Newsworthy Articles and Comments

While I attend to a personal matter today I thought I would schedule this for your convenience.

BOA Loses Case (It’s Not the Only One).  People need to realize the cases are being won around the country.  what is happening is that we keep hearing about the horror stories. There are tens of thousands of cases that have been settled to the satisfaction of the homeowner —  but nearly all of them have been settled under confidentiality. So the success stories are buried and the horror stories are the ones that get talked about.

BOA deliberately pushing people into foreclosure.  Everybody seems to stop right there. My question is why would a bank be pushing for the remedy that is least likely to give them a satisfactory result and most likely to maximize the loss? The answer is that they are not playing with their own money. The higher the loss that they can report, the less they have to give to the investor whose money was used to originate or acquire loans.

So far there are over 187,000 complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Board. And that is about one tenth of the eventual number when people get wind of the fact that this agency has teeth. Everyone knows they have been screwed but practically nobody knows how they were screwed. Even with reading this blog it is hard to follow for people without a finance and legal background. One agency actually does have a grasp and is getting better at it every day. And Cordray from Ohio is ideal to run it because he was in on the criminal investigations from the beginning.

Consumer Watchdog Finally Turning into the Cavalry

Why  didn’t the Federal Reserve do Anything Against the Banks Who Committed Criminal Fraud? Well, because the Federal Reserve IS the banks.  I recognize that there is a conflict in grammar. But there is no better way to say it that I know of. It’s true that since the start of the Federal Reserve system a number of reforms have been put in place. But on balance it is still an uncontrollable agency whose only interest is the welfare of the major banks that own it.

Federal Reserve Has No Interest in Protecting Consumers — Only Banks.

High Frequency Trading as a Laundering Technique. This is like the fox guarding the hen-house. The very same people who stole all that money from investors and who are stealing millions of homes from their owners are the same people we rely upon to tell us in “reliable” reports about “trades” they did as a “broker” when in fact they are laundering money from the mortgage meltdown and trading ahead of big orders that will effect market prices.

Matt Weidner blogs loud and clear. Good lawyer too. He is asking the same questions I am. Where is the outrage? Why are you walking away from your home? Why not defend your rights and beat the banks into submission. Think it can’t be done? Read some history. When inequality and unfairness reaches a threshold, things change and it isn’t pleasant for the rich people who deal in money and who contribute to the misery of others. Ask the Aristocrats who thought that in the end, the outcome was up to them right up to about a minute before the French revolutionaries let the blade come down.

Matt Weidner Tells it Like It Is; Clear the docket?!?


20 Responses

  1. Can I get a straight answer from someone on this issue. I filed a complaint with the OCC indicating to them the there is a Cease and Desist Order out there on the Banks to stop Robo Signing. The complaint was both on Wells Fargo and Citi. Citi has responded with a bunch of crap, but in essence this is what they said, “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.” Background: On my DOT Geraldine Belinski signed the document as the Vice President. My question to this is; Is she signing the document as Vice President of MERS or Citi Mortgage. I did some research on my own and tracked her down. The individual at Citi who answered the phone were she worked indicated that she was not a Vice President but a mere processor. So what I need to know before I draft a response and go over OCC’s head is Can they do that? If she signed the document as Vice President of MERS, can she be employed by Citi? And vice versa, if she signed the Document as Vice President of Citi, can she work for MERS, my thought is that it has to be one or the other and she cannot perform work for MERS as a Citi employee and cannot perform work for Citi as a MERS employee. Pleas keep it simple Im not as smart as some of you so you have to keep it simple. I just need to know before I draft my letters to respond. PS: I know some of you all think that I wont get anywhere, but If I can get this to the right people it could make a difference. I am an Army Officer and I never give up the fight.

  2. Aye, John. Scott Stafne is doing a great service to all.

  3. @needcaselaw – I see the attorneys in that case are the same ones in the Bradburn v Recontrust case (involving CW, BofA, mers). Looks like this law firm is not only on to the jig, but knows what to do about it.
    Praise God and pass the ammo!

  4. Eule the case challenging the JPMorgan case, does have a point that we need to know what happen in the WaMu allege purchase because as there were no loan purchase, I would bet WaMu did not have nowhere near $308 billion in assets at that time and probably $40 billion and is why JPM gave Dimon the bonus.

    Shelia Bair did not want to shoulder the loses of WaMu which would have depleted the FDIC insurance reserves.

    The Fed printed $16 trillion which has help the stock market recover increasing 401Ks of the public who stayed in, and are looking at the recovery as making them whole. So the public has no feeling for homeowners and their story, so there is no outcry as the general public does not care and the victims are just as clueless as when they were evicted from their homes.

    However this case with JPM and the announcement of the $50 billion settlement plus the Szymoniak complaint is pulling everybody out of the shadows, and putting down a claim.

    Sen Warren already written to these agencies as to were is the amounts paid by the Federal Gov to these lenders for the insurance claim and Holder trying to bring these cases to a quick end as they did by jumping in and taking over the Jan 2012 Foreclosure settlements of the 50th US Attorney Generals.

    Now every other day there is a different part of this mess being brought to court, and as been said, they are trying to reset these mortgage which is the only time that can be done because these clowns cannot prove they own the things. This is why BOA, Wells, Citi and JPM are selling off these non preforming loans. Who buys non-performing items? The junk yard, to produce another stream of revenue because broken its not producing monies.

    Loans over 90 days late are not accepted toward the balance unless all in the rear amount is brought current. They are going to have to pay the Fed Gov because anybody can bring the claim as Szymoniak and gang seeing the writing on the wall throw their claim against the wall to see if it would stick but you can read Szmoniak had no direct knowledge of Ginnie Mae pooled loans. Lighting does not strike twice!

    However with as many claims out here by homeowners I cannot see the Fed Gov letting it sit because there one big class action to happen give the settlements so far, and the attorney are catching up but Neil show just how conflicted they are. So before attorney do have that light going off moment the banks and cut them off at the knees by settling up the more common violations, and screw the rest because they are searching for where the funding came from!

  5. Federal courts have been deliberately usurping state law. On February 21, 2014 a case that directly addresses this issue in the context of home foreclosures comes before the U.S. Supreme Court Conference Committee to determine if the Court will hear it. It is vital that it be heard.

    The issue of federal courts removing state law foreclosure cases – which means a federal district court taking jurisdiction out of the hands of a state court and claiming it for itself – and then applying (and misapplying) federal rules to usurp state law and swiftly dismiss them, is coming before the U.S. Supreme Court Conference Committee on February 21. The case raising questions is Duncan K. Robertson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et. al., Case No. 13-655, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Unlike most foreclosure disputes, Robertson has never owed the defendants money. Robertson had purchased his property at foreclosure of a second deed of trust. He then attempted to pay off the first. However, none of the defendants would disclose a principal party on the deed of trust, and instead tried to conduct their own trustee’s sales without notifying Robertson. Further investigation of public records, including court records of other cases, revealed that none of the parties attempting foreclosure had any interest in the subject loan or deed of trust, defendants claiming to be trustees did not know who they were representing, and the deed of trust on which they were attempting to foreclose was itself legally void. After four attempts by defendants to sell the property and five payoff attempts by Robertson, he filed suit in Washington Superior Court.

    Virtually all homeowner challenges to foreclosure are based on state law; in Washington it’s principally the Deeds of Trust Act. By law complaints filed in state court must be filed under state pleading rules. But when the cases are removed to federal court under what is termed diversity jurisdiction (which is supposed to provide an unbiased federal forum for out-of-state defendants to avoid prejudice for a local plaintiff –Robertson lives in Oregon), suddenly the rules change. The homeowner’s complaint is then viewed through much stricter rules set down in two U.S. Supreme Court cases bearing the names Twombly and Iqbal. These cases were originally filed in federal court under federal rules, and have established more rigid pleading standards for federally filed complaints. Of course, a state-filed case that has been removed was not brought before the federal court by the plaintiff; it was brought there by the defendant(s). Thus the “rules are changed in the middle of the game,” and under those newly imposed rules nearly all foreclosure related cases are swiftly dismissed. Fairness would dictate that at least the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend their complaint to comply with these rules, but Robertson and many others have been denied this.

    In 2011 the Federal Judicial Center commissioned a report to determine the effect of heightened federal pleading standards on dismissals. Cecil, Joe, et al. Motíons to Dismiss for failure to State a Claím after lqbal: Report to the Judicíal Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (2011) (FJC Report). While the study found dismissal rates somewhat higher generally under the new standard, one class of cases – those involving financial instruments – showed that in 2010 federal courts applying the Iqbal/Twombly standards dismissed 91.9% of financial instrument claims for “failure to state a claim.” This is nearly double the rate of such dismissals (47%) for 2006. FJC Report at 74, Table 4. Notably, the statistics excluded pro se plaintiffs which would have undoubtedly moved the number higher. FJC Report at vii.

    In federal court, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted are brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – and nearly universally apply the Iqbal/ Twombly pleading standards. Ironically, unless a complaint is simply frivolous or lacking factual allegations, the legal basis for the “dismissal” sought by a defendant under this federal defense is the plaintiff’s not having standing to bring a case before a federal court, including the courts’ limited constitutional power to entertain disputes and grant relief. Technically put, if a case is found to not present a “justiciable controversy” between the parties, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear it under Article III § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. However, state courts are not courts of such “limited jurisdiction,” and a state court may well have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. So, in many if not most instances the proper action for a federal court finding no “justiciable controversy” in a removed state-law-based complaint is to remand the case to the state court from which it was taken, because it lacks jurisdiction to rule upon its merits.

    This is especially so where complaints may include state Consumer Protection Act claims, where specific injuries to third parties indicating public impact are required pleading in Washington, and Superior Courts are empowered to provide such relief under the Washington State Constitution; federal courts are not empowered to provide such relief.

    But Robertson’s case exposes much more than a simple legal glitch enabling swift dismissal of complaints brought by homeowners. Here the Chief Judge of the Western Division District Courts in Washington, Marsha Pechman, has clearly demonstrated a pattern of railroading these cases through her court. Her record shows a 100% rate of providing no enduring relief to any homeowner, which she has not disputed. Robertson’s case was one that shows on its face that it is not legally removable to federal court. It is composed entirely of state claims, and one of the defendants was a self-proclaimed citizen of the State of Washington, prohibiting diversity jurisdiction removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). In the process of removing Robertson’s case to Pechman’s Court, the defendants violated nearly every one of the “Removal Statutes” – including failure of all defendants to consent to removal and failure to state or evidence their citizenships when challenged, which is absolutely required for diversity removal. But when Robertson moved to remand the case to state court, the district court simply disregarded the failures. The Court proceeded to dismiss the local defendant on a 12(b)(6) motion before ruling on jurisdiction to hear the case, which is prohibited by U.S. Supreme Court authority, and Pechman has subsequently granted defense motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Most of these dismissals were based upon a federal district court ruling, Vawter v. Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington, 707 F.Supp.2d 1115 (W.D. Wash. 2010), which had stated that a foreclosing party cannot be liable for any unlawful acts if a foreclosure sale has been discontinued. Robertson moved to have that theory certified to the Washington Supreme Court, which Pechman refused to do.

    When Vawter was ruled by a Washington Court of Appeals to be nonsense (since adopted by at least three other Washington Appeals Courts), Robertson moved to vacate the previous dismissals of defendants. Judge Pechman denied the motion, and ruled that she was not bound by Washington intermediate courts, and besides, because Robertson was not a party to the deed of trust, he had no virtually no rights under the Deeds of Trust Act, which (echoing the Vawter theory) implied that he had no standing to bring any other claims, such as for quiet title and declaratory relief. Judge Pechman cited no state authority for this ruling and there does not seem to be any. Judge Pechman has effectively written “new state law.” Under this ruling, any party purchasing a property at a second-deed-of-trust foreclosure sale has no real property rights to clear their title and make use of their property, and no rights to sue for any damages which may have or may occur under the Deeds of Trust Act.

    Robertson’s law firm, Stafne Trumbull, LLC has moved that Judge Pechman now certify this question to the Washington Supreme Court, to get their take on what appears to spell an end to home equity loans in the State of Washington. This motion is currently under consideration. The Court has so far failed to comment on the fact that if Robertson has never had standing to bring any of his claims, the federal court has never had jurisdiction over the case, and it must be remanded to state court.

    Meanwhile, because the issue of diversity removals coupled with re-writing of state law by federal judges affects the rights of virtually every mortgagor in the U.S., the Petition for Writ of Certiorari coming before the U.S. Supreme Court could seriously shake up federal courts that are abusing the system.

    The court of public opinion does not go unheard in these things.

    The Petition for Writ of Certiorari and collateral documents may be downloaded at:

  6. ::)

  7. Here are some of the pleadings in the Bradburn v Recontrust case, ref’d by NG today (the first link re: BOA). Oral argument is also here.

  8. “Matt Weidner blogs loud and clear. Good lawyer too. He is asking the same questions I am. Where is the outrage? Why are you walking away from your home? Why not defend your rights and beat the banks into submission.”

    HAHAHA! It is a rhetorical question, right?

    Why? Easy: hubris, self-centeredness, self-absorption, paranoia, abject fear and absolute ignorance of the system. Add to that the enormous chip on the shoulder exceptionalism confers and the hair across the butt church imparts and you have some kind of being so incredibly uncomfortable in his own skin that he’s ready to snarl, bite, attack at every chance yet incapable of functioning as a team to reverse the course.

    No other country would have put up with it for 7 years. Oh, wait a minute… No other one did! Here, every single member of congress and government has made a fortune out of its electorate chronic dysfunction. And the people watch TV…

  9. Absolutely, Charles…the thing that irks me: these thugs are not servicers of any PSA agreement…they are liars, counterfeiters, fraudsters, thieves and perjurers…if we did this, we would be in prison for a very long time!

  10. Javagold I agree and that day is coming soon that they are resetting the loans.

    Poppy it does not matter about the securities in the bigger picture but the way the Notes and the title are the real story no matter a REMIC or REIT. The federal government is trying to stay clear of letting the state know they have the key because these properties are located in States and must obey state laws, and that has not been done.

    You hit the nail on the head with BOA only buying the servicing rights, and its just what Wells Fargo did with the government loan of WaMu, and it got to be the same way with Wachovia, IndyMac and any other lender that failed.

    This boils down to the Notes separated from the debts no matter who they want to say is the owner of the debt and separation from the Note and these titles!

    The writing on the wall because people are being to understand enough and enough is enough.

  11. All it would take is a one time reset of ALL mortgages , so the homeowner is made at fair marker value……I still believe it is coming… way or ANOTHER….

  12. It is my opinion Charles…the securities you speak of are REIT’s not REMIC trsts…they are different in every way! They used you information to borrow on YOUR BEHALF, from whom? It matters….

  13. But when a homeowner has a corrupt judge like Alice Schlesinger that refuses to obey her oath to defend the laws of the land and our Constitution you get massive fraud going on in this country.

  14. And then you also have the BOA NA’s that bought servicing rights ONLY (Countrywide) and are not lenders, where they are foreclosing on things they do not own…servicing rights give you a revenue stream, not foreclosure rights, particularly without a REMIC trust and/or a private trust (REIT)…say it ain’t so!

    The $64,000 question: why would any financial entity buy anything that is defaulted-defaulting? Pay lawyers to foreclose, buy back the note at a sale, evict the owner’s and resell the property at pennies on the dollar? Lose-Lose, from where I sit…the money tells the tale, each and every time!

  15. Neil still has it backwards as the loans are funded when they are closed as they must, and then there are placed into securities in which the lender is extended money draws on the loans.

    The securities maybe a way of funneling monies back to the bank but that done after the fact of the loan closing. Now this maybe a technique of some kind of delayed funding, but you have a what came first the chicken or the egg.

    Neil in one breath talks of the bank stealing the homes, but in the next next breath talks that it unrealistic that people are getting a house for free (if free is years of payment?). The legal assistance in the attorneys is like hiring the many personalities of Sybil.

    Why are we dealing with funding when it is a battle over who you borrowed money from, but you still borrowed the monies, instead of attacking the contract itself and whether the debt was void because of the post action by the bank. We got to look at the parties claiming debts and what have they done to change that status.

    We know the loans are placed into securities in many case, so how is that done and what are the lenders being given in exchange for placing the loan in the securities!

  16. From the first article listed above:

    “Garfield said: “Properties were sold to multiple investors or conveyed to empty trusts, subprime securities were endorsed as triple A, and banks earned up to 40 times what they could earn on a paying loan, using credit default swaps in which they bet the loan would go into default. As the dust settles from collapse of the scheme, homeowners are left with underwater mortgages with no legitimate owners to negotiate with. The solution now being considered is for municipalities to simply take ownership of the mortgages through eminent domain. This would allow them to clear title and start fresh, along with some other lucrative dividends.”

    Once again, and as with all of the other “fixes”, the borrower’s never mentioned in the equation. Lucrative dividends for whom? Criminal prosecutions when?

  17. Matt Weidner is complaining that 90% of the foreclosure auctions result in the bank bidding in its mortgage note value and getting the house. So what? All that says to me is that the houses are presently not worth anywhere near the mortgaged note value. If the house values exceeded the mortgage note values, investors would scoop them up.

    On the other hand….

    If the “banks” paid pennies on the dollar for the mortgage notes, then it would make sense for them to “credit bid” and take back the houses. The equity would be the difference between what the notes cost them and what the houses’ REO sales value would bring them.

    Probably a combination of the two, but probably more of the latter than the former.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: