““The words PONZI SCHEME and FRAUD applied to the mortgage meltdown has been largely dismissed by policy makers, law enforcement and regulators. Instead we heard the terms RISKY BEHAVIOR and RECKLESSNESS. Now law enforcement has finally completed its investigation and determined that those who set the tone and culture of Wall Street were deeply involved in the Madoff PONZI scheme and were regularly committing FRAUD in the creation and sale of mortgage bonds and the underlying “DEFECTIVE” loans. The finding shows that these plans were not risky nor reckless. They were intentional and designed to deceive and cause damage to everyone relying upon their false representations. The complex plan of false claims of securitization is now being pierced making claims of “plausible deniability” RISKY and RECKLESS.
And if the loans were defective there is no reason to believe that this applies only to the loans claimed to be in default. It applies to all loans subject to false claims of securitization, false documentation for non existent transactions, and fraudulent collection practices by reporting and collecting on balances that were fraudulently stated in the first instance. At this point all loans are suspect, all loan balances stated are suspect, and all Foreclosures based on these loans were frauds upon the court, should be vacated and the homeowner reinstated to ownership of the property and possession of the property. All such loans should have the loan balance adjusted by the courts for appropriate set off in denying the borrowers the benefit of the bargain that was presented to them.
“It is now difficult to imagine a scenario where the finding of the intentional use and creation of defective mortgages will not trickle down to all mortgage litigation. The Countrywide decision is the first that expressly finds them guilty of creating defective loans. It is impossible to believe that Countrywide’s intentional acts of malfeasance won’t spread to the investment banks that used Countrywide as the aggregator of defective loans (using the proprietary desk top underwriting software for originators to get approval). The reality is coming up, front and center. And Judges who ignore the defenses of homeowners who were of course defrauded by the same defective mortgages are now on notice that bias towards the banks simply doesn’t work in the real world.” — Neil F Garfield,www.livinglies.me October 24, 2013
——————————————————
By Neil F Garfield, Esq. Tallahassee, Florida October 24, 2013. If the mortgages were defective and were used fraudulently to gain illicit profits it is not possible to avoid the conclusions that homeowners are among the victims. By using false appraisals the huge banks created the illusion of rising prices. This was manipulation of market prices just as the banks were found guilty of manipulating stated market rates for interbank lending “LIBOR” and use of the manipulated pricing to trade for further benefit knowing that the reality was different. The banks have continued this pattern behavior and are still doing it, and laying fines as a cost of doing business in the manipulation and ownership of natural resources. They are a menace to all societies on the planet. The threat of that menace must be removed In the face of a clear and present danger posed by the real world knowledge that where an opportunity arises for “moral hazard” the banks will immediately use it causing further damage to government, taxpayers, consumers and investors.
None of it was disclosed or even referenced at the alleged loan closing with borrowers despite federal and state laws that require all such undisclosed profits and compensation to be disclosed or suffer the consequence of required payment to the borrower of all such undisclosed compensation. The borrowers are obviously entitled to offset for the false appraisals used by lenders to induce borrowers to accept defective loan products.
Further, borrowers have a clear right of action for treble damages for the pattern of conduct that constituted fraud as a way of doing business. In addition, borrowers can now be scene through a clear lens — that they are entitled to the benefit of the bargain that they reasonably thought they were getting. That they were deceived and coerced into accepting defective loans with undisclosed players and undisclosed compensation and undisclosed repayment terms raises the probability now that borrowers who present their case well, could well start getting punitive damages awards with regularity. It’s easy to imagine the closing argument for exemplary or punitive damages — “$10 billion wasn’t enough to stop them, $25 billion wasn’t enough to stop of them, so you, members of the jury, must decide what will get their attention without putting them out of business. You have heard evidence of the tens of billions of dollars in profits they have reported. It’s up to you to decide what will stop the banks from manipulating the marketplace, fraudulently selling defective loans to borrowers and pension funds alike with the intention of deceiving them and knowing that they would reasonably rely on their misrepresentations. You decide.”
————————————————————————————————-
U.S. prepares to take action against JPMorgan over Madoff
In what would be an almost unheard of move when it comes to U.S. banks, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office are in talks with JPMorgan (JPM) about imposing a deferred prosecution agreement over allegations that the bank turned a blind eye to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the NYT reports.
Authorities would suspend criminal charges against JPMorgan but impose a fine and other concessions, and warn the bank that it will face indictments over any future misconduct.
However, the government has not decided to charge any current or former JPMorgan employees.
The report comes as the bank holds talks with various regulators over a $13B deal to settle claims about its mortgage practices.
Countrywide found guilty in U.S. mortgage suit
A federal jury has found Bank of America’s (BAC -2.1%) Countrywide unit liable for defrauding Fannie Mae (FNMA +22%) and Freddie Mac (FMCC +19.4%) by selling them thousands of defective mortgages.
The judge will determine the amount of the penalty – the U.S. has requested $848M, the gross loss to the GSEs as calculated by its expert witness.
The suit centered on Countrywide’s HSSL – High Speed Swim Lane – program instituted in August 2007, says the government, to keep the music playing as the property market was falling apart.
DOJ probes nine leading banks over sale of mortgage debt
The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating nine major banks over the sale of problematic mortgage bonds, although the probes are for civil infractions rather than criminal ones.
The banks are Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Credit Suisse (CS), Deutsche Bank (DB), Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), RBS (RBS), UBS (UBS) and Wells Fargo (WFC).
The inquiries span U.S. attorney’s offices from California to Massachusetts, and come as JPMorgan tries to reach a multi-billion dollar settlement over the issue.
Filed under: bubble, CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Occupy Movement, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee | Tagged: appraisal fraud, benefit of the bargain, defective mortgages, exemplary damages, fraud, Libor, market manipulation, pattern of behavior, Ponzi, punitive damages, TILA, treble damages |
The problem with this blog as well as others is that the truth is not ever told. Your consistently stating to sue the banks however, we are well aware the State is actually foreclosing on the homeowners. No one seems to want to talk about the harassment , stalking tactics used to cover and conceal the “Facts ” the ” State ” which means your Mayor and your Senator is behind the fraud. The major corporations double funded these loans in order to create stocks. of course these are all fraudulent stocks however, as long as the homeowners default , it does not matter. We all failed each other with Greed and the lack of transparency. Does MERS represent each state, teachers unions , firefighters , carpenters union and now we know aviations and DOD. Now , tell the truth ans shame the ” Devil” created documents are being created from your land records , by the state and for the state. Try doing something about it , your Judges which were appointed by your Governor are all on board. The Universities , much the same and your money , your hard labor is going into the pockets of attorneys , doctors and non profit organizations whom are by the way the soldiers for the banks. Just tell the people the truth.
How do we get compensated because of Countrywide/BOA fraud and the foreclosure on our homes. Tell me in laymens terms what I need to do to be compensated for this travesty of justice.
Do we, the borrowers of these fraudulent loans have grounds to file suit against Countrywide (and Bank of America for foreclosing on my home) for damages because of this fraud? Please spell it out in laymens terms so I can understand what I need to do. I believe both entities owes me for this travesty of justice.
What about the liability of the title attorneys and working attorneys
who pushed to consummate the sale of the fraudulent foreclosure in order to push it under the carpet, oust the true owners and thinking they will get away with it.
what about nemo dat?
Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 12:32 AM PDT.
Bill Black’s takedown of DoJ’s captured behavior as they tout “prosecutions” of BofA, JPMC
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/26/1250745/-Bill-Black-s-takedown-of-DoJ-s-captured-behavior-as-they-tout-prosecutions-of-BofA-JPMC#
E.Tolle: Thanks for getting back to me. Burmese8@yahoo.com
Let me put this another way … It appears as though my husband took out a loan in his name only (not mine), he used the loan to payoff the house at closing right after the purchase .. (or it was made to appear that way). A household estate was formed under the mortgage, the grantor granting to trustee title irrevocably. Grantor warrants title to Trustee free and clear off ……………………………. ????? Read the Mortgage/DOT.
The Header of the Doc says its a Mortgage. You know … Homeowner holds title and Mortgagee/Lender gets a lien. But inside the “so called” Mortgage was a Trust. A trust where a Household Estate was formed and the title was granted irrevocably and guaranteed free of all liens to the Trustee.
Purchase Loan .. (no refi and no mod). Instead of a Warranty Deed to my husband and myself (as specified) we got to closing and got a Trustees Deed, Trustee granted via a ” trustee deed” to my husband and the law firm representing the deceased revocable trust.
I repeat myself … I never said the loan was void. I said the Mortgage was VOID because the terms were not disclosed to me for my acknowledgement. Illinois is a Spousal State! Martial Property State! The terms of a Mortgage Must be Accepted and Acknowledged by Both Spouses in order to be perfected! Until such a time … The Mortgage is VOID! Not the unsecured loan!
Duh. They could insure both loans with different companies.
boots re swap agreements: “i want someone to simplify and explain it to me in simple english”‘ Me, too!
KC – I think you’ve got two separate issues there. 1) Did good title pass to you or your spouse (and no one else)? 2) Dunno how a ‘mtg’ can morph into a dot. But I think your issue there, as I get it, is that YOU, one of the spouses, didn’t sign any docs to encumber the home? Your spouse did, but you didn’t and your state law says such a loan is void? But someone is telling you tough because only your spouse was on the deed, so only your spouse needed to sign for the loan? Are you still in the purchase money loan or a refi?
are you guys discussing swap agreement? i want someone to simplify and explain it to me in simple english. i m not familiar with this rate swap agreement. i have one case against GMAC and found out that the trustee for alleged trust have an agreement with HSBC who is Party B , and deutsche as Party A . the agreement will expires on aug. 201with zero balance after the expiration date . the swap notional amount is $165,715, 113. 15. confuse on this part.
neidermeyer – back to where Tim quit making payments, which means he also quit on the part going to “A”. .What if B has got to make those payments and lending has dried up? (think Lehman) What if they did some jazz like MS suggests with prepayment for a certain time and now that certain time is up – and no one’s lending? What if the 60k “A” loan were securitized and the 100k “B” loan were securitized, they need money for both payments in order to keep a lid on it – and no one’s lending? (here is where false default might come into play – but it’s more B’s than the borrower’s because B is obligated on the 60k).
We’ve already seen how a lender can score heavily on a wrap, but why do something where they’re totally messed if Tim stops making payment? Counting on double-insurance? Only thing I can think of.
The people anon or anyone, really, might want to talk to is a company that had to pay out. How could they get double insurance (on the A and the B loan)? Surely some software program would catch something about the same property if not the same borrowers? But what if loans were insured by MIN #, loan amt, and zip code? Sounds crazy, but is it out of the question? or is this all too much illicit ‘paperwork’? Why, then, did the banksters not transfer the loans to the trusts? Isn’t it unavoidable that they didn’t? To retain insurable interests? Because NG is right and they used the investors’ funds to fund the loans at origination, which means those funds never made it to the trusts and couldn’t pay for MBS’s? (which also means
the trusts are not only empty, they have no beneficiaries).
I don’t know why NG thinks they used the investors’ funds to fund loans. I’m not clear on any advantage, truth be told, other than avoiding interest at a mol overnight rate. Because the investor funds would never have to be repaid (as borrowed funds), just fork over MBS’s outside the ‘reality’ of a trust, and they could all pretend to pay for transfers along the way? (Here I wonder if we’ve overlooked the
“promise to pay” and the UCC to our detriment. The only part of that I’ve ever known is that – I think – one is only a hidc on the amt actually paid and is a mere holder on the part not paid, but note none of that is about a debt collector allegedly buying a written-off debt – that’s different imo). The banksters could promise to pay, anyway, (which I think is all they did, if anything). Only thing avoid is the repayment of the interest / costs mol on the overnight funds. Got any ideas? I think some of us (me included) have it all wrong about credit enhancements or at least don’t understand them (but here I’m not talking about PMI, AIG, or even a GSE type insurance). I’m getting it that credit enhancements were part and parcel of the prospectus. I think. I don’t think most of us really understand CDS’s.
John, I never said the loan was void, I said the mortgage was void because it was not presented to me in writing for my consent and authorization. There could have been no meaning of the minds on a mortgage turned DOT if I didn’t see it or authorize it.
We bought this house out of a seller revocable trust where the Grantors had passed away. Apparently the Trust was tied to a bond somehow…. I suspect that is why the Trustees deed was signed/granted by the Trustee 10 days before closing. The grantees were my husband and the Law Firm representing the sellers trust/estate. INSTEAD OF ME!!
What does this mean to home owners whose mortgages were not modified by lame excuses of “missing documents”? Does this mean, those mortgages are product of Countrywide Home Loans fraud?
Is fraud a criminal offense ?
john, i have done the discovery last year and i was deposed last year also. it has been done that’s why the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the summary judgment but was denied. our jury trial should be i think this month but was postponed the date to jan. 27, 2014.
boots – what about discovery? getting any? It’s an old adage of the law: “There is no trial without discovery”. I have long wanted to support this adage with relevant facts and case law, but it’s just on my stinking list. Maybe you will help us out with that one? Please don’t take offense at the suggestion, but if you don’t have such a book, you might order one on Trial Procedures since you’re pro se. And / or maybe now that you’ve done some very heavy lifting on your own, you can find a trial lawyer, a litigator, who will help out with discovery and the trial?
louise – “Nightmare on Wall Street” – love it!
Don’t know who’s reading this, and I haven’t read it lately, but acc to scribd, it’s been viewed almost 18,000 times!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51664807/Wells-Fargo-VP-Declaration-in-Hamp-Litigation
Also interesting:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51520889/Wells-Fargo-HAMP-Agreement
Maybe they all say the same thing?
boots – beyond me really, but isn’t it so that one must file an appeal as an interlocutory appeal when final J hasn’t been rendered? You might look into it / ask an attorney. Here is a decision which says a borrower has a private right of action for failure to modify. Not precedent, but instructive imo (though I recognize you must have made some darned good arguments yourself and kudso):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66907845/Hamp-Private-Right-of-Action-Yes-says-MA-Court-2011
Louise….your contact info?
neidermeyer – I hope you will keep giving this some thought. If the loan of “A” weren’t falsely defaulted, it may yet have been used in a wrap by agreement between A and B. But if a loan were in a trust, there was no “A” capable of giving consent – and this m.o.would include showing A’s dot released. Hmmmm…”MERS may execute a release” – boy, that’s a heck of a cover, isn’t it?!! And speaking of which, when trusts were allegedly created, who would otherwise have had authority to release a mortgage or execute a reconveyance of a dot if there were no “MERS”? The trustee? Seems if a trustee is a trustee, he would as a matter of course / law have that right, but it still should be spelled out in the governing docs and far as I know, it isn’t. If the loan never made it into a trust, by say design, it’s complicated I guess, but as long as A (who didn’t deliver to trust or maybe even if it did) made payments to the trust on the 60k, who’d be the wiser? Tim got his 100k refi and B or a C, at any rate someone, don’t know who, was given the portion of Tim’s payment on the 60k to remit to the trust.
Now Tim quits paying. There is no moolah to pay anyone on the 60k, the lien for which has been released.
Seems to me there has to have been some legitimate basis on which they tried to hang their hats to do this, if they did, but if it required
willful non-delivery, I don’t see how despite any machinations it can be anything but criminal.
Don’t wait for MS for clarity. We won’t get it. We’re it. I’m not sure how an exchange might have benefitted this deal, especially if the deal only worked with non-delivery. And without discovery, even if this were all true, we’re still at possession of a bearer note and a “MERS” assignment until we can successfully demand evidence of injury. The only avenue I can even imagine bearing any fruit is to examine releases to see if they’re done in MERS’ name. Somewhere to start? But let’s say they are. The banksters will surely posit “so what?” I have zero way of knowing if this scenario were done, but it would read, at least. It would be a way for banksters to make even more fabulous amts of money (until non-payment showed up, I think), and at this stage, I think all of us would be hard pressed to think they wouldn’t capitalize: if it could be done, they’d have done it.
Now take puts on AIG. Why not? That HAD to be predictable (whether or not any of this scenario played a part).
If the loans of the A’s were falsely defaulted, unless anon weighs in with some coherent explanations, I know of no way to see if or even believe loans were falsely defaulted as part of this deal. I’m not convinced false default would be necessary to carry out wraps – sweeter deal for bad actors, but maybe not necessary.
So, neid, please do stay on it. You get numbers. What all rotten is there when the borrower quits paying if this deal were done? Is it any worse for “A” when the borrower quits paying? TOL,… well, it would be since his dot has been released and he is owed by a third party who was to give him the payments on the 60k, right? And hasn’t AIG or someone insured both a 60k loan and a 100k loan?!
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT DENIED AGAINST AHMSI AND DEUTSCHE BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR HARVORVIEW TRUST 2007-5 IN SAN FRANCISCO CA. SUPERIOR COURT. OUR JURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULE FOR JAN. 27, 2014. AFTER 3 YEARS AS A PRO SE, I COULD FINALLY EXPOSED THIS THIEVES TO THE MEMBERS OF JURY OF HOW EASY FOR THEM TO STEAL MILLIONS OF HOME WITH PERJURED DOCUMENTS. THE ONLY CAUSE OF ACTION THAT WAS SURVIVED WAS FRAUD BY PROMISING A LOAN MODIFICATION, OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BUT I WILL FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR THOSE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION SINCE FINAL JUDGEMENT HAS NOT ENTERED YET, ANG WILL REQUEST THE COURT TO HAVE THE FINAL JUDGMENT SIGNED SO WE COULD PURSUE OTHER DEFENDANTS FOR A DISMISSED CAUSE OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICED.
KC – a wrap doesn’t generally involve any kind of exchange. That’s something else which the players may have integrated. You run things together. No idea what you’re saying and when I try to unscramble it, you don’t answer. Are you saying the home you bought was in a trust? An irrevocable trust and no one explained that to you? I’m trying to connect your very fuzzy dots and see why you think your loan is void.
@E.Tolle, I am very interested in a handwriting expert as well. My note was forged as well as the assignments. There are a great many people who need to pay for this nightmare on Wall Street in a prison cell.
“Wrap Around ” “1031 exchange” … OK,,, I agree! This is why a bond exists by a deceased owners trust (our seller) …. as the Trustee (the deceased sellers daughter) has prepared to testify her parents trust was closed years back… but still showed the trust/property existing via a bond but not on public record. Stuffs getting deep …..
Sorry JG, I’m sticking with the Mortgage/DOT is VOID! As Illinois requires the acknowledgment and consent of BOTH Spouses to put an Estate into Trust. They did not disclose the terms of the Mortgage/DOT to me, they did not provide them in writing to me at closing for my consent. VOID is VOID! The debt is an unsecured debt. I like Simple! But that has not discouraged me from discovering what happened with the Trusts ……
We have countrywide all over our deal, fraud from the start, I would love the narrative to change from deadbeat homeowner to vindicated homeowner.
For 5 plus years we have tried to find out who our creditor is. When recontrust lawyer answered our debt validation letter, she said mers was our original creditor and abracadabra now cwalt is current creditor, took them 3 years after that statement to “assign” note and deed to cwalt, 6 years past cutoff date.
We are so tired of all this bullshit and will fight them with every ounce of strength we have left. We love the headline bank of america liable for countrywide fraud, in fact we are going to print it up on a tee shirt
@johngault .
I like what you’re writing … YES ,,, a WRAP ,, that ties the seemingly conflicted primary players together … I never liked that most theories had multiple “bad guys” ,, of course it was a team effort and it gives the “new corporate policy” a name that is already known and is easy to sell to management… they simply faked the tax status ,, probably with the undisclosed approval of Clinton or Bush#1… wouldn’t be hard with the incestuous way the SEC/IRS/Banking comittee works..
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but my computer (I purposely use an old beasty ,, 600mhz 1999 tech ,,,) it’s acting like I picked up a keystroke grabber and refreshing when I perform minor functions..
I AM AWAITING MS’s entry into this discussion.. because I have nothing but my lifes experiences to guide me on what seems plausible here .. this seems to be a LIKELY path / model the banksters would have used … they like to think they’re smarter than the public or the markets ,,, this would appeal to their ego and greed.
Back in 1997 when debt collector attorneys auctioned of my properties without ever owning them, I simply stated, you cannot do that, this is illegal and the crooks answer was ‘
“who is going to stop us????
If we work on who has Authority to stop the crooks. stopping them will work. We the people have this right.
for anyone who gives a rusty, here’s what I recall of “participation” (it was used years ago and IS a wrap, but the borrower doesn’t know it):
Lender A made a loan 3 years ago to Tim for 60k at 6%, 30 year amortization. Tim now wants a cash- out refi. The new lender, “B”, can, for whatever reason, charge Tim 8% on his new loan of 100k (current market rate, tim’s credit, high loan to value, who knows). New lender B makes a deal with Lender A for Lender B to collect the payments on A’s old loan as part of the payments on B’s new loan and pass them thru to A.
Lender B only has to advance the new money, or 40k, not 100k.
AND he gets to charge the 8% on all of it (the 100k). Killer deal for B – his return on capital is off the charts. The 60k only has 27 years left to pay out, B will get paid for 30 years, and B will collect 8% (a 2% spread) on it for the new thirty year amortization. In the “old” days when participations were done, lender A got some tidbit to agree to the deal.( In that deal, the old collateral instrument was released by A with the new one from B recorded).
Carie, you here? Take A’s loan and falsely default it to get the benefit of the 60k or at least a chunk of it toward the new loan. No, I can’t formulate it, but do you think this is what’s going on with that somehow? The rubes who had to pay out anything for a false default weren’t checking public record to see that the falsely defaulted loan was in fact released (?) There had to be a conspiracy or subsidiaries involved to pull that off, I would think.
TARP because the scheme was collapsing? TARP really did what then?
I’m not sure what all you two are saying, MS and Neid, but it sounds evil wicked. Tell me if I’m in the hood (tho even if so, I still don’t / wouldn’t get it): A form of “participation” was done on the existing first with or without anyone’s consent (MS called it a wrap) and some deal (a portion of the new loan amt or the second of 80 /20) prepaid it long enough to keep another sham (securites / pass thru)* also covered, but only for awhile. They had a six year window to affect their goal. The real goal was siphoning off as much dough as possible, from everywhere possible. Someone ELSE’s money has been used for every last thing and a lot of it left the building.
TARP paid off the loans, but after two years, they were resurrected
as bonds, which were sold as if they had value / a basis? But, that puzzles me further, if so. TARP was after the S had hit the fan. So???
* when you say prepaid it for 5 or 6 years, i get more confused since a prepayment, even one over 20%, doesn’t end the req for payments. If I prepay 50k on my 200k loan on September 1, my next payment is still due October 1 and at the same p & i unless I demanded a re-forecast, in which case, it’s still due October 1st, just at a lesser p & I. So, the only way i can see to pull off a prepayment which abates payments for any period is if the lender on the existing first has agreed to that as part of the “wrap”….?
What I know of a yield spread premium is this: there’s big bucks in servicing, and that’s figured into par, what makes par par. When loans are sold, it makes a difference in the strike prices for the loans. If servicing (income) is being retained, a loan sells for less. If servicing is released, it sells for more. I don’t understand the big trip about YSP’s. (I’ll put in on my pile)
MS, I read your stuff, but you never answer my questions. Think I’m too green or too dense? I may not be the sharpest card in the deck, but I can decipher things conveyed intelligently and I can certainly convey what I understand, unlike some people I know. Or, maybe it’s that i WILL explain what I understand, unlike some people I know.
Now listen, you MS dudamous,: you think you’ve got the bomb and maybe you do. You want to give us just enough that we’ll see benefit and fork over the moolah you think you’ve earned by knowing that stuff. But I’ve told you before and I’ll say it again (opinion, of course) that we’re all missing the boat if you’ve got the goods and you stay with that because it’s been years and it still ain’t happening. You’re gonna have to spill your beans and think of another way to get paid, dammit.
I’m not convinced you’re a hustler or that you know anything, either one. But if you’ve got such a story to tell, why haven’t you sold it?
If I knew who killed Kennedy, say, I’d damn sure have found an outlet for my story $$$$ by now. And far as I can tell, you’re claiming your deal is about that explosive.
I guess my main point is ,, since it seems like the “trusts” are obviously just a fake layer to the scheme and the actual cash flow is not to unnamed investors to the supposed buyers of the trust certificates (which don’t exist) but to the “trust” creators (DB Clearstream et al) which are already sitting on the YSP cushion. In my example DB should have recouped their outlay with the certificate sales and made money by retaining a percentage for themselves…
HOWEVER
It seems like the certificate creators (DB) faked the trusts simply for the tax benefit and they are the recipient of monies collected from the homeowners … Is anything actually passed through? If so in how many trusts (as a percentage) …
Thanks again …
bedtime for me..
@ MasterServicer 08:27
We have all seen that the notes were never surrendered to the “trusts” as required… that is beyond question.
It was (in the past) a rule of thumb that Americans moved on average every 7 years ,, and a 30 year mortgage was priced based on the 10 year bond … the bad economy has changed (lengthened) the time in a specific home and trapped people in the loans they have (can’t refi when underwater etc..) .
You claim that the notes were reconstituted into bonds which were then sold to investors such as insurance products like fixed and/or variable annuities… That leaves the trusts empty unless the bonds were somehow substituted into the trusts or were used behind the scenes to fake the cashflow to pay the trust investors… QUESTION? could these bonds be sold fractionally and would that meet the criteria for the “shares” that were supposed to have been sold?
**You mention a 1031 “like kind” exchange …. this has the benefit to wall street of creating a deferred acknowledgement of a profit… quite simply if you give a GS or BAC or WF accountant a few years where it is legal to wait out and hide profits the IRS will never be able to untangle their accounting and the “deferred” profit disappears into the ether and the banksters get away with no tax paid…**
You also state (or at least infer) that the bonds were sold at lower interest rates (due to the AAA ratings) and at a higher price (a premium to par) and that this bump in valuation is Neils infamous secondary/undisclosed “yield spread premium” … and that this is the source of those trading profits… makes sense to me ,, sell people into subprime and fake a “AAA” to get a 20-30% bump in asset valuation. A 25% cushion in cash can pay for a few years of payments to the bondholder… plenty in normal times.
So far I see where this would allow the “lender” to dispose of the original notes ,, or in my case (documented by the local branch manager of Option One in Orlando.. a friend of my wife) the originals were scanned and transmitted as electronic docs to California and he real originals were destroyed here in Florida. The notes are worthless as they are just a record of the loan and a copy is “good enough” ,,,, too bad that splits the security interest away.
*****************************************************************
Question #1
*****************************************************************
Please explain how you see the banksters ability to continue rolling loans up when refinanced (I get it that they were converted and therefore didn’t exist to be paid off) without ever being made to actually issue a satisfaction of mortgage… How could they delude themselves into thinking that they could continue the fraud?? I guess what I’m asking for is your best guess as to what was the mechanics of the mortgage conversion games??
****************************************************************
Question #2
****************************************************************
YOU SAID: Its DBS , RBS and HSBC all overseas collateralized asset managers who hold the devalued pledgors bonds as depositors collateral and who will not let go of the registrant cash in favor of your home
OK THEN … So it’s DB who is not the investor but the packager of the notes … DB collected (perhaps sharing with it’s US partner?? they certainly had to spread some of it to the ratings companies and originators) the spread created by the AAA rating and turning 10,000 notes at an average of lets say 6.75% to securities with the same total notational value but yielding 5% with DB pocketing/hiding 30+% of the original value …. Basically my note , your note , everyones note was discounted to 70% of face… and the IRS never got paid because of 1031 shenanigans… and of course the mortgagee is never let in on this data… WHAT AM I MISSING HERE?
Thanks a Million
Half of nation’s foreclosed homes still occupied
By Les Christie @CNNMoney October 24, 2013: 4:03 AM ET
Foreclosure sounds like the end of the line, but actual eviction can take months or years — even after the bank has repossessed a home.
RealtyTrac estimates that 47% of the nation’s foreclosed homes are currently occupied. The percentage actually tops 60% in some hot housing markets, like Miami and Los Angeles.
Those still living in repossessed homes include both former owners and renters. Either way, their time in the homes is mortgage and rent free.
To arrive at its estimate, RealtyTrac compared its database of foreclosed homes with postal records showing whether mail was still being collected and whether change-of-address forms had been filed.
Even when occupants leave voluntarily, old owners typically take about two months to vacate.
With renters, it can take a year or more. “If someone has a bona fide rental agreement, we have to abide by that,” said Amy Bonitatibus, a spokeswoman for JP Morgan Chase.
Related: California city’s drastic foreclosure remedy
One issue, according to Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda, is that the eviction process can take months as it winds through the legal process. The timing varies widely based on local laws and the backlog of cases in individual courts.
Goyda said the bank has been trying to speed up the process by offering cash to prompt occupants to leave.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/24/real_estate/occupied-foreclosures/index.html?source=yahoo_hosted
And if we are: where are we getting the value or equity from the appraisal?
So, are we talking about a 1031 exchange, MS?
Leave a Reply
Let me update you and allow you a better understanding of what we are talking about today .
I reviewed a vast number of files in my life time …. multiple cases to date as well as the ones I’m currently working. There is a common pattern in each file and that is conversion of a mortgage into a bond.
But it is the lender who is the bond holder It is the lender who pledged his worthless registration of devalued bonds and debentures from an inventory of mortgages converted to tax deferred annuity investments using a Reg 1.1031 “starker”.
Its DBS , RBS and HSBC all overseas collateralized asset managers who hold the devalued pledgors bonds as depositors collateral and who will not let go of the registrant cash in favor of your home
Who is in default ? Better yet , who is foreclosing?
Best
Maher Soliman
I think the sol is 10 years if it’s fraud related.
…..thinking….if you could get your hands on the correspondent loan purchase agreement (can you do that?) from your loan originator and the servicer – or from any servicer to any other, if they did not use MERS – usually they all contain an agreement in which they waive all their rights to a trial by jury in almost any court related issue related to the mortgage documents. So, go jury 😀
Well, jg if they are still filing “shit” 5 years after the corporations are closed, they should be able to be sued like they are alive and well, IMO.
Didn’t Michael Moore already do that with the crime scene tape? The only thing he forgot was to back up the paddy wagon and drag them out in cuffs, to find their rightful place in society!
Thanks, E I’ll take it and when I get the actual proof the entire free world will know, psst, if they don’t censor it!
newenglandblonde@yahoo.com
….“problematic mortgage bonds….”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
How’s about wrapping crime scene tape around the entire perimeter of Wall Street? Back the prison buses right up to the doors of the ivory towers. BOOK THEM ALL.
RETURN THE HOMES TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s beyond ludicrous for anyone to believe that CW’s crime spree was only in the 2007 timeframe brought out in this “swim lane” suit. Mozilo’s a disgrace to all of humanity.
“Deposed in the landmark lawsuit between the monoline insurer MBIA and Countrywide/Bank of America, Mozilo professed not to know the difference between “verified” income and “stated” income.”
I think he’d get the not so subtle difference between a stated and a verified pounding in the shower at a federal pen.
@ Poppy, I’ve got your handwriting expert. None better. I think you have my email? If not, I believe you’ve posted yours before, if you’d like her contact info. She wrote the book and is affordable. Good combo.
As to Bill Black, he’s got a great piece up on their blog about our department of in-justice. Goes so far as to call Holder spineless. He says they make Baghdad Bob “seem credible by comparison”. Black for president. It’s way past time for us to not too gently remind the DOJ that they work for us, not the god-damned banks.
@4cosed – I think there is a statute of limitations sort of deal about going after dissolved corporations (corporations – don’t know about a savings and loan) and i think it’s just a two year window (anyone?). You might check into that.
Bob g – good idea. Make sure to cc the ceo and reg’d agent (why not? – least let them know we know who that is for service as necessary later) of the alleged trust as well as MERS – address to follow. Be grand if we had a central registry for alleged post-cutoff transfers.
Javagold yes and what about this poor woman who KILLED HERSELF over a Countrywide/MERS DOT? We’re holding a City Council Forum Monday in her Honor. I will reference this and other related cases in the span of time that we have. We will be holding more of these events to put pressure on City Council to make the bank toe the line and actually negotiate in City limits.
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2013/10/kingcast-mortgage-movies-financial.html
We would ALL like to see that, but maybe it’s time we regroup and focus and start filing the suits ourselves? I know for a fact, 99% some of these law firms are debt collectors posing as legitimate “serviers” under a trust and forging paperwork in-house that is filed in the court, themselves…with no authority outside their place of business. Certain of it! Looking for a handwriting expert right now, to verify the handwriting and signatures.
i hope the next time DOJ would prosecute the federal and states judges including the attorneys who represent the pretender lenders for giving out 4 million houses based on a fraudulent. fabricated and perjured documents.
http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2013/10/jon-stewart-nightmare-on-wall-street.html
Unreal… MSM qualifies the tentative 13 billion settlement (which Bill Black has already proved to be yet another way to screw up the middle class) as:
– witch hunt
– Shakedown
– Jihad, against JP Morgan. Thanks to Jon Stewart for pointing out how stupid this country has become… Carlin had already said a few pieces on that. I guess it’s becoming common knowledge. And it ain’t getting any better.
B of A re; Fannie & Freddy, These corporations have hired many very intelligent people to do their financing, you can not tell me Freddy and Fannie did NOT understand what they where buying they knew and had some pay-off as well. Fannie and Freddy’s, attitude toward the homeowners just states more about them feeling guilty and still in denial of their part in all of this. History always brings forth much of the truth, time will tell and I am sure many of these people will show up negatively.
This country is completely done. Really. Honestly. Completely. If Karen Hudes is right, we’ll return to the rule of law. The great majority of the people are not going to like it… Because it’s not going to be the laws they know. it’s going to be new ones, to accommodate China, Russia, Europe and the rest of the world.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/23/no-way-out-2/
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts * Counterpunch
October 23, 2013
As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap
No Way Out
The year 2014 could be shaping up as the year that the chickens come home to roost.
Americans, even well-informed ones, don’t know all of the mistakes made by neoconized and corrupted Washington in the past two decades. However, enough is known to see that the US has lost economic and political power, and that the loss is irreversible.
China has forcefully called for a “de-Americanized world.” After watching the “superpower” offshore a large part of its GDP to China and then add to the diminished tax base the burden of $6 trillion in wars that brought no booty and served no US interest, China has concluded that American power is spent. The London Telegraph thinks “it is only a matter of time before the renminbi replaces the dollar as the primary currency for trading commodities and resources.”
The Obama regime attempted to attack Syria based on the sort of lies that the Bush regime used to invade Iraq, only to be slapped down by the British Parliament and Russian government. This rebuke was followed by the childishness of the government shutdown and threat of default. Consequently, the Washington morons have lost their monopoly on economic and political leadership. A few days ago the British government announced a historic agreement that permits British investors direct access to China’s markets and allows Chinese banks to expand their operations in Great Britain.
In Australia, the US dollar will no longer be used as the currency in which to settle the Australian trade accounts with China. Instead of dollars, trade will be settled in the Chinese currency.
Washington served as cheerleader, as did most economists and libertarians, while US corporations, greedy for short-term profits and executive bonuses, offshored US industry and manufacturing, calling it free trade. The obvious and predicted result is that China’s demand for resources needed to fuel its industrial and manufacturing power now dominates markets. This means that the US dollar is being displaced as world currency. The only market that America dominates is the market for financial fraud.
Stop the Madness
-The liens of record were never paid off.
-The loan being paid off was appraised and not the home .
-The payoff demand was valued on average at 75 percent loan to value.
-This allowed Java and others to receive 100 percent financing . The existing lien was wrapped by a phony HELOC that made the lender whole.
The new Java Loan was sold to foreign national banks at the amount of the US Banks existing lien. The Royal Bank Of Scotland paid the value of the existing lien to satisfy that balance due . And the demand for the next payoff was the prepaid interest that made these deals AAA rated . But the HELOC and Existing liens were cashed out and that left the consumer household and foreign nationals on their own. The FNB’s have said tie and time again- we don’t want the houses – we want out money .
So where did the Java wire go …Cayman Islands Baby Java they sent your wire to the Cayman’s .Then ….Geneva….and then
Afghanistan !Its called “sequester” “off balance sheet Stealing, Black Gold Texas Tee….
HSBC Australian Troops
Deutsche Bank German Troops
Barclay’s Bank English Troops
But Credit Suisse , French , Nomura Japanese and Credit Lyonais French —They no join the war – no take US Homes Stop the madness
So exiting liens moved OFF TITLE
Wire rerouted to Off Shore havens into DEPOSITORS ACCOUNTS
The subordinate piece of HELOC PREPAID YOUR MORTGAGE
The prepayment good for six years was paid for with your homes equity .
registerclaims@live.com
A what point do we consider the government at fault and start prosecuting them for not doing their jobs? Eric the boomerang could & should come back to you! Do your job correctly, we do understand even though you think you are hiding behind government policies and walls, we get it and are watching!
“DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOANS” That’s a criminal organization …I knew chief counsel ….real azzola!
!! Don’t Negotiate…Prosecute!!
No one ever brings up “DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOANS”
** I wrote to the CA. AG and asked her why we were not prosecuting them? She stated they were out of business and so the state was not able!!!
** I wrote the OCC working directly on the investigation of DSL corp. and asked him, he wrote back with basic I can’t talk to you…his secretary called me…with the basic info go to your county of registrars and see what see can do…if the feds are doing nothing how the hell is my county of registrars going to be able…get real people.
**Excuse me, aren’t many of these other mortgage companies out of business but I still see their names come up on investigations!!!
** Ca. AG, Question is back to you; When are you going to bring Downey Savings and Loan into a lawsuit?
Good Idea, Bob…cause my trust was closed way back in 2007 and in 2013, they are claiming it is still alive…LOL Right
Don’t negotiate with Chase. PROSECUTE THEM!!!
“Chase broke the law and helped crash the economy – time for a perpwalk!”
HUH? The Justice Department has evidence JP Morgan Chase committed major banking fraud – but instead of filing criminal charges, they’re negotiating with them to settle for a small fraction of the damage they did.1
HOW? JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon has been in regular contact with Eric Holder at the Justice Department, negotiating the terms of his own fines, tacitly admitting guilt without ever having to face a jury for his crimes or even publicly admitting wrongdoing.2
WHY? He has managed to “convince” the Justice Department to agree to settle multiple lawsuits and close open investigations for a one-time fine of $13 Billion, which is actually way less than even the amount investors lost, and doesn’t even take into account the cost these products inflicted on the economy, i.e. you and me.3
We’re tired of Big Banks being Above the Law. Tell the Department of Justice that negotiating with criminals on their own punishment is unacceptable. America is tired of Chase paying fines. We need Chase doing Time.
Are you the kind of total nerd who, like us, wants more details and sources? Read on!
Investors have lost billions and billions of dollars on securities that JPMorgan Chase sold that turned out to be almost worthless. The NY Attorney General’s Office sued JPMorgan for securities fraud that led to the loss of $22.5 billion in investor money. And the Federal Housing and Finance Agency sued JPMorgan for billions in losses on $33 billion worth of crappy mortgage-backed securities JPMorgan sold them.
Isn’t is time we stopped letting the banks get away with buying off the government in exchange for escaping criminal charges? Especially when we are talking about a bank that continues to be charged with new offenses almost every month?
– See more at: http://other98.com/dont-negotiate-with-chase-prosecute-them/#sthash.OBxLM12D.dpuf
Who said recently “Something’s got to give”?
Weekend Edition October 18-20, 2013
It’s Now Official
New York is Drowning in Bribes and Corruption
by PAM MARTENS
“…Preet Bharara, representing the U.S. Department of Justice as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the district that has failed to rein in the serial crimes by Wall Street’s biggest firms, said that “Public corruption, based on all the evidence, appears rampant. And the ranks of those convicted in office have swelled to absolutely unacceptable levels.” Bharara said that his office has had to prosecute “State Senators as well as State Assemblymen; elected officials as well as party leaders; city council members as well as town mayors; Democrats as well as Republicans.” It was likely little comfort to the audience that it’s a bipartisan crime wave.
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Loretta Lynch, testified that there is a “pervasive problem of corruption by elected and appointed officials” in New York, citing former State Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada who was convicted of stealing funds from Soundview Health Clinic, a federally funded clinic he operated in the Bronx. Lynch also called out former State Senator Shirley Huntley, who was sent to prison for her role in stealing funds from Parents Information Network, a non-profit organization she established to assist parents of New York City public schoolchildren.
Dick Dadey, Executive Director of Citizens Union, testified that “there is a crime wave of corruption” and it has been increasing over the past 12 years.
When it came time for the general public to testify about public corruption, it wasn’t legislative leaders the witnesses railed against, it was corrupt judges. Multiple witnesses testified to having real estate property stolen through corrupt court proceedings. One witness, Dale Javino, said he was cheated out of his life savings in bankruptcy court and what happened to him “is like what happens in Nazi Germany…”
Leon Koziol testified that the retribution he sustained after reporting unethical judges to authorities “reads like a John Grisham novel…” Echoing the testimony of others, Koziol said a series of complaints over the years to the Committee on Judicial Conduct failed to reach the investigative threshold, “leading the common citizen to logically conclude that such commissions are a mere window dressing, which does more to facilitate misconduct than it does to rectify it.” Koziol concluded by saying it is one thing to ignore public corruption but quite another to target and punish the whistleblower.
Ellen Oxman said “I believe the topic that you all wanted to hear was the unethical conduct by elected public officials – they would be the judges of the courts of this state.” Oxman went on to say that “If you can have litigation in this state, in this country, with a judge who accepts forged documents, by lawyers who are not admitted into the case, and you don’t even know the litigation has come to pass, then we don’t have a democracy.”
Much of the focus was on judges said to have been corrupted by the more powerful party in divorce or custody matters. Nora Renzulli, reading from a previous complaint letter she had written, explained to the Commission that “Just as in the Catholic Church hierarchy’s longstanding tolerance for sexual abuse of children by priests, there is a broader scandal brewing in New York Court System’s tolerance for legally sanctioned judicial misconduct when judges reward an aggressive and litigious parent with custody and child support, who then excludes the other parent from relationship with the children.” This was a refrain that would be heard over and over again that night…”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/18/new-york-is-drowning-in-bribes-and-corruption/
I have an idea
Whenever someone gets a notice from the bank that their note has been transferred to the trust, and that the trustee is going to commence legal action, the homeowner should immediately file an IRS whistleblower claim stating that the mortgage note was transferred to the trust in violation of the PSA. Therefore it violates the REMIC statutes and the value of the note is subject to the 100% prohibited transactions tax. And send a copy to the bank. If the IRS get several hundred thousand of these applications, they can’t ignore them all. And the homeowner may be entitled to a whistleblower fee.
How do we access the complaint filed in this case? it would be helpful for homeowners fighting the “gangster-banksters”, especially Countrywide/ Bank of America.
“Authorities would suspend criminal charges against JPMorgan” So Bill Black was right once again in his last interview posted yesterday: it’s another move to appease the masses but government has no intention to really return to the rule of law…
October 2008,
Denied a Refi with cash out because that would have improved my financial house.
Denied, because BoA needed to make huge profit from one mortgage at a time.
I would have had better odds at the crap table.
2013…My Entire Life Stolen and the perpetrators think it is funny.
If There are any attorneys here reading this blog, please contactme to help me sue the bank for malicious and criminal behavior.
Put them “out of business” they are not worthy of the trust we put in them, they are thieves. PERIOD! And they made a profit from the sale, (servicng rights only) they own the liabilities. End of story
Yes wonderful. But what about the homeowners who have already have had their houses stolen by the ponzi bank imposters.