evidences “poor drafting”?! Surely they jest. This
    “poor drafting” is part of every MERS-read-servicer-employee assignment of the dot. (The homeowner did not name MERS in a couunter-complaint ftr.)

  34. I agree I should have known better than to take on that loan, I didn’t and now I do. There are some very sophisticated loans out there with banks and mortgage companies that did know better. Shame on me for not being as educated as they are, guess what, I won’t do it again. That does not mean they are not responsible for their wrong doing.

  35. Poppy
    the players that screwed me were tight shall we say, they all knew my fate except moi, the community where I bought was a huge new community high dollar homes at the peak of the bubble, so, they have a lot to hide I would say, was a huge developer (very sophisticated) they sent a big mexican to my door wearing a newly pressed shirt and a little stick on badge with “field manager” written on it- just so I would know that t hey “can”…the guy handed me a little note, that was years ago just after I noticed the originator/ their title company (same entity owned) of my lawsuit. like I said before you cant sue everybody but they may be brought in to decide which side of the fence they want to sit on.

  36. 4closed30kids’ story epitomizes what happened here. You couldn’t afford the payments on the refi you got, whether you got a fixed rate or one of those abominable teaser rate adjustables (which was likely further jacked by the manipulation of the libor index). Whether or not you thought you could repay isn’t what counts here. It was the bum who gave you the loan’s job to see that you had a high probability of repayment. GNMA, FNMA, and FHLMC approved lenders or any home mortgage lender isn’t a loan shark. Well, they were. They didn’t just break your knees when you didn’t repay the loan they shouldn’t by law have made to you. They killed you, or might as well have. The dollar costs of these ILLEGAL loans to people who didn’t qualify as well as the rest of us is in the trillions. The human cost is immeasurable. That Bob guy who blows his horn here about bs in the origination has got one thing right – it may be some people’s salvation. Not about whose money and all that, but about looking for evidence in the docs for predatory lending. Of course the problem with that is that while evidence of predatory lending (and tila and respa violations) are easily enough identified, it’s the “so what am I supposed to do now?” which stymies homeowners. What is one supposed to do about it, say six years later? We make tiny jabs at
    predatory lending here and there, but to my knowledge, no one is really on that train. All I can suggest is attorneys and homeowners become experts on the subject by scouring state law which makes
    predatory lending a crime – either a misdemeanor or a felony (but watch out for changes in those laws from the date of the loan to today). Then we have to figure out which bad acts against us we, as consumers, and not criminal prosecutors or AG’s, can make and can they be made NOW and against whom. The answers are there. They have to be, because predatory lending is in fact illegal. One thing which might be noteworthy is that while ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, ignorance of the facts can be. Did we know or should we reasonably have known that we were victims of predatory lending because our applications and appraisals were messed with? Did you sign that loan application? Can they prove it? Even if so, who put those figures in there? Is/was a no income, no asset loan in and of itself predatory? Should we reasonably have known before now that our APR (TILA) was off by more than its tolerance for error, which is .125%? How could a homeowner know this? Only a review by someone who knows how to calculate this figure would tell us. It isn’t something a homeowner can sit down and say “well, I’ll just have a look at this”. Still, like I said, finding the garbage may be easy enough, it’s the ‘then what’ that’s the problem, Bobster.
    Is predatory lending or a TILA violation good for anything against an alleged current creditor? If one’s apr is off, and one just discovers it, can one rescind now in 2013? I think so. And if so, must one “tender” first as the banksters claim in order to rescind?
    I’m going to posit “no”, that the lender has to do some material “stuff” first pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (source: case law). Beyond that, I’ll say naught on that one for not being able to quote chapter and verse here and now.
    If it weren’t illegal to use the teaser rate to determine someone’s loan qualification, whomever had a hand in that legislation should be tarred and feathered. I mean – are they kidding? Allow a homeowner to “qualify” on a rate good for two to three months of a thirty year loan?! IF FNMA and FHLMC underwriting guidelines
    provided qualification at the initial rate on an arm which adjusted in any less than two years, and even then controlled by a 2%
    payment increase cap, they, too, should be tarred and feathered.
    At any rate, I think predatory lending is being overlooked, even by (overworked) homeowner defense attorneys. Courts want to see contracts honored. Okay. How about law, any law? It remains an
    intolerable load and a half for a homeowner to walk into a court and be seen as “guilty” before facts are known – all of them. Chances are the first and guiltiest party was the lender, who didn’t just renig on a contract, he violated the law.

  37. “and lost most of our retirement.” This was your biggest mistake.. I keep telling people if your that underwater.. Stop paying , save and fight… You tried to do the wright thing and your broke now…

  38. Since there not been a public announcement about the letter due to Sen Warren from Atty Gen Holder on the Mortgage matter I cannot see that partly its being address hopefully in this settlement.

    I don’t see JPMorgan settling for $13 billion and still having the issue of ownership and the Gov reserving the option of criminal prosecution with the fact that Sen Warren has her finger on the pulse of the problem!

  39. Your post does not talk about the fact that the criminal aspect of this settlement did not go away. We need people to be charged with crimes and tried. That is going to be the only way.

  40. Hell of a lot of good it does me if they file suit and collect money from any of these banks, because $150-300-2500.00 will never pay me back for the thousands of dollars stolen nor my home gone. Although our family never received any funds because Downey savings and Loans was never included in the lawsuit.
    All that has happened is just insulting and frustrating, and I no longer believe the courts/government have our best interest in mind. It is what politically and financially in their best interest and what they can get away with. I do thank you Neil and others for all your hard work it has been incredible.
    I made payments on my house for 14 yrs never late tell we refinanced and it jacked the price up more than double, our home was gone in a year. We had credit scores of high 800 and our house worth will over 900k and we were plugged it to the American dream. Poof it all vanished overnight, we lost our home, credit,went into bankruptcy, and lost most of our retirement. We are broke now, and I am no longer interested in these stupid games they play of move the money around and call it justice.
    I write to government, banks, everywhere and I just hear a bunch of mumbo jumbo and bla bla bla about how they can’t do anything. I no longer believe the government doesn’t know what has happened. The government and banks are very intelligent, and I am not, but I have figured it out, so they do know what happened! They do not need us to say it a million times and in every language known to man, they do know and just turned a blind eye.

  41. The money goes back to government which ends up back in the corrupt banks pockets. The banks and their mafia leaders are rackettering. Obama said last week it is all the deadbeat homeowners that caused this terrible problem. I hope he and his buddies read this email. Enough corruption, I am one of those in a lawsuit with the so called creditors, which so called owner to fthe note, changes every three months. Cannot sale property as no one can sign release of lien. These banks have taken homes, and now cannot sell them. The market is flooded with foreclosure. Even the investors buying for pennies on the dollar these homes, are afraid they will have never have title. This problem needs to be fixed, as this is destroying our housing industry, which is about the only industry left. Giive these homeowner clear title, release the debt, give homes back to owners, and arrest the criminal bankers, apprasisers, loan orginators, closing agents and title companies, wall street executives, and politicians, and supreme court justices. All monies should go to homeowners, and the public should be told the truth. The so called deadbeat homeowners did not agree to pay anyone for a product they would never own again, because owners of the note are miilions of investors, that actually lost all their investments because the banks made their money in insurance fraud paid by our government, fees, servicing charges, etc, etc.. The banks (world banks) have stolen from all of us And the politicians still protect because without their help changing our laws to protect the bad guys (banks and Wall Street), this all would not have been possible. Their are not retirement funds for policeman, teachers, unions, etc, because their leaders sold them out for loans theycould never own. Even the not so informed people are starting to get it. What, it has taken 5-6 years to get to this point.

  42. Deborah;

    Not for anything, but I know a party who sued the realtor/broker for selling a stolen house. LOL Great stuff, good try. Don’t know the outcome, but hey, all are fair game here!

  43. Neil, which agency or agencies do we file the FOIA requests to?

  44. So whats next must i bring the new ” owners” living in my house up to speed they msy have to be since they will become a necessary party having bought in good faith – (on their end that is ) an embezzeled property via illegal manuevers in court and filing a unlawful detainer, so.

  45. Great point Christine, been saying the same for EVER…….. no restitution/relief for the people that pay (other than what they steal…the world know much more now..finally) these idiots so dang well. It is just another way to keep the American debt lie afloat, all off our (the humans) backs ….AGAIN and AGAIN they do it!!! Truly we are not as stupid as they think or as GREEDY. Yes they are dirty criminals… AND?!??!?! Their ill gains will make them truly $ick. Restitution will come naturally, it is the way it works… sooner and hopefully not later this will happen.Keep the faith that better is coming. You can espouse man made law all ya want but there is a higher one to pay and it ain’t in the form of money. If they take AmeriKa down the rest of the world will be a cakewalk, not gonna happen. They (criminals) do not know who they are dealing with. Stay in peace.

  46. That is what i plead “void. “

  47. Actually the house isn’t free since many homeowners already paid double or triple for their homes already. My mothers house was caught up in the foreclosure scandal in 2008 and I’ve been fighting since and have self taught myself, through GODS grace what to look for and how and where to look fot it. The fight continues and we’re still in our home. People, keep fighting back, don’t give up or give in to these crooks whom think they’re too big to fall because they’re not because I serve a GOD whoms bigger and badder and above all these crooks that are stealing people homes they are not owners or holders of mortgages or notes…..FIGHT BACK – DON’T GIVE UP

  48. The have to include the HELOC accounts , because when the was
    closed , that give a lot of people more trouble .I use it for construction
    and had to stop ,the half way .Looks like a ruin now.

  49. kind of hard to think that judges are going to go along with the ‘free house’ approach. Even though Neil is correct, all of the banksters keep drumming the moral hazard argument and lining the pockets of our elected officials. The result is that banks keep getting shaked-down while homeowners are continually ignored.

  50. Richard Davet
    2009 JPM Shareholder’s meeting
    Exchange with James Dimon CEO and Chairman

    As you know, for years, the Bank has been and continues to be major players in its mortgage business in what has come to be known as the “Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) Business Model”.

    In September of 2008, Treasury Secretary Paulson declared that, and I quote, “these enterprises pose a systemic risk”. Your mortgage business goes 90%+ to Fannie Mae on a daily basis.
    Much has been written about the GSE flawed business model, including a Wall Street op-ed by George Soros which calls the models “hopelessly conflicted” and “it simply doesn’t work”.

    ? 1, When do you and the Board intend to disclose to shareholders the consequences of the Bank’s vigorous involvement with this fatally flawed business model?

    ? 2 Isn’t this business a little like your running a house of ill repute while knowing that all your ladies have aids and what are you doing to your client base?

    ? 3, What would you say to the skeptics that are out there that think that all players involved with the GSE Business Model are engaged in a simple criminal scheme, albeit of a dimension that we have never seen before, that a prosecutor would call “theft by deception” with the American taxpayer as the victim?

  51. “The banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in settlements with Federal and State agencies and law enforcement. Where did the money go?”

    Been asking that for ever.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: